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.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
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)
On August 18, this person was searching Wikipedia for the misspellings "whote" and "wite" for the purpose of correcting them. Thesetwo corrections are quite wrong, and they are within the first dozen edits.
The same day, TheOldJacobite started defending against a swarm of this person's poor quality edits at the Zero Dark Thirty article, eventually using 11 different IP6 addresses, all starting with 2605:E000:9161:A500 in the recent months (back in April it was 2605:E000:9152:8F00.) After ten days of the nonsense, Scribolt worked to repair the damage. Unfortunately, this IP6 editor has worn out the patience of the page watchers, and the plot section now suffers for it.
It's only today that I became aware of this editor when they attempted to fix the grammar at some music articles. When I reverted the poor quality changes, I noticed that they were immediately restored with hostile comments in edit summaries and on talk pages. I looked further and saw that this person has been spoiling for a fight at the Ishqbaaaz talk page at which Cyphoidbomb said, "In the future if you could avoid adding multiple edit requests as you did, that would be appreciated." The angry reaction by this person was to add 12 new edit requests.
If there is a protect on an article it is not my fault what means I have to suggested edits. I am not aware that every suggestion has to be acted upon. And the suggestion that has been repeatedly made by so many other WP editors was that a registered user name be established. Again, is it oir is nit not the policy of WP to not look upon non-registered user name participants as just as legitimate as registered who tend to be more long term users and editors of WP. This just goes to my original contention that there exists in WP a two-phere mentality particularly when it comes to contentious actions such as the matter of this board. That in the long run people who use registered user names are perceived differently than non-registered user named.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At my user page, this person admitted to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point when they wrote, "I always put something in to see just how unwelding can someone be about their position. Sometimes it is presenting a format out of kilter and sometimes it is a misspelled word."[1]
Please be advised that your characterization is incorrect. It was a test to better understand your personality and how it manifests. That is not the same as being disruptive but you are the status quo so I imagine that will have more influence that whatever position I could take.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think communication with this person could be focused more clearly if a rangeblock were set in place on 2605:E000:9161:A500/64, while allowing talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Binksternet. Interestingly (to me), this appears to be the same person who has been busting Drmargi's chops over at Talk:Victoria (TV series), dropping voluminous diatribes that don't genuinely seem focused on arriving at an understanding, rather, it seems like they're stonewalling improvements by draining editors of their time with a lot of confusing, linguistic dick-waving. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you have calmed down from your venting of anger because that language really is not even in an anonymous environment suitable. I would think that you as what I perceive your image to be portrayed as a seasoned WP contributor would know that. I hope you do not take this wrongly. Maybe, you had a bad week or day.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of which, see this thread on my talk page. After this gobbledegoop I took a look at some of the IPs edits, and reverted some of them, and the IP retaliated by making bullshit edits to an article I've done a lot of work on. This was 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6, the first on Binksternet's list.Thanks to Binksternet for chasing down the other IP numbers this person is using. They're obviously NOTHERE and should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I originally thought the editor was using a complaint letter generator to respond to Drmargi. I had second thoughts about that, but the language is so bizarre. It's like someone was trying to write lawyer-speak in their native tongue, then mechanically translating it to English. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me understand if this is correct. I am being held responsible for the manner in which the technology works with WP in regard to how an IP address is recognized by WP? Because it is no great conspiracy on my part about how that functions. I enter the sight and whatever it recognizes it does on its own. I believe it is recognized by WP that users do not have to register to be a contributor? Or by the surprise about the number of "IP's" that this is not true? I have held on to this ability and now it seems I am being accused of being to proud and combative not to register a username? A review of actions by this board show that this trait seems to be prevalent with those that find fault with others. I recognize that within those that have a very high interest in WP find that a blasphemous statement but I cannot help what is prevalent and had no improved over the years despite WP stating that a contributor or even a user must register a username to be part of this community. There seems to be a cookie cutter app used by many at WP that seems to believe that registering a user name is the answer to the situation? How can on the one hand say it is official WP policy and guideline not to require a registered username yet on the other hand such as in this situation because of the technology of WP issue multiple IP's then turn around and say that there seems to be some thing wrongs with that many IP's? And it is merely the technology in motion? I guess there may be a finer point to this that you may be angry that this has happened? Again, that is not my responsibility and something I have absolutely no control. If there is anger about that it should be directed at WP's technology. But that may be immaterial as you all seem to be upset. And nothing will change that.Or is that going to be interpreted as a statement of being challenging to the status quo?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The complaints have been about your edits and your comments, not about the number of IP addresses used - those are presented simply so that a range block can be made to stop you from editing further, if that is the WP:CONSENSUS of this discussion. And thanks very much for presenting precisely the problem with your language, which is nearly incomprehensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sp suppose = supposed?(For the onlooker: the IP came to my talk page, quoted a 2 year and 4 month old comment I had made in which I had misspelled "security", and asked "sp securty=security?" Soon after the IP was making retaliatory edits to an article I've edited heavily.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting addition to this proceeding. Is that often done? Although he came from over the hill can never said that I found the man all that appealing. paranoid, yes. And to think that his "official presidential papers" will probably never be housed at his presidential library because of his legal problems. Now will someone else be adding a pic of Raygun?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would find that someone saying the issue is totally over edits rather than IP's failing to recognize that within WP is an element that prides itself not on letting people function without registered usernames name but someone perceiving that the use of a registered username solves the problem at hand. Now this may have something to do with the availability of more experienced WP users using the app that uses canned language. When you combine someone's experienced as expressed on the pages that this person creates (not the articles) listing their accomplishment with this "command" as set forth by this canned language there does tend to be presented an air of authority. And as such wrapped around the content of that canned language that a registered user name somehow obliterates any perceived misunderstand is really someone not understanding the full impact of just what it is that they have done. Either you know that it is going on or oblivious to that fact which then calls question to your ability to evaluate and respond. Now, again, to the status quo that is blasphemous. There is a potential conflict there that you may not be aware that is going on and as a more advanced WP user you should just as you expect less expereicned WP users not to step on your toes. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about your problematic edits and your combative behavior. The only thing a registered username would do in this instance is to make it slightly easier to block you. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that you are speaking for the status quo. You see nothing wrong with your approach or behavior. Do you truly understand the impact of canned apps? The reaction makes it appear you see nothing wrong with the status quo? And again, bringing up that statement is to the status quo blasphemous. How dare you say that there is something wrong with us when we are the authority>2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me understand this, Zero Dark Forty is faulty despite when the original issue was raised another editor complimented the tight expression? Could you recognize the inherently wrong direction the plot was going before its current status? Can it be recognized that when someone does not understand the context of a subject many times puffery makes it presence. The excess of detail shows that many who worked on this plot before could not wrap their understanding around how understanding the non-westerners was the means to understanding the plot of this film and getting rid of puffery. But instead all this other stuff that is detail, something experienced by the westerners and thus understandable was getting in the way to a -700 word plot. When the issue was raised about plot content another WP editor praised the tightness of the expression. All the detail was there to be used but not the detail that would give a -700 word plot. What was being missed was the experience through the non-western eye. At one time in the plot there was expressed in the same statement that someone was being followed yet were not identified as a suspect although it was clear that they traced the person all the way from being in a position to receive and send messages and being at the compound. Yet all this stuff about spy-craft puffery emerged without getting to the point that cultural and personal habits were key to getting a -700 word plot. If you are unwilling to accept that the approach taken is not the best yet when someone else insists it is there fault for you being upset? It seems that all the responsibility is being placed on the newbie instead of the more seasoned WP user relying on the canned apps. It sounds like there is a serious culture problem within WP as how to approach people. But then again, in the land of status quo, that is blasphemous. You get reprimanded for that. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A review of dealings with even suspected sock puppies etc seems to bring people out of the woodwork as if there is some conspiracy to undermine WP. Just because the internet is the love of those that love anonymity does not mean that they are set out to act against anyone's interests and to have postulated that thought is just part and parcel to the other forms of character assassination used at WP.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my responsibility how WP technology works. You do not seem to accept that? And how do you base you assessment? Perception because you certainly have yet to provide except through that one action naturally would have followed thr other. I know that will make you upset but that is not my responsibility. Do us a favor in d=these discussions. Show up to give examples rather than mere mud throwing. Your other compatriate have done that well enough. We do not need people to come out of the wood work and using these avenues to vent anger only shows how bsse one can be in an anonymous environment. It is not as if you as my neighbor show up at a community meeting to say to my face what is it that you feel is the problem. Venting anger is really counter productive to these presumably civil and courteous proceedings. You have failed the mark. Would you like to return to your venting to clarify what you can cite as examples of support?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the validity or need for a block, it seems like a rangeblock for 2605:e000:9161:a500:0:0:0:0/64 would take care of this. Based on edits since Sept. 1, 2017, this was the only (or at least primary) range used. Edit: Looks like Ansh666 beat me to the punch. See their comment above. EvergreenFir(talk)07:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our brief user talk interaction[3][4] seems relevant to this thread, as it goes to the IP's mind-set vis-a-vis collaboration. I don't feel my request was unreasonable - your mileage may vary. ―Mandruss☎08:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess now I am going to ever be the more contentious because WP's forms are not user friendly? On the one hand I am deemed incompetent and yet on the other competent enough to do what is wanted by the status quo. WP really needs to determine just what it want to achieve. Slapping the person on one side of the face is not productive for having done something and then slapped on the other for not having done something?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are still doing their so-called grammar edits, all of which have to be checked to see that they haven't added errors where none existed (or substituted new errors for old ones), a block sooner rather than later would be good. They are a time sink, and it doesn't really matter whether they are incapable of understanding people's advice and pointers to policy, or if they merely choose to ignore what other editors say. The non sequitur answers here don't help. --bonadeacontributionstalk09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying situation here is that when it comes to blaming someone that usually goes toward the lesser experienced WP participants because the status quo is unwilling to let WP's reputation faulter. Just now, I have found that a seasoned WP editor justified their reverting of a grammatical correction that I made based on the wrong assumption that I had imposed a spelling error when in fact if that editor had reviewed what had been done before hitting the revert app they would have known that I had nothing to do with the misspelling of "released". Just as it has been said time and time again within this forum, WP is not a place for innovation and even within other discussion on this very page it has been said that actions have been taken to protect WP, not find the truth but protect WP. This is what comes from an organization that promotes ONLY from within. Talk about stifling debate. But then that is a blasphemous statement coming from the non-status quo. All the dancing that the status c=quo wants to do will not change that perception.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I get the idea from the latest immediate attention to edits I have made that I am not welcomed but at least get off the auto revert app and read what is it that you are reverting especially when you reintroducre misspellings.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, you are indiscriminately reverting everything without regard to what has been corrected which includes the misspellings that you reintroduce. I am suppose to present a defense dealing with these bizarre personalities? The guy trhows at me the 3r rule in response to him indiscrimately reverting as if the world is coming to an end. Boy, it really does not take much to ruffle the feather in this pillow case. This is so bizarre and you all call yourself sane. Well, that explains one missing glue bottle.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2605, the Wikipedia project's goal is supposedly to give everyone in the world an encyclopedia in their own language, but for some reason the English Wikipedia has almost(?) as much content as the rest of the world's language's Wikipedia's put together. Meanwhile, the other languages are badly underrepresented so we're missing our goal of serving the readers of those languages. Could I suggest that if your native language is not English, that you contribute to your own language's Wikipedia? That way you'd be helping the global Wikipedia effort in a way that monoglot English speakers (most of us here) cannot. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that turned into a circus. MarkSewath started reverting all the gnomish work that the IP6 person had been performing, with the reverts speeding along at about nine per minute, a speed which makes it impossible to see if you are helping to build the encyclopedia. Mark also accused the IP6 person of being a sockpuppet of Gabucho181,[5] which seems unlikely to me. Callanecc then blocked the IP for two days, which raised a storm of righteous protest from that person, and 90 minutes later Yamla revoked talk page access. To me, this action does not address the core concern which is that our IP6 editor from SoCal is a boorish timesink, making an unknown number of faulty changes to grammar and spelling, and provoking conflict in every interaction with other editors. The style of Gabucho181 is completely different than that. I would be happy to see a block placed on the IP6 range while allowing talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not Gabucho181. Gabucho181 is located in South America, does not respond with wallsoftext, and does not have this level of English proficiency. Moreover, Gabucho181 likes to troll directly, antagonizing users and purposefully vandalizing pages. They perseverate typically on cartoons like Dan Vs. or Gravity Falls and have not been known to make grammar changes like this.
Goodness. I read this late last night and there were a couple comments, now it's all taken off. I'm not sure there's much I can contribute other than putting a few thoughts on the record just in case they may be needed in future. My encounter with the now-blocked IP was at Victoria (TV series). In its first episode, a court lady-in-waiting is forced to undergo a gynecological exam by court physicians when the Queen is lead to believe the lady is pregnant by an adversary of the Queen. Despite the fact the lady had no choice in the matter, and events followed which portrayed her as submitting under force, the IP removed the word force from the episode description, claiming that absent physical force in the manner of slaves, she wasn't forced to undergo the examination. I provided the Oxford dictionary (given this is a British show) definition of force, which includes action against will, and he let loose the dogs of war in a series of walls of text that are substantively unreadable. He adopts some lawyer-esque strategies that lead me to think he's either a para-legal worker of some sort or perhaps a law student who knows just enough to be dangerous: everything is on the attack, but at it's heart, simply says, "I'm going to limit the definition of force to a specific sort of physical force, and preclude the description of what happened to Lady Flora as force." As I noted at the time, this materially alters the motivation for the sequence of events that followed, and mis-represents what was done to the lady. His response was simply more words, and the addition of two additional threads picking at additional verbal nits.
My thanks to Cyphoidbomb for his help. I was told this might be an IP from the UK (despite the geolocation to the U.S., the IP uses some British English) who has argued against similar assaults on women, but apparently, that's not the case. Cyphoid stepped in when I hit a wall trying to get the issue resolved once it became apparent the IP was not discussing in good faith but simply playing word games. I'd also add, BMK, that User:2605:E000:9161:A500:7C06:FE51:3E78:B311 made one post in the thread, but the rest came from the IP above. Oh, and whoever thinks he's an academic, not on your Nelly. I'm an academic and this guy isn't playing in anything like the same pool. Oh, and one last odd thing: depending upon which geolocation site is used, the IP resolves to either Los Angeles County or Herndon, Virginia via Time Warner Cable. There's probably a reasonable explanation why, but I suspect he's actually in VA, since that location is more precise. ----Dr.Margi✉18:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmargi:: Thanks, I realized my error some time late last night, after the IP had been blocked. I also agree that when I went through Gabucho181's LTA page last night, it didn't seem much like this IP's behavior at all. Still, the IP did need to be blocked as an obvious troll and a timesink, despite the small percentage of their edits which were helpful. A net negative for sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the person's tendency to prefer British English, I believe this comes from learning English in India. Many of the articles that interest the person are related to Indian culture. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you say that; I suspected the same thing just based on his syntax and word choice. ----Dr.Margi✉20:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone check into WP technology to understand why is it that I am bale to edit? I would not want people to think that I have somehow cracked the system. This is how I have access WP all along with all the varied assigned IP's. See Mark--no conspiracy.2605:E000:9161:A500:BC89:17B1:2FD6:DD67 (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You truly do not get it? I am doing absolutely nothing differne than in the past several months when editing WP. I go onto the website and this is what happens. It issues me a new account with a clean contiubtions list page. You make it out to sound as if I hav cracked the system. WP needs to lok ointo their syetm because there is a failure! Are you all conspiratorical idiots?
As the user is evading a block, I have applied a /64 range block for the same length of time as the block on the single IP address. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was a latecomer to this, I’m afraid; the block evasion was obvious so... Having looked at this wall of text more closely, I see that the user has been disruptive and a block is warranted on those grounds. No comment on whether this is Gabucho181. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A note for those who reverted this user’s edits here for ‘evading a block’, the block had in fact expired at 12:45 today. Nonetheless it was further disruptive behaviour hence the further 72 hours rangeblock (which expires on 15:18, 12 October). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read about this "discussion" on the internet and could not believe that it was true; is the proper way that Wikipedia deals with people that it feels are threat? That seams rather limited in your scope to exclude someone from defending themselves and at the same time being label contentious. It would seem that if you accuse someone then you have to leave the system open for rebuttal.76.169.36.143 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MarkSewath has been CU-Blocked so I guess we can discount his input here. That does not resolve the IPs disruptive behaviour however. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the blocked IP
To the blocked IP: You are laboring under a fundamental misapprehension. When an editor is blocked, if they have an account, that account is mechanically prevented from editing. If they are using a single IP, that IP is mechanically prevented from editing. If they are what we refer to as an "IP-hopper" -- that is, someone who is either deliberately or through the action of their ISP-provider, using a different IP every time they log on, then a range-block can be applied to mechanically prevent IPs in a particular range from editing. However, the block is not for the specific account, IP, or IP range, the block is for the person doing the editing, which is this case is you. If, through no fault of your own, or by your deliberate machinations (it doesn't matter which), you are able to log on and find that you are not mechanically prevented from editing, you have a moral obligation not to take advantage of that situation. That is, you, yourself should restrict yourself from editing.
Now, if you are actually interested in helping Wikipedia, you will follow this restriction, because by evading your block (which is what editing when you're blocked but not mechanically prevented from editing is called), you risk longer sanctions, up to and including eventually being banned from the site, in which case any edit you make can be reverted at any time by any editor regardless of its value. If you want to participate here, you must honor your block.
If, however, you're only interested in trolling and being disruptive, one of the best ways to show that is not to honor your block by continuing to evade it simply because there are holes in the system. You may believe that it's our responsibility to physically prevent you from editing when blocked, but it's actually your responsibility to show the Wikipedia community that you value being a part of it enough to follow the community's rules and policies.
So, the ball is entirely in your court. I have no doubt that you can continue to find ways of editing here illicitly, but by doing so you are sending a gigantic "Screw you" message to every editor here who endeavors to follow the rules to the best of their abilities. Such behavior will inevitably end up with your being banned, either by name or by description as a "Long Term Abuser." It may take a while, since Wikipedians are notorious for being fair-minded and giving editors many more breaks than I, personally, would give them, but it will happen.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is a question that is best answered by those that offer their dick-waving to support those that accuse others of their dick-waving as so expressed by Cyphoidbomb. Personally, I find it impossible to dick-wave or even come close to it having been the end result of baying for blood that comes from the civil disturbances that have been experienced in Africa. Gender-reassignment is just a continued inconvenience to make things look pretty as the human mind is probably the last that we will truly understand what caused hurt that has no scare.
And then there are the countless who say that they never said anything. And that statement is absolutely true--they said absolutely nothing about how inappropriate some expressions used to thrust their accusations into the minds of others. Does WikiMedia want its subordinate bodies to reflect so badly upon the mother organization and its corporate sponsors. I guess there is a wisdom to having an organization of volunteers that no one person has to take responsibility for letting things get out of hand and making it adamantly absolutely that slights of character assassination are not appropriate forms of logic that weight the course of the organization. And that an organization that is unable to let stand the irritant of a paper cut so that people do not have to be mindlessly sacrificed.
So much for those that offered themselves up as the greatest accumulation of the human mind since Dr. Frankenstein; and the other part that allowed themselves to be welcomed into the fold without overt declaration. But information that evolves from boasting is so much easier to find its own faulty base. Maybe, you all were not expecting that is how the cards got played. Let us hear it again from those that prefer emotion.2605:E000:9161:A500:4916:5F95:A9A5:D8C8 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be the first libertarian dick waver to point out how embarrassingly easy it has been for rancid libertarian front groups to convince those on the Left that the event is fatally compromised by the prominent leadership and participation of the Libertarian Party and other libertarian student groups [who stand] in direct opposition to almost everything I believe in. What hasn't been revealed until now, however, is how the libertarians got so good at waving their lefty leaning dicks to fool earnest leftists, liberals and hippies into supporting their cause. If you really believe that this failed encyclopedia project is about promoting freedom and humanitarianism, you're going to be even more disturbed by what libertarians had to say about conning liberals in their more unguarded moments. A paradox most libertarians (if not all) are acutely aware of is the gap between the self-evidence of libertarianism, on the one hand, and the difficulty of communicating it to nonlibertarians on the other hand. The fact that the free market is the only economic-political system which makes human existence possible—as human existence—seems to be very easily demonstrable. But alas, the sheeple are too thick to grasp what a wonderfully liberating experience the free market offers to non-millionaires, since by its very definition, libertarian politics will never catch on with a public brought up on majority rule—not unless you trick them as the Wikipedia cabals (oh, but there is no cabal you whisper out of terror for the dread dark winds behind your back) have been doing since time immemorial (or since at least 2001). Vedicant (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the past few days, an anonymous user (or users) posting from a range of IP addresses (listed below) has reverted at least one article with prior consensus, and claimed that volunteer editors are secretly being paid by me (a disclosed paid contributor) to approve changes I have proposed on talk pages, among other lesser and equally spurious charges. To be very clear, these allegations are false, without evidence, and disruptive to normal processes.
Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel and a current client, where the IP has derailed an edit request I posted just yesterday; see Talk:Brian Krzanich
As purported evidence, the IP editor points to rather unhinged threads on Reddit's WikiInAction, including here and here. Finally, the IP editor also has a similar argumentative style and claims that my work violates EU disclosure laws as did the indef'd Inlinetext, who had previously tried to derail my proposed edits to the Mandell page in April (see here) although I have no way to know if there is in fact a connection.
Here are the IP addresses that have so far engaged in this behavior:
I (quite purposefully) do not spend much time at AN/I, so I am not quite sure what to do here. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response : I am not connected to what is published on Reddit. I am not IP 103.xxx or the other user he has named. I have strong objections founded in policy to the way WWB_Too is conducting his paid editing business by using unsuspecting Wikipedians who insert his content in good faith. I agree with the Reddit poster that User:GabeIglesias was paid to insert content on behalf of WWB_Too after all established editors avoided doing so. Such behaviour on Wikipedia only demeans the article subjects and highlights that they are using paid editors to overcome the strong anti-paid editing sentiment of the ordinary unpaid volunteers who are the backbone of this movement. If at all I am to be blocked, let DocJames block me. 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Think this is yet another example of a Public Promotion company subcontracting WP editing to a cheap Indian firm. Block IP range. Aspro (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you implying here ? Which is the Public promotion company ? Who has subcontracted WP editing to a cheap Indian firm ? Which is that cheap Indian firm ? These are serious allegations designed to belittle editors of Wikipedia who opt not to open accounts. 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's going on beyond simple harassment of a disclosed paid editor, but I merged the new draft for Brian Krzanich's article, after making a couple of content changes to maintain some controversial yet noteworthy information. My comments are on the talk page. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harassment of WWB_Too. Apparently he used an undisclosed paid editor to insert his paid content draft on Robert A. Mandell which another IP 103.30.143.51 objected to and reverted. Are we to assume that it is now policy that drafts suggested by disclosed paid editors can be directly inserted into articles without achieving consensus on talk pages first ? Do such drafts by disclosed paid editors get some special status under policy ? If so, why not just handover all editing activiy to paid editors so that unpaid volunteers can all go home. Also, I am an Intel stock holder and I would like to know if Intel is indulging in such kind of manipulative activities on Wikipedia ? 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will let the smart people address all this talk of servers and whatnot. In the meantime, I reverted the IP and reinstated the new/merged version of the Krzanich article, with thanks to timtempleton. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No. As presented at WP:DRN, it was a conduct dispute involving allegations of undisclosed paid editing. DRN is not a forum for such disputes. WP:COIN is, and this noticeboard is. The thread at DRN was closed as a conduct dispute. Besides, DRN does not accept disputes that are also pending here. Deal with it here (or don't deal with it). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really. And you just happened to be passing through India when you decided to troll and harass editors here. Your easy familiarity with the Wiki suggests to me that you have history here; do you have, or have you had in the past, an account here? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'Oh really' a statement or a question ? Yes, I just happen to be travelling around India just now. No, I did not decide to troll and harass editors here. I have no history here. As a Wikipedia administrator surely you have complete access to Wikipedia's history records from which you can answer your own questions (which in any case I am not obliged to respond to under very strong EU privacy regime). Instead of throwing around terms like "harass", "troll" and "disruptive" why not address the issue of how Wikipedia administrators see Wikipedia's European readers are protected against ghostwritten paid content on Wikipedia articles. Why is there no in-article disclosure under WP:COVERT, or are we Europeans expected to go about reading user and talk pages to discover commercial affiliations of American content writers ? What is the evidence for this paid editor's mischievous allegation that I am associated with Wikiinaction ? What is the evidence that WWB_Too is acting on behalf of Brian Krzanich (as distinguished from Intel) ? For regulatory anti-trust reasons I flatly state It is not conceivable that Brian Krzanich has authorised WWB_Too to rewrite his Wikipedia article. It is a very serious issue for Brian Krzanich if he has done so. Accordingly I state that WWB_Too is lying if he states he is acting for Brian Krzanich. If other admins like "Drmies" (who never went to law school to understand the issue I highlight) are now openly inserting paid edits from Mr. Krzanich by "demanding cuts" and "at least a week in the condo on the Gulf Coast" from the paid editors, it is a serious issue for us dour Europeans. In case of Mr. Krazanich (BTW did I mention I am an Intel stakeholder) I believe that the blatantly advertising text inserted is supplied by Intel (not Krzanich) via North of Nine Communications, and the copyright of the text probably vests in Intel. Accordingly, I had asked WWB_Too for a copy of all the contracts involved which he has refused to provide. Instead WMF's user "Drmies", who claims to to be a senior administrator / arbitrator (without a law degree), was induced to add Intel's copyrighted material against expectations of reward. Usually when "pump and dump" scams take place by rewriting Wikipedia entries it implies that the corporate behind it is in deep (usually regulatory) trouble. NB: "INTEL" is not listed by Nof9 as their client on the North of Nine Communications website, further evidence that WWB_Too is lying (or puffing himself up). 101.57.254.247 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a attempt by Intel's new PR company to misuse the Brian Krzanich article to spin doctor Intel's numerous controversies like his role in systematically using conflict minerals to lower costs till it became illegal to do so in 2010. Nof9 (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked this Nof9 user earlier (following "Probable impersonation and disruptive behavior by new user "Nof9"", below on this page), and they then proceeded to out me and accuse me of being on the take--for Intel, maybe, and I assume I get paid in those magic minerals. Oshwah cleaned up and removed talk page access. Anyway, these IPs mentioned above are worth keeping an eye on, since I think that this person spouting this idiotic nonsense seems to be obsessed. For the record I do indeed claim I don't have a law degree. Correctly! Drmies (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AB10002 - paid editing + potential legal threat
AB10002 (talk·contribs) is a single-purpose account that has been targeting the Julie Payette article for a few months now. They have stated that "our team is watching the page and constantly removes the false allegations". The supposed "false allegations" are verified by multiple reliable sources and have been widely reported in the Canadian media; some are not even remotely controversial, such as basic information about her marriages [6] or minor criticisms about her appointment process [7]. The "team" behind AB10002 appears to think they have the right to control what content appears on Payette's Wikipedia page. Their most recent edit [8] made an accusation that "person(s) have attempted to deliberately smear the reputation of this public figure by posting false irrelevant information..." (edit summary was cut off). Given the legal phrasing used and the editor's apparent governmental connections, to me this sounds like a potential accusation of defamation and an attempt to intimidate editors into relinquishing control of what content appears on the page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I smell an Aboriginal fighting weapon. This is the sort of non-content (Person had a road accident. It was an accident. So what?) that Ivar the Boneful has been edit-warring to re-insert into this BLP with the only edit-summary being "RV paid editor". Black Kite (talk)18:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible for their edits to be problematic for WP:COI reasons and yet still at least partially correct. The thing about the car accident has never actually had a compelling reason presented why it needed to be in the article at all — sure, it's sourceable, but nobody's ever answered my talk page question about whether it was noteworthy or relevant to note in her biography. As I noted in that comment, it's sourceable that politicians show up at community events to announce government donations and hand over plastic novelty cheques — but there's no noteworthy or relevant reason why documenting each individual instance of that needs to happen in an encyclopedia, so the mere fact that it's sourceable isn't a sufficient condition by itself. What needs to be shown is not just that the car accident is sourceable — what needs to be, but hasn't been, shown is a reason why it matters to an encyclopedia article about her. Yes, it's true that a person with a direct COI doesn't get to control the content of the article — but it's also true that the information hasn't been demonstrated as needing to be there at all. So, yeah, I think there's a curved hunting weapon in the vicinity too. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"most probably a sock" ... well feel free to open up an SPI, Dr. K., though I think you might find it pretty difficult to explain how an Australian editor is doing so using an IP address traceable to New York City. You might wish to consider the old saying about glass houses – someone on the article talkpage has already pointed out that you seem to have made several edits identical to those of AB10002. Or perhaps you just both share a similar distaste for the mention of divorce? Dr.K. 21 July, AB10002 6 October – quite the coincidence! It's quite interesting that you've managed to magically find your way to this ANI thread despite not being notified and no mention of it being made in any edit summaries – and yet AB10002 was notified of it. It's almost as if you logged in as AB10002, saw the notification, and quickly switched accounts to maintain the illusion of neutrality. That boomerang just keeps on spinnin'! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would HIGHLY suggest that you do not cast aspersions on editors being socks without some rather concrete proof as you just did. To be blunt, the edits regarding the traffic incident were indeed inappropriate and should been removed, per the talk page discussion. If AB10002 hadn't removed it, another editor would. Also not every sordid detail of their life needs to be in the article, especially if it doesn't add to the actual substance of the article. This discussion regarding what should and should not be on the page needs to go to the article talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ivar the Boneful: In my reply above, I mentioned that the IP was most probably a sock, but neither did I specify whose sock I suspected it was, nor did I did use your name. I am not sure why you automatically thought it was you I had in mind. As far as the rest of your aspersions, you just upgraded that big aboriginal hunting implement in the sky with a radar-homing sensor, and it is not pointing to me at all. I leave it up to you to guess its direction. Dr.K.19:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest you strike that particularly ludicrous assertion, Ivar the Boneful? I would suggest that you alternatively open an SPI against Dr. K, but since you have absolutely zero convincing evidence, there's probably no point in doing that; indeed, the only likely action that is going to be taken here is against you for casting aspersions. Which would be unfortunate for someone whom, looking at your contributions, is mostly a positive. Black Kite (talk)13:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never reported anybody, as I do not like to escalate. But today is the day, because today my quite sleepy talkpage was suddenly bombarded by a few comments, that I consider openly insulting. Then I discovered it was not only about me. Sorry, if I miss some formalities, I'll explain as I can.
1) Personal attack. The user concerned, Ninjaoust, seems to have been very dissatisfied that I deleted quite insignificant and dubious addition to Romanization of Persian. So he created a sockpuppet and tried to insinuate me of lacking of civility on my talk page[9]. Then he saw it was not enough, and started, as an IP, to openly insult me[10]. Finally he decided to do formalities, and left a "warning"[11]. And again he could not help but indirectly insult me, that is he did what he tried to accuse me of. All three messages I see quite impolite and insulting. I am not sure whether it was the same person (need to be investigated, but the duck test is enough for me for now), or Ninjoust just campaigned his friends to do so. The latter would be even worse, as it would look like a deliberate group attack on me. In any way, I see such attention towards my persona as unnerving and such comments as quite unpleasant.
2) Sockpuppetry. As per above. I suppose I need to open an investigation?
3) Disruptive editing. As another user quite showed, Ninjoust is known for many disruptive edits, particularly creating and promoting hoax transliterations/alphabets.
I'm not sure what has to be done, I never reported on the AN. I just felt that it had to be reported. Insults I can stand, but issue #3 clearly has to be addressed some way. Of course, I could have talk to the user myself on this issue, but I'm hesitant. My feeling he won't understand and won't listen to me.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can save a little time here. The sockpuppet is confirmed as Ninjoust's sockpuppet (no comment on the IP addresses). I've not blocked the main account yet - I would have gone for a short block, but I'll leave that for others to have a look at the alleged disruptive edits. Oh, and you should ignore the latest post your talk page, as that was someone else entirely. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this hasn't addressed the disruptive editing behaviour of the editor in question, nor the slow, but ongoing, content additions to multiple national anthem articles where there are no reliable sources for the anthems, and certainly no sourcing for the transliterations which don't follow any known universal system I'm aware of. Every time there's an edit, multiple IPs and other meat(?) come out to reformat the articles, etc. Since when is Wikipedia a circular source for anybody to translate a primary source in a language other than English (that's just the few instances where there is even some form of reliable primary source)... most particularly small language groups that can't be WP:V? That's all the stuff of Wiki Source, anyhow. I've been meaning to report this activity for some time, but just haven't had the energy. I can go on reverting until the cows come home, but the hub of activity keeps kicking in and I've reached the end of my tether. Apologies: I'm not trying to pout, but I'm going through chemo and my input has been limited recently (not in it for the sympathy, either !)... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly discussed, the new user in question have started to communicate and answered the questions that were asked. Another new user in this thread have been approached by several editors on their talk page about reducing their involvement in AN/I. No further action is required at this time. Alex ShihTalk05:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hichem algerino has been editing for years. If you look at User talk:Hichem algerino, you will see warnings going back to 2014 about creating unreferenced articles, but this is still going on. Hichem has ignored dozens of messages about this, including other editors saying if it doesn't stop they may mass delete his creations (that was back in 2015, no improvement), threats of blocks for continually adding unreferenced information from 6th July 2016, an actual block showing on 30 July 2016, more warnings about a potential block for adding unreferenced information on 25 August 2016, same on 12 December 2016, 31 May 2017, 2 July 2017, and about 20 messages from me, mainly on different articles, just since August, all about creating unreferenced articles or completely blank articles. Hichem has been reminded that WP:Communication is required but only seems to have responded to one of the more than one hundred talk page messages, and that was to say 'I will try' (to add sources). I appreciated that but there has been no change in behaviour or further communication, he continues to create unreferenced articles. I feel I've exhausted all other avenues to solve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He seems well intentioned but I suspect there may be something of a language barrier. I’ve dropped a line in French on his talk page; let’s see where we go from there. I’ll have a look at his creations as well (I’ve added a couple of sources to Djamel El Okbi to start with). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Malcolmxl5, I saw your message to Hichem algerino and I agree that the language may well be an issue. However, Hichem has still not communicated here, and has been able to explain his referencing on his own talk page, which shows he does understand and his answer does not indicate he understands the importance of reliablee sourcing. His English is certainly good enough to understand the main point of the messages, and I think his understanding is probably clear. Hichem, can you please communicate here? Do you understand that articles must have references? Will you start responding to messages? There are plenty of people here happy to help you, but we can't have editors persistently creating articles which aren't verified. It might be worth you reading WP:V. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As i told Malcolmxl5 i could not find sources on the Net i tried so much but without value, sometimes it is based on sources from French Wikipedia or some videos from YouTube and dzfoot.com However, i will not create new pages without source --Hichem algerino (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn, I was looking at the latest unreferenced issue raised, 1999–00 Algerian League Cup, the sources Hichem is using are in the external links section rather than the references section, a minor error. The previous one, 2013–14 MC Oran season - Hichem was working on that for a few days and by the time he finished, there were two citations and a source embedded in the main body of the article. Similarly, for the one prior to that, 2013–14 CR Belouizdad season, it now has 14 citations and a source embedded in the main body of the article. So, it’s getting done but perhaps not before the articles are reviewed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some have had sources added, but most, like [12] still have no sources two months after a message has been sent to Hichem, a message he hasn't bothered to answer. This is the case for many of the articles. I would also say that Hichem has been asked on more than one occasion if the links he has added to an 'external links' section are actually his sources, but he hasn't taken the time to answer. This may be an oversight, but I don't know that they were his sources, or if he had any sources. This is no big issue for one or two answers, but is a big issue for dozens. Hichem, you are still not demonstrating that you understand WP:RS, WP:V or that WP:Communication is required. Please comment on this. Malcolm is offering you good advice and support, which is great, but I have spent hours reviewing your articles and messaging you, all of which you have ignored. We need to know if you will stop creating articles without WP:RS. Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hichem algerino, you are continuing to edit but not replying to this thread. You will have received pings plus should have this watchlisted. As the concern is partially around a lack of communication, this is particularly concerning. I again remind you that WP:Communication is required. ANI is a serious process, and I think everyone always prefers if the issues can be properly discussed and resolved, and a block avoided. Please communicate so we can help. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hichem algerino, you have now agreed not to create articles without sources, can you please engage in this thread, hopefully so we can close this with no action needed? The questions you have not responded to, are do you understand that sources need to be clear (not labelled as 'external links' if they are actually your sources) and reliable (not Youtube and other Wikipedias aren't good either, see WP:RS and WP:V. Will you start to respond when other editors take the time to message you, and do you understand that WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia? If you will keep to these in future, we have no problem, but you do need to take part in this thread. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn, I do not have anything to add i do not know what the problem is now. i said I will not open any new page without a source and about [13] there is no source because it is an individual work of me and it is impossible to find a source And relied on the arrangement of the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 already located in Wikipedia look here Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 season by season --Hichem algerino (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, Hichem. I'll try to word my unanswered questions differently so hopefully you will understand them. Do you understand that you should answer messages other editors send you? Do you understand that you shouldn't create articles without reliable sources? Do you understand that your own work, Youtube and other Wikipedias are not acceptable sources? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to respond to every message (although it's polite to do so, especially if they have asked you a question). However, according to WP:Communication is required: If you are getting multiple complaints on your talk page or on an article talk page about your editing, you are expected to either stop the action that is causing the complaints, or discuss it with the community of editors at the appropriate venue. That would cover the dozens of messages sent to you about sourcing. Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hichem algerino, thank you for adding sources to some off your articles, this is much appreciated. However, you have still not answered the three questions above, can you please answer them? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TomBarker23. Hichem algerino, an WP:ANI was initiated because your lack of sourcing, refusal to add sources when it was brought to your attention and your refusal to answer messages was disruptive editing. You are still editing, still clearly reading the thread, but not answering the questions, when asked by different editors in different languages. Again, please respond. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hichem algerino, do you understand that we are talking about the questions I have asked you in this thread? You have not responded and you have been asked many timeūs to do so. The questions (I will write them out yet again) are:
Boleyn: Remember, his national language is French. I just don't think he understands. Remember Nelson Mandela: "Speak to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. Speak to him in his language, that goes to his heart." Try using French, and note that his first comment to me seems to indirectly say he understands. Remember the existence of Google Translate. Wow, I'm amazed noone else suggested that. TomBarker23 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Following my own advice here...
Hichem algerino:[reply]
) Comprenez-vous que vous Communication est requise devrait répondre aux messages que d'autres éditeurs vous envoient?
2) Comprenez-vous que les sources devraient être claires et ne pas être appelées «liens externes» si elles sont vos sources?
3) Comprenez-vous qu'il est important d'utiliser WP: RELIABLESOURCES, c'est-à-dire pas Youtube et de préférence pas d'autres Wikipédia?
TomBarker23, Malcolm already tried French, and Hichem indicated that it is not his first language, in that he said he is better in English. I have no idea if this started with a language gap or not - Hichem just refused to answer messages or change his editing, which may or may not have been wholly or partly to do with not being a native speaker. His later messages indicate he understood what I was complaining about (and what many other editors had complained about) but felt it was OK. Forgive me if I sound terse now, but I have asked the same questions in different ways more than thirty times now, and I still have no proper response yet he is still editing other pages. This ANI was only opened as a last resort, and it's not a process he seems to be taking seriously. Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn, I think you will find that if you've messaged him 30 times he will be a bit tired of the questions turning up on his talk page. He has made edits saying he agrees to this page. He does understand communication is required. The original purpose of this page is complete, he's citing sources now. I think he is just of the opinion he has answered the questions and thinks the discussion is over on his part. We've really strayed from the original purpose of the ANI. Can we just forgive each other and close the discussion down now? TomBarker23 (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TomBarker23, I doubt he's tired of the questions seeing as he has simply ignored them each time. This ANI started because he was refusing to answer questions - he has improved that slightly, but hasn't really engaged in this ANI, wasting other people's time. It was also about a lack of reliable sources - he has indicated on his talk page since the ANI started that his articles are based on WP:OR, Youtube and French Wikipedia. That is concerning. I don't think it's much to ask him to answer the questions as to whether he understands about reliable sources (we're here to help if not). He clearly does not accept that communication is required either, as he is choosing to edit regularly but not respond. He's had many, many warnings over several years about all this. I'd just like him to engage in the discussion so we can be sure everything is understood and then move on. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we finally have a response - Hichem algerino plans to communicate more and add sources for all articles, sources which are not WP:OR but are WP:RS. I think we can now close the thread. Hichem, if you have any questions about reliable sources, Malcolmxl5 has shown he is happy to talk yo you about which sources are reliable, as am I. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the existence of Google Translate. Wow, I'm amazed noone else suggested that.@TomBarker23:
Maybe that's because they knew that it would likely not be helpful. If you knew French, you would have realized that as well. It's rather ironic, to say the least, that in a section entitled "Communication and sourcing issues", in attempting to communicate with someone whose first language is not English, that anyone would suggest using Google translate. Instead, you could try Wikipedia:Translation/French/Translators or one of the translator categories as a starting point. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent disruptive behavior by IP 67.165.17.94
For a few months I and a few other editors have been dealing with issues related to 67.165.17.94(talk·contribs·WHOIS) including sockpuppetry, repeated insertion of erroneous information, and repeated insertion of unreferenced or improperly referenced content on articles related to elections and political parties on Wikipedia, and so far have been unable to bring a stop to such disruptive behavior despite attempts to direct them to stop. There's countless examples of this, but as an example, these include:
Insertion and restoration of erroneous information on articles
The latest incident involves the color of the Peter Pilz List – they keep attempting to restore what they call the "correct" color for the list, despite the fact that the light green used in the polling graph/article was literally my own arbitrary addition which I since realized was erroneous given that the party's paraphernalia is white/gray and it's mostly represented with white/gray in media sources. Despite this, they're insisting that that same light green is somehow the "correct" color – despite my acknowledgement that my own addition of light green on Wikipedia was in fact my error and that the party color is white/gray. (I've previously ignored 3RR in similar cases with this IP with the same justification that their edits were blatantly incorrect, despite their repeated attempts to restore them.) Mélencron (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is very reminiscent of the behaviour of serial sockpuppeteer Greekboy12345er6. All of the cases will be stale, but it might be worth looking at them and seeing if it quacks to you as well. RolandR (talk)19:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a group of teens on reddit who do this as a form of graffiti and time-sinks. Just teenage hi-jinks. Nothing to worry about. Nof9 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about a topic ban on politics? It's obvious this IP isnt going to do anything useful there. TomBarker23 (talk)#~
Country of film production – long-term edit warring from east UK
Somebody using IPs from the east part of the UK (around Norfolk) has been disrupting film articles for more than a year. This person edit-wars about the country of production as listed in the infobox. The vandal is currently blocked as Special:Contributions/94.185.135.206 and globally blocked as Special:Contributions/81.106.30.36, but many more IPs are involved. A fine selection of IPs showing the pattern of multiple reverts may be seen at Scott Pilgrim vs. the World – a film article that this person keeps returning to.
In August, this person edit-warred from France using Special:Contributions/46.218.99.78. Later that month they returned to the Norfolk area.
So the question is how do we stop this person? A a handful of rangeblocks could be set in place but there would be collateral damage, I think. Any ideas? Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't going to be able to use rangeblocks here. These are BT Broadband ranges, the biggest provider in the UK. Even blocking a /24 would have collateral and as you can see these aren't on the same /16 (or even the same /8!), let alone /24. They're also very dynamic - my BT IP flips around all of those 81x and 86x ranges as well as a couple of others. If the vandalism has a set pattern I'd suggest an edit filter at WP:EFR. Black Kite (talk)20:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a UK person, I know geolocation does not work in the UK - all you get is the location of the ISP office, not the editor. My IP would suggest South London, when I'm in North Lancashire. Ronhjones (Talk)21:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the website used, the provider, and the type of connection. The two used on the Geolocate links on IP talk pages are this one, which has my current IP spot on to a couple of miles, and this one, which is 200 miles off. However if all of those IPs above are (or were, as they're dynamic) coming up with a similar location, it's probably likely to be fairly accurate. Black Kite (talk)22:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Targeting specific, anonymous vandals can turn out to be impossible. Have you thought about adding some protection to the recently vandalized articles? Dimadick (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, BT customers are often allocated IP addresses from a large pool of /23s and /24s. You certainly can't range block a /16 from a BT, but these smaller ranges are sometimes clear of collateral damage. At a glance, 86.157.160.0/23(talk·contribs·WHOIS), 86.157.161.0/24(talk·contribs·WHOIS), and 86.157.135.0/24(talk·contribs·WHOIS) look like him. 81.156.136.0/23(talk·contribs·WHOIS) looks like him, too, but it's stale. The others are harder to nail down, but they're likely /24s. I guess if it keeps up, I could probably do a series of range blocks. The problems I see are that 1) he doesn't seem to edit all that often (only on two days this month so far?), 2) it could potentially take a large number of range blocks to even be useful, and 3) page protection might be a better choice if specific articles are being regularly targeted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What NRP means here by 'collateral damage' is not that range blocks wouldn't block a large amount of IPs, it means that there is little editing currently in those ranges. As NRP points out, to be effective you would need a number of range blocks covering a huge amount of potential IP's given the UK ISP's method of allocation. And BT is more problematic than most, given how often it changes around its broadband allocation (on a whim sometimes). We don't really want to be blocking indefinitely huge amounts of IP's just because currently there is little activity. We arnt talking a school block here. Some form of edit filter would be better if possible, if not, its something that might need to be lived with until the point where ENWP makes it compulsory to register to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, BT Broadband operates on the principle of every subscriber's router being available for every other subscriber to use if they're out of range of their home router, to create seamless nationwide wi-fi coverage, so provided you switch your home router (to which your system will default) off, your IP address will literally change every few seconds. A workable rangeblock on a BT range means knocking out the entire country. ‑ Iridescent09:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Won't XFF filtering/targetting work here if BT can be persuaded to come onboard ? Or has that 2013 program been abandoned? Nof9 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a proxy system. Nor does it work quite as described by Iridescent. You can only connect through BT routers within range, which is typically a small number if you are stationary. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Kevin Deutsch, part II. Single-purpose accounts, neutrality, self-published, COI, NOTHERE issues.
User:Ballastpointed was blocked for 1 week, but things have not improved, and the sock / meatpuppet account User:AlexVegaEsquire instantly stepped in as soon as Ballastpointed was blocked (diff). As such, I'd ask for sanctions to be taken against either both or neither of them. I'm not asking for a Sockpuppet investigation because, thanks to tags, it seems likely that Ballastpointed is the user's mobile phone account - almost all their edits are tagged as such - and AlexVegaEsquire is their desktop account. So they likely have different IPs even if they're the same person. But it doesn't matter, because WP:DUCK applies - both accounts are single-purpose accounts who have never edited anything other than Kevin Deutsch. Talk page collaboration has also stopped, not that it ever went very far to begin with. For example, I responded quickly to an Oct 10 edit on the talk page (diff), no reply, I cautiously make my edit on Oct 12, which is promptly reverted within hours (diff).
Without getting too deep into the content dispute, suffice to say there's a fundamental failure to agree on what sources say. Ballastpointed / Alex seem to deny not merely the claims against Deutsch (which is fine, and good per WP:BLP; Wikipedia shouldn't state in its own authorial voice what happened), but also deny the claims happened at all and bury the scandal under the rug, despite this scandal being by far the most notable thing about Deustch - for example, repeatedly removing from the lede that Deutsch was accused of inventing convenient quotes for his news stories, despite multiple sources accusing him of just that (example source if you're curious). Again, Wikipedia shouldn't necessarily say he did actually fabricate the quotes, but reporting the accusation and the fact that the quotes/sources were unable to be confirmed is perfectly legit. They also like to quote WP:SELFPUB sources very extensively... I think that the article already over-quotes Deutsch himself as is, when he is not a neutral source and is making a number of self-serving claims.
I should note that in fairness, some of Ballast / Alex's contributions have been fine, and others are stylistic preferences on emphasis that editors can legitimately disagree over. I had hoped that they might chill out. However, their general style of instantly reverting to their preferred revision isn't the way Wikipedia should work. I might have been willing to let it go for some of the more minor changes, but when I tried waiting them out, they used that as an opportunity to cautiously include more dramatic revisions (example diff; this was from October 8 when I tried letting an October 5 edit stand), so I think this edit war will last forever as is. If you think that the most recent revision looks harmless or too minor to care about, it might be, but Ballast will use it as an opening to revert the article to how it looked a month ago eventually, which was a straight-up puff piece that excised almost all of the scandal. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia or reflect the sources, they're here to fluff Kevin Deutsch's article.
As a side note. In my opinion, these two users are most likely Deutsch himself. It perfectly fits the pattern of someone obsessed with just one article and making it as admiring as possible and adding in links to Deutsch's blog (diff) and using the same phrasing as Deutsch from his website (e.g. crowing about his fifteen year career... as if that's something unusual among journalists. blog, diff). Ultimately, this is largely irrelevant, but I just figured I'd throw this out there. (They have denied having a COI, for the record. They just "care about accuracy".) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to why my accurate edits continue to be reverted. They are clear, concise, accurate, objective, contain indisputable facts, and comply with Wikipedia's living persons policy. Alternatively, the edits made by @snowfire are inaccurate, presumptive, conclusory, and violate the LP policy. I believe his edits constitute vandalism, and that he is an author of one or more of the sources for this article. He could also be a party with a grudge against article subject. Either way, he has a clear/obvious conflict of interest, as is demonstrated by his one-sided edits. I request an objective party arbitrate this dispute.
As I have stated numerous times, I have no connection to article subject. I am simply a person with interest in the controversy (having learned of it via Wikipedia). I don’t see why my revisions are being subjected to vandalism when they are neutral and harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: True, that would be one way to do it... but per my comments in the AFD, I think that Deutsch is notable enough, and would rather normal editor discipline be applied here to stop the edit war. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion at this point. The back and forth is completely absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)
Not multiple socks, it’s multiple different people, as you can see from the different ip addresses. It’s a cohort of over 70000 people. You can’t win — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFalex (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from non-administrator: Obviously I can't do anything to act on this note, but why not cascade-protect anything to do with mangoes or Australian education and ask good faith editors to suggest edits in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBarker23 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current page protection hasn't been enough to stanch the flow, regarding the use of a poem in an Australian school. JNW (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected IP sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov who is an edit-warrior, made personal attacks against me in English on the edit summary. Check here please: [15]. He is calling me terrorist and Macedonian Muslim. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting Gugi2001 for edit-warring and disruptive editing
Problems started with a sweeping change by Gugi2001(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) to the Enis Bytyqi article ( link) with the edit summary being "Correction!". It was full of issues: typos, broken grammar, unexplained removal of references, addition of broken links. For that reason, I reverted the change before successively implementing constructive changes from the user's massive edit (1, 2, 3).
Gugi2001's next revert ("Correction the apps and goals!") occurred another ten days later
Since then an IP editor has twice (1, 2) tried to reinstate Gugi2001's changes. I don't think it is too far a stretch to assume this is the same user: Gugi2001 last edited three days ago, the IP made changes a day later.
I realise I should probably have reported this much earlier, and to the edit-warring noticeboard. I am also aware of the fact that I reverted more often than I should have.
I am now reporting Gugi2001 here for multiple issues:
Edit-warring, at the same time lack of any communication, no response to attempts to discuss changes on Talk pages
It looks like the article Donald B. Smith is causing this problem. Obvious WP:NLT is obvious, and Cbssport17 should have discussed this rather than making a threat. Possible WP:COI or WP:AUTOPROB here as well. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot use first hand knowledge and has to rely on what secondary sources have said.-♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I was trying to update the article with Smith's wife's death using his official county bio, through edit conflicts. I have also condensed the lawsuit material and added a second news source. There was no need for a threat at all, so silly. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree here. Cbssport17 removed the investigation info and replaced it with election info. here left a misleading ES not mentioning the removal. Jim1138 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't seen that particular edit. That's about the upcoming election; I was trying to find results of the last one, which is what's encyclopedic. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hence I added that he was cleared. I don't want to overload the article with references to this matter, and I cut it back considerably on BLP grounds as well as pure UNDUE, but I've searched for references to the elections he's won, to use as counterbalancing refs, and haven't found any, just repeated statements that he has been reelected each time. I hope more experienced BLP/political editors will further balance the article. I just dove in. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: Yes, I'd noticed, since in 2013 that editor also uploaded a slew of images to Commons that I was getting up the courage to mass nominate as likely copyvio/inadequate licence: commons:Category:Donald B. Smith. The other Cbssport accounts either have not edited or seem to me to have no relevant edits. Maybe a lost password situation; to supplement your ping I'm going to message Cbssport7 on their user talk. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of their image uploads on Commons are now up for deletion, most of them in a group nomination. It's blatantly evident they were just uploading images they found on the Internet for most of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A downside; in that nomination, we're going to lose File:Sheriff Don Smith 14.jpg. This would be a correct deletion, as we can't confirm the provenance of the image. I'm quite certain it came from the U.S. Army, but I can't prove it. Also; regardless of the legal threat, it appears Cbssport17/Cbssport7 has a direct conflict of interest and is likely in violation of WP:PAID. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell you what's going on with this article. This is about a multi-term elected sheriff in New York state that is up for re-election this fall. The sheriff made false allegations against the local District Attorney, which resulted in lawsuits back and forth, covered in the press, ending with the sheriff making an abject apology for having made the accusation in the first place and retraction, covered in the press, and paying out $25K out of pocket, leaving the rest of the six figure settlement to country taxpayers (their insurance company). Now, reelection coming, this little detail is being scrubbed from the biography for political reasons. Here is what should happen: (1) This article should remain semi-protected through the election, because it is under attack from IPs for clearly political reasons; (2) CBSSports17 should be either topic-banned off this article or banned outright as wP:NOTHERE. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a topic ban is necessary, as the account has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. Even if they come back from that, it's clear they and their old User:Cbssport7 account are (a) single purpose accounts, (b) almost certainly have a direct conflict of interest, and (c) are quite possibly in violation of our terms of service, as laid out at WP:PAID. It's doubtful this editor is coming back from all that. We need to watch the article for sockpuppet/IP abuses, at least until the election is over. A topic ban won't help much in this case. IF they come back from the NLT violation, IF they come back the COI problems, IF they need and do comply with PAID, then yeah a topic ban might be warranted. Not now though. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NLT block is easily ended by retracting the threat. It's a far stretch to call this a "paid" editor, it pretty clearly is a political actor, not a commercial actor. This account needs to be shut away from this topic, whether there is a standing NLT block or not. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are compensated for their contributions or not isn't my call to make. Should they come back from the legal threat, I will make sure they are given a {{uw-paid}} warning, as I believe there is a possibility they are being paid for their contributions. If they aren't, fine. Also, [16][17] broke the name again :( --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SALT needed, potentially NOTHERE
Hi all,
Sorry for putting this here, Twinkle's RFPP module is crashing for me.
Over the past year or so, User:Shahriar al mahmud has repeatedly attempted to create autobiographies which are WP:NOTWEBHOST violations. Just recently Shahriar Al Mahmud and his userpage were created, both of which I've tagged for speedy deletion. SALT may be needed on all capitalisation forms of the name as previous talk page warnings have indicated that he has used camel case to avoid SALT protection.
@DrStrauss: Done. This could probably have been done by contacting individual admin though, instead of coming to AN/I. And I am puzzled that you cannot use RFPP without Twinkle. Why? Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Alex ShihTalk08:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the username has now been suppressed, and the block log shows to me as "11:22, 17 October 2017 Alex Shih (talk | contribs | block) (log details removed) (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy)". Presumably only admins can see that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to report Bachcell, an occasional editor who needs to be warned about inappropriately asserting his POV at talk pages and AFD. Some of my diffs may be older but Bachcell only edits maybe once or twice a month. However, during that brief time he expresses political beliefs and opinions almost never based on policy.
(Non-administrator comment): these aren't article edits, which is where we're concerned about POV. These are talk page discussions and deletion discussions, where we expect editors to have their own points of view about what is important. Having someone suggest that new guidelines should exist is not objectionable; that's where we get guidelines from. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Nat on this one. Those are venues where we generally expect people to have an opinion and express it. For AFD's its up to the closer to disregard and weight the !votes according to their backing in policy. As an aside, 'All politically motivated terrorist attacks are notable' is way down the list of 'stupid reasons to keep articles' as at least a politically motivated terrorist attack will have media coverage. Even the minor ones. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bachcell's behaviour is of concern. Some of their behaviour suggests WP:NOTHERE namely "Treating editing as a battleground" and using Wikipedia for advocacy and propaganda contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE. I'm not suggesting a block, but I think some of this behaviour is problematic and needs to be watched. AfD and other discussions are not for expressing personal opinions, but policy-based judgement. Also, accusing other editors of being "apologists" for terrorism is incredibly uncivil. AusLondonder (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I have also been active at this AfD. And I want to point that it is a highly POV AfD on a hotly disputed topic (the French authorities are widely accused by journalists and politicians of diverting the adjudication of possibly terrorism-related crimes by administrative rulings of mental health causation. This is also an academic conversation. As the article cited by Icewhiz puts it, writing about the case at this AfD: "when confirmed diagnosis were present, there was a tendency to try to dismiss the possibility of terrorism altogether." What I am here to say is that there is a potential WP:BOOMERANG here because while Bachcell's opinion was POV, it is arguably not more POV than the TheGracefulSlick's nomination and AusLondoner's iVote, both of which make inaccurate assertions about the article, incident and sourcing that can be read as misleadingly POV. Not to mention the fact that this is one of a long series of AfDs by TheGracefulSlick that administrators have described as being WP:POINTy. Full disclosure, I have a POV on terrorism at variance with that expressed by GracefulSlick.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop trying to make this about a petty content dispute? If anyone has issues with an AFD with a fully relevant nomination statement, take it to my talk page. If I was incorrect in believing Bachcell's behavior is problematic a neutral (preferably admin) user can close this. But consider this: Bachcell's inaccurate, often insulting, opinions taint neutral talk page discussions, and I am not the first editor to point this out to him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:FORUM applies to edits such as this, and let's not forget that WP:NOT applies across the board, to all spaces, though not always in equal measure everywhere. An AfD doesn't run for much longer than a week, usually, so disruption is limited, as opposed to article talk pages. If I were closing an AfD like this, and I think I speak for most admins here, I would just utterly disregard that rather ridiculous post (we have enough conspiracy theories already) since it presents no argument based on policy. I am not sure that The Graceful Slick is making a good case here, but in principle, if this is what Bachcell does on Wikipedia, at some point there's been enough soapboxing. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW apply to practically all of Bachcell's edits. I first became aware of this editor nearly 2-1/2 years ago because of their incessant fighting to add unsourced and poorly sourced incidents to List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Bachcell appears to be unable to unwilling to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR, three "core" content policies. Sadly, personal attacks such as this one are typical of their m.o. I recommend a close perusal of their talk page, their contribution history, and a perma-block. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk01:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I am troubled by the fact that each of the editors arguing here for blocking Bachcell holds strong political views opposed to those held by Bachcell. When we humans find a fellow human's political opinions wholly inimical, we find it exceedingly hard to judge that individual fairly. I suspect that we are hardwired that way. But the arguments being made here would be more persuasive if this were not so politically fraught, and not being advocated by individuals with such strong political opinions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually E.M.Gregory you are the one trying to create a political divide here. I honestly do not give a damn about his political beliefs; he can keep them to himself. My complaint was filed in light of Bachcell's comments applying to WP:FORUM and creating a non-neutral atmosphere for discussion. His personal (often inaccurate and uncivil) opinions display a severe WP:COMPETENCY issue and motives beyond being here to build an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable edits.
A few day ago I ran across KingQueenJack (talk·contribs) making questionable, unsourced edits in Carolingian Empire, which is on my watchlist. I went to 3RR and screeched to a halt there. Fortunately, so did KQJ. I invited KQJ to discuss things several times (see relevant talkpages). KQJ did not respond. Checking up on this user, I found the same kind of behavior is repeated in other articles (here and here) and other edits are generally not considered helpful. I think some admin action might be helpful. Kleuske (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you brought this here we might as well discuss things--I see basic incompetence (note how they changed a book title to help make their date change work: "H. Garipzanov, The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World (c.751–843,884–888) (Leiden: Brill, 2008)"). Plus, we've blocked editors for being uncommunicative before. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most (if not nearly all) of the recent edits I'm going through by this user appear to be changes to text in Chinese, or at least include changes to text in Chinese. I'm wondering how well or fluent this user is with English... maybe this is what is contributing to the communication issues? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP gets reverted, doesn't like it, starts being deliberately disruptive.
Natural gas is a Chinese invention. Fascinating story, well recorded contemporaneously in the West, but China was exploiting and even drilling for natural gas centuries ago.
The "invention by country" categories are a problem. They're a magnet for nationalistic trolls. They're unworkable per WP sourcing rules, I favour deleting the lot. But as that isn't happening (CfDs passim), we're stuck with trying to agree criteria for them via Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology#National_invention_categories. Fruitlessly as yet.
Today they reply, with a TL;DR wall of text (dumped needlessly onto my user talk too). But this isn't about what they think (or what I think), it's about what consensus has landed at - and for the country invention cats, we're using (and have used for a long time) a definition including both inventions and discoveries. So China is there for natural gas.
When reverted, they (unsurprisingly) edit-war, but then start getting nasty and adding obvious untruths to unrelated articles. This was added by another IP, and I reverted it as either vandalism or extreme lack of clue (the 2015 final retirement of Avro VulcanXH558 was a massive story in UK airspotting. It did not fly again in 2016, it is not flying again this year.). To re-add such a thing isn't about content accuracy, it's just trying to wind me up personally. See ANI above. I am tired of this sort of rubbish. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I'm not subject to prejudice, just because I choose not to formally register as a wikipedia user
TL:DR!?!? @Andy Dingley: I am insulted that you didn't read. It's not a "wall of text" it is reason explained! I took the time to vebosely explain to Andy Dingley the difference between discovery and invention and how in the context of technology there may be some confusion. I suspect bigotry, and I don't think that Andy Dingley is unique as a bigot against Wikipedians who choose, for one reason or another, to edit without formally registering for an account. The fact of the matter is whether if it's Jimbo Wales, an unregistered (AKA IP editor) or a rabid turtle that submits edits, all edit submissions should be judged on their own merit.
I read all of your vast screed (which you have dumped in three places) and found it equally confused in all three. You seem to think that being "natural" prevents natural gas from being an "invention", thus not belonging in the category. As you have been told repeatedly, it is included there as a discovery, not as an invention. This is our established practice for these categories.
I agree with you, it is better if I read your screeds rather than ignoring them; and so I do so. That does not make your inability to express yourself concisely any better.
I object to being termed a bigot and I see that as another personal attack from you today. In particular, none of my reaction to you as an IP has differed at all from how I would treat you as a registered editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) User blocked for that unwarranted attack. And suffice it to say this behaviour reminds me strongly of a particular user who disrupts national invention/discovery categories and casts aspersions as to the racial motivations of editors who revert them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many disruptive editors focussed on national invention categories (one of which is from the same geographical area as this editor) that I simply can't think which one of the many candidates it might be. But they're usually trying to include the tenuous, not exclude the obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check WHOIS or geolocation before blocking, calling people "deficient" and "bigot" is enough for me. The one from the same geographical area as this user is the one this reminds me of, though I haven't seen him edit from this city or this ISP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of sympathy for the IP's position. (I don't know whether it's literally true, but the point is still valid even if Lincoln didn't say it “No,” Lincoln says. “Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.”) If we have a category that's demonstrably incorrect, we ought to fix it and not castigate people who make the "mistake" of assuming that words have meaning. How on earth did we decide that a category covering inventions also includes discoveries? It's tiresome to have to explain to readers that what Wikipedia means by notable isn't what is meant in general usage but at least those terms are close enough that confusion is understandable. If we now have to explain to readers that "inventions" doesn't really mean "inventions", we are reducing our own credibility.--S Philbrick(Talk)20:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty well known issue that these categories are problematic, and yeah there have been discussions seeking solutions for quite some time. That's all well and good; I believe Andy posted a link to one of the recent discussions somewhere above. I don't necessarily agree that the "invention" categories also include scientific (or other) discoveries, and at any rate the treatment is highly inconsistent, but I believe Andy is referring to the various "list of fooian inventions and discoveries", in which inventions and discoveries are pretty much always lumped together. It's not optimal, it's confusing, and it's a mess, but none of that warrants calling someone a bigot because they disagreed with an edit you made. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switch the status of the players and the outcome becomes "Yes, the remark was inappropriate, but they were in the right as to the content issue so let's forgive the remark. Some editors need to grow thicker skins." I am bewildered that the double standard is so hard for reasonable people to see. ―Mandruss☎20:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"How on earth did we decide that a category covering inventions also includes discoveries? "
Literally, because one of the warring socks (the pro-German one) advocated it, and it seems the most workable approach. The set of most interest is the set of both inventions and discoveries, so we us that as our basis. If you dislike the category names as "inventions" alone, then that's a choice which has been made, possibly as a de facto, but it's how it is and there is no advocacy on the Technology or Inventions projects to change it. IMHO, it's better to have such a linguistic discrepancy (which isn't unusual) than to have an over-verbose set of category names.
For this specific case, it was explained on the Talk:Natural gas page a month ago (unresponded to) and trailed to the longer discussion on the project page. The IP editor was welcome to discuss that, but they didn't: instead they just kept arguing that the agreement simply wasn't in place and reverting regardless.
Finally I would ask people commenting (and I cannot understand what Mandruss is on about) to read this ANI post: it's not about this categories issue (ANI doesn't do content) it's about an angry editor switching to obvious vandalism to re-insert an unsourced and challenged untruth on an unrelated article. That's just deliberate disruption, and that is an ANI issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a new VPN IP: I was trying to submitted a minor edit to a wikipedia page and I got some error page. I reset my VPN connection and it worked. But, in hindsight I remembered seeing the word "blocked". When I check out the history of my previous IP it shows that @Ivanvector: has "executed administrative privilege" for an alleged attack. Let me be clear about two things: Firstly, let me be perfectly clear: my new IP was NOT a result of any attempt to circumvent an administrative ban and the edit I made was completely unrelated. Secondly, I make NO personal attacks! Please let me clarify: I call noone bigot! I specifically implied that it is possible that there is bigotry on Wikipedia and I honestly suspect this is so, but I don't know of any current specific examples! I explicitly stated that I did not think that Andy Dingley was a unique bigot who opposed so call "IP Users". I even explained on Andy Dingley's talk page that I, as a matter of practice, I assume good faith. (I clarified here that I, also, do suspect that not all act in good faith).
With regard to the article Natural gas, I thought it's clear that something that existed before humans could not have been invented by humans. I removed the "Chinese invention" category and not only made a note in the edit summary, but also explained on the talk page. Andy Dingley reverted my removal of the category they added without seeking consensus.
Long story short (maybe TL;DR?) If someone has an ally with admin privileges, it doesn't even matter right or wrong because the "IP" (derogatory for 'unregistered user') is going to get banned. --IPEditor (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 135.23.235.144 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick - I agree with you regarding the IPs position and I completely understand the frustration that the IP feels regarding this issue - no doubt. I mean, yeah, calling "natural gas" an invention (in a way) does seem silly, even perhaps ridiculous to some. While I do make civility blocks for repeated personal attacks and agree with the civility block here, that does not mean that I don't see their viewpoint and understand why people who are frustrated over things (such as this category usage dispute) and resort to such behaviors. It's when users come to a noticeboard and begin becoming overly combative that makes me feel that there's a line between this understanding and where we have a responsibility to put an end to combative and disruptive uncivil behaviors if it's clear that it will only just continue. As it is fair to see calling natural gas an invention as silly, it's equally fair to see someone's incivility, personal attacks toward others, and their combative response here and over something like a category placement on a page - as equally silly (and also disruptive, against policy, and when it will only aim a discussion that should be or was originally on the pathway to consensus - to hostility and destructive reasoning). This is where I believe that the line between being understanding of the IP's frustration and incivility and attempting to help and defuse the heated situation ends, and the responsibility we have to reasonably take action to enforce Wikipedia's civility policies and put a stop to open and combative behavior and allow the other editors involved to stop being sucked into a toxic discussion environment begins. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you, or the original IP, are welcome to discuss this on the Technology talk: project page, where I have been trying to tidy up these categories for months now, with little interest from others.
Is inventing the natural gas more or less inventive than inventing the concept of night market ? Instead of being shocked and defaulting into incivility, the IP should have taken this discussion seriously. Any more letter soup ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well natural gas exists (naturally) and does not need to be 'invented', as opposed to night market, whatever that is. I'm surprised (and worried) that you don't see the distinction. --Begoon12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this is an invention: it's just that the invention here is the application of natural gas as a fuel source, rather than natural gas itself. "Natural gas" is just being used as a convenient shorthand for that. Seems reasonable to me. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂18:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Latest example here: [30]. Please protect me. Rob has commented in all my BRFA's, my BAG membership and in many more places. Usually, he is the first to comment. I have evidence that he has been contacting others offwiki about me to others. -- Magioladitis (talk) Note: I corrected my statement after explanations given Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...then post that evidence. It simply hasn't happened, and the unsupported accusation is a blatant personal attack. This is only being filed because I said 3 minutes ago that I planned to take this to ANI tonight when I get to a computer. He wanted my name in the section header instead of his. Magioladitis has been wikihounding me blatantly for weeks since he was desysopped. I've tried to have little contact with him, but that hasn't worked. I'll post a comprehensive list of evidence (actual evidence, with diffs and stuff) when I get home tonight. ~ Rob13Talk22:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rob said for me be removed from BAG member "This has been going on for years, and a bot operator that doesn't comply with the bot policy should obviously not be a BAG member" (06:39, 27 December 2016, emphasis is mine). [31]
Rob comments about me: "The behavior over half a decade is far below what's expected of any editor on the project" (20:04, 19 January 2017, emhasis is mine). [32]
Rob comments in a BRFA 2 minutes after I placed the time stamp: [33].
I am not that familiar with the context, but I don't think it is necessary stalking if valid points are being raised. Since both editors work with the technical aspects of Wikipedia, overlaps should be expected, and I think it would be wrong to look away if there are pressing concerns. Alex ShihTalk01:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Magioladitis' own presentation of evidence here reinforces the impression that there's something wrong with his judgment and needs monitoring: first on his list of complaints above is that BU Rob opposed his reconfirmation as a member of BAG, which you might think was a mean thing for Rob to do until you read the discussion Magioladitis himself links, in which eight out of eight editors commenting shared BU Rob's opinion, citing behavior by Magioladitis which, in the context of a bot operator, is downright frightening. One little passage is especially telling. Someone asked:
Two questions:
Why are you running an unapproved bot from your account to make edits like this?
The questions are unrelated to my BAG nomination. BAG checks mainly the technical part of the story. The question asked here is if have the technical skills and related knowledge to be part of BAG. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No, Magioladitis, it's not just your technical skills that are at issue, it's your judgment (and, to be blunt, your ability to communicate in the English language, from my long observation). And Exhibit A is that you apparently think that, in considering you for membership in the Bot Approvals Group (whose members individually are empowered to approve bot tasks), we should simply ignore the apparent fact that, at the very moment of your application, you were running an unapproved bot. That's shocking.
EEng I am not complaining on negative commenting. I am complaining on constant commenting'. Robs has supported some of my bot tasks but he has commented in all of them. I thing that I do not like because I feel exposed to a specific person online. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have evvidence that he as been sending emails about me to others.[34]If I get time I an prove tht people were receiving emails about me.[35]@Magioladitis: It has been over 36 hours since you opened this complaint. You need to provide evidence for this claim, or you need to retract it. —DoRD (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DoRD I retracted. It was explained to me that the communication was via the IRC admin channel. Still offwiki but not via emails. I sincerely apologise. If this has been explained to me earlier I would not have written anything about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response and boomerang
I initially wrote up a long thing refuting what Magioladitis wrote about me stalking, but instead, I'll just refer you to "past me". These claims go back months, and I wrote a very detailed explanation of the interactions I had with Magioladitis in the past. You can find that here. As a brief summary: We interact about the normal amount of times for those editing the same area. I've only ever started a single discussion related to Magioladitis, as I intentionally avoid him whenever possible. I've initiated zero interactions with him since the second ArbCom. Every time I've criticized him, the community has agreed with my criticisms. I think that about sums it up. Now onto the evidence that Magioladitis has been continuously harassing me, as promised:
In April 2017, he started a discussion about one of my bot approvals without even discussing the concern with me, in apparent retaliation for my criticism of an unrelated third-party bot task that was violating the bot policy. (link) The community concluded that I could fix the bug in my task as normal and Magioladitis was warned by a BAG member (Headbomb) that he shouldn't retaliate against me in that manner.
In May 2017, he started another discussion about the same bug in the same bot task, despite me not running that bot task at all in between the two discussions. (link) The section was speedily closed with a warning not to harass me.
In June 2017, he started a discussion claiming (falsely) that I gave incorrect advice to a bot operator. (link) Other BAG members have since stated my advice was correct based on the information available in the bug report at the time.
During the second ArbCom case, two arbitration clerks had to redact large portions of his evidence section because he made unfounded accusations and personal attacks against me, including the "off-wiki coordination"/email accusation he made above. See here and here.
At the risk of trivializing things, up until this point, we have "run-of-the-mill" incivility, abuse of process to harass, etc. After the second ArbCom case, it was ratcheted up quite a bit to wikihounding me everywhere I go.
In September 2017, he suddenly popped up on my talk page to demand an apology and retraction for a comment I made during the first ArbCom case. I stand by my original comment, which was supported by the findings of facts in the case. See here. This proves Magioladitis was literally going through 9-month-old edits and contributions to find something to hound me about.
In October 2017, Magioladitis removed a PROD I placed on a file (now deleted, so I can't show the diff); File:Seleccionada3.JPG. This was his first edit to the file namespace since August 2017, when he (ironically) accidentally rolled back one of my edits on another random file, showing he was going through my contribs at that time as well ([37]). This is an editor who so infrequently edits the file namespace that if you try to retrieve his last 100 file namespace edits, the site returns an error. A discussion on his talk page made clear he had no legitimate rationale for removing the PROD [38].
I'm philosophically opposed to interaction bans, especially one-sided ones. At this point, I just want his harassment to stop. I think a site ban is appropriate given the history here. Magioladitis has had many last chances. ~ Rob13Talk02:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It saddens me to be editing this response right now... I can understand how disheartened and perhaps frustrated or angry that Magioladitis is feeling since the ArbCom case that recently closed, but I can't help but be honest here... I feel that these problematic accusations by Magioladitis are only going to continue until action is taken and we (the community) put a stop to it. We've gone through complaints and discussions on different talk pages, numerous ANI discussions, two ArbCom cases - how far do we allow this to go? When is enough enough? Do these continued and repeated discussions involving Magioladitis' behavior show that perhaps we've reached a point where he's stopped becoming net positive for the project? I'm not sure how to feel... it's just truly sad and disappointing... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a serious reason to believe an IBAN would not work, besides any objections anyone personally has to the concept of IBANs, I don't see why we don't try one. Magioladitis and BU Rob13 each claim to want to be left alone. It seems the perfect candidate for an IBAN. So let's do it. If one or the other is the instigator of harassment, then the IBAN will lead us to the culprit far faster than more arbitration, and more empirically than an ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. It's clear that Rob's replies cause me stress in all cases. I don't even want to have positive comments in my BRFA's from him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Rob13 is "philosophically opposed to interaction bans", both of them work in the small world of Wikipedia bots, Rob13's actions on BRFAs are to validly point out horrific bot-related misbehavior on the part of Magioladitis, and Magioladitis welcomes the removal of Rob13 from BRFAs, that doesn't seem like a very constructive solution to me. It might be possible if we simultaneously ban Magioladitis from anything bot-related, broadly construed, but otherwise no. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein on the bots area we have a cease fire. I am banned from bot policy related discussions and Rob said won't do any BAG action on CHECKWIKI anymore. We have no conflicts there anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what benefits either of these individuals bring to the Wikipedia bots world? If they can't work together, and the trouble their interactions cause outweighs the benefits of their work in the bots realm, then why should we give a damn about the benefits of their work with bots? I see no reason to put on kid gloves with respect to either. Things do not simply get this bad and stay this bad for so long based on the unilateral misconduct of a single person, the removal of whom would fairly resolve. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually quite a lot of people care about the benefits Rob brings given there has been no downside. They don't care about the benefits Mag can potentially bring because he comes with a history of negatives which have had a huge amount of community involvement even before it got to Arbcom in order to get him to change his ways. Things do get this bad and stay this bad for so long as the result of a single editor if that editor refuses to change their ways. To disregard all the previous dealings with Magioladitis inability to abide by ENWP's requirements on editing behavior with a hand wavy 'well other people are at fault too' is ludicrous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to tango. Things do get this bad and stay this bad for so long as the result of a single editor if that editor refuses to change their ways. Bullshit. ArbCom or the community would have banned Magioladitis ages ago if this were so simple. Neither ArbCom nor the community is so stupid as you are painting them to be. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'It takes two to tango' being the best you can come up with to smear another editor? 'Where there is smoke there is fire' is another good one. So as much evidence as Mag has presented then got it. Do you have any actual evidence other than clichés that 'well everyone is at fault' despite the overwhelming extended evidence to the contrary? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? Where you stated I said the community or arbcom were stupid? When I did no such thing? I tend to ignore complete bullshit. The community and Arbcom have wasted far more time on Magioladitis than they are worth in good faith. That does not make them stupid, it makes them extremely tolerant. There is a limit. You on the other hand are implying that tolerance means that there must be other people at fault because they have not decided to outright ban Mag yet. Which is again, ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways! You indicate below that ArbCom and AN/ANI are extremely effective at topic banning and sitebanning disruptive individuals when it's merited. You indicate above that things could stay this bad for so long purely because of the conduct of a single editor. Magioladitis has been before ArbCom twice and at these boards who knows how many times. Now you say the reason Magioladitis is still around is because of tolerance. But why be tolerant when, as you say, AN/ANI or ArbCom could effectively be rid of the intolerable conduct wrought solely by Magioladitis against innocent bystanders? These claims are not consistent with one another unless you admit that Magioladitis is not solely at fault, or unless you are calling the community stupid. I'll assume good faith on your part, however, and assume you mean to say that Magioladitis is not solely at fault. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be having trouble reading and comprehending what I wrote. This is the second time you have said I said something that I clearly did not. There will not be a third. To explain further - I said AN/ANI and Arbcom do have a history of cutting editors loose who cause too much disruption. In Magioladitis case they have extended time and again various options in order to keep them around. These are obviously not mutually exclusive positions - the willingness of the community to keep an editor editing is in line with the amount of good work it feels can be extracted from them. The willingness of editors to extend (an overly generous imho) effort to keep Mag editing does not mean it thinks that anyone else is at fault - it merely means Mag has not become disruptive enough yet to be banned. If you actually look at all the past discussions, sanctions, arbcom etc, you will find almost no indication that any other editor has caused any issues regarding Magioladitis other than Mag themselves. You on the other hand seem to think that because they have not been banned so far, someone else must be the problem. This has been a staple of Magioladitis defense for the past few years 'I am not the problem, everyone else is, leave me alone to do what I want to do'. And this has been soundly rejected time and again. You have used ridiculous cliché's like 'it takes two to tango' to suggest sanctioning a productive editor who is currently being harassed by another with a history of bad behaviour. Because an interaction ban *is* a sanction on an editor and requires evidence to justify it. Not 'well it cant just be Mag's fault'. So please in the form of diffs, provide evidence that BU Rob should be sanctioned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stow the attitude. I'm not providing diffs because I'm not arguing Rob has culpability. I don't agree with your analysis and I'm showing the logical inconsistencies in your argumentation. I'm not misreading what you're saying. I understand full well the draconian outcome you're trying to rationalize. As for me, I would rather work for the good of the community and greater peace in the long term, and the way forward is through a mutual IBAN.Both Rob and Magioladitis have stated they want to be left alone. Let's have them leave each other alone. Preserving the atmosphere of collegiality takes precedence over whatever improvements any of us individually could make to the encyclopedia, especially those improvements that could be made at a later date. At the core of your argument seems to be the spurious claim that we shouldn't make an IBAN mutual because it would be an indignity to Rob. This really isn't a credible concern. We're not punishing, we're preventing. If we were punishing, we would care about things like culpability, and the indignity of punishing the target of one user's bad behavior.In any event, by your own characterization of Magioladitis there shouldn't be much of a delay between the implementation of an IBAN and Magioladitis receiving the indef block or community ban you appear to think is necessary. Honestly, this is where I am a bit confused about your position: Do you not believe Magioladitis would violate the IBAN in short order? If so, then what's there to lose? If not—that is, if Magioladitis complies with the IBAN—then how could you argue the IBAN wouldn't work? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not providing diffs because I'm not arguing Rob has culpability." Yes you are. You have repeatedly. You have suggested sanctioning another editor based on clichés and zero evidence. You have deliberately twice stated I said something I didn't. So any 'attitude' you receive, like Mag, is entirely of your own doing. Since you decline to provide any evidence another editor deserves sanctioning, I can safely assume there is no evidence that anyone else is at fault. Thanks for confirming it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. I'm not arguing culpability. I'm suggesting applying a nonpunitive IBAN to two editors who can't get along. Culpability isn't required for a sanction, only that the sanction will cure the underlying behavior. Nor do I have to provide evidence that Rob is disruptive: The disruption caused by their interactions, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, is evidence enough. You've not provided one substantive reason why a mutual IBAN is improper here, while I've provided numerous arguments why one would work great. All you've done is said it's unfair to punish Rob with an IBAN, but as I've explained, that's flat out wrong. This is not punitive. Moreover, any sanction that Magioladitis receives won't be to provide relief to Rob, but to protect the community. You can go on denying that if you like, of course. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death what ways do you want me to change? The ArbCom case examined the part of my editing and my contact with people. I had no issues with my edits or whatsever after that. I have only one request: The community to find a way that Rob and me do not inteact for a while. Any try to have interaction has gone bad. Maybe it's my fault or I don't know. Rob does not seem to understand that a while I do not want any comments from him in my talk page or in the areas I am trying to contribute. To be honest, I have tried to interact in various occassions but it seems my actions are understood as impollite the same way I understand Rob's actions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are an editor who has no intention of desisting from editing in the BOT area, asking the community to prevent one of the other experienced editors in the BOT area from interacting with you when you have an extended history of causing issues is ridiculous. Per WP:HOUND given your history, every editor with even a passing interest in the bot area could watch you like a hawk and it would be justified by policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death I already have a ban in the bot related area which I respect so any action here is not related to bots and bot policies. I have not even made an automated edit the last month (and perhaps more). I pursuit to change area and switch back to things I 've been doing before bot work. This includes all types of gnome editing, template standardsation and participating in xFD discussions. I already found a compromise with Rob on some parts. I do not discuss bot policy, he does not get heavily involved in CHECKWIKI project. I think we should and can extend that. I think there is field of communication. There is bad faith on the air but we need to find a way (even if it technical in the beginning) to work it out. Something like "no comments to other's talk page" would suit me. It's not the first time I write this. Rob needs to give me space. There are other admins out there to discuss matters with me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are other admins out there to discuss matters with me. I have tried and you didn't like me discussing matters with you, to the point where you ignored and refused to answer questions I put to you, then complained that I might have had your talk page on my watchlist. (The background here is that Rob expressed a concern that Magioladitis behaviour might have been stalking, so I offered to ask). I arrived at your talk page, asked a series of questions to try and get to the bottom of the issue, and I'm still waiting for answers concerning your behaviour, but since we're here and talking about your behaviour - I'll ask again, how exactly did you find the edits Rob had made to some old images proposing their deletion if you weren't stalking his edits ? The reality, as I see it now, is that you don't want anybody to discuss anything with you, you want carte blanche to continue your disruptive behaviour, that you've gone rogue and are now a loose cannon on deck. If you intend to avoid a site ban, you need to think fast and explain now what you're going to do to change your behaviour. Nick (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick I think I replied to all your questions. Check my talk page. The fact that I arrived to this image it was an unlucky coincidence. I stated my comments in the FfD. I offered my email to you for further communication exactly because it was a concern about the Magio-Rob interaction. I am willing to reply to any questions about everything and I never denied an discussion with you at any point. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a short break on your part would be useful. It should not be a way to avoid an interaction ban or other sanction however. Nick (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear that Magioladitis behaviour is now at the boundary of net positive/net negative to the project. The behaviour on-wiki is clearly a net negative for the project but is offset by outreach and technical contributions to the wider Wikimedia project. I support an interaction ban but I'm also not opposed to a straight site ban (of fixed duration - 6 months to 1 year in the first instance). This behaviour cannot be permitted further. Nick (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick the interaction ban is the first step to take. If this does not work we will have to think of stronger enforcements. But I am confident interaction ban will work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick I do not have good interctions with Rob. I don't critise the comments themselves but the fact that I get so many comments by him and that he keeps writing on my talk page even to third-parties. Do you think it's normal that he replies to others in my talk page after all this things that have happened? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support one-way I-ban--Notwithstanding Magio's outright false accusations, his terrible on-wiki behaviour and the fact that two ArBCom cases coupled with the general views of the community about his actions have not eased things up, I feel we could give him one very last opputunity before we seek to site-ban him.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave06:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on I-ban; site ban doesn't seem justified. Supportive of a bot operation / high speed editing ban on the general principle that running bots is outside of our "anyone can edit" principle, so people who do it should be held to high standards. I wrote some similar things in the discussion sections of Mag's two arb cases if anyone cares. It's also perfectly fine to be a bot developer without operating the bots on the live server. Test the bot on an article or two or in some userspace pages, then let someone else do the production runs. That's how most real-life system software works anyway (the programmers and the operators are separate sets of people). 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the overlap an I-ban is worthless and implies that Rob actually should be restricted in some way - anything that would restrict him from the good work he does regarding bots should be shot down. I would support anything from a one-way I-ban for Mag, up to and including a complete ban from bot-related editing, or even a site ban at this point. Its clear from the evidence presented he has been stalking Rob's edits in order to harass him and is just the last in a long list of anti-social behavior. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death where is shown that I am stalking his edits? On the contrary Rob has been even commeting my ta page addressing to others: [39]. My talk page is clarly in his watchlist. What is part of my behavior? I feel that I am being stalked and I came directly to the community. --- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rob has presented evidence in the form of diffs that indicate you have been going through his past edits - and linked to the relevant discussions where your concerns were investigated and found to have no legitimate reason to do so. You on the other hand have presented.... what? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I state above, if these two cannot get along professionally, and their interactions are so damaging to the community as to outweigh the benefits of their contributions to any particular area of Wikipedia, then who cares what benefits either provides to bots? IBAN them from each other. If one or the other is gaming it to lock the other out of bots, then that person will be sanctioned. The logical leap that an IBAN means that Rob would somehow be restricted from doing "good work" on bots goes too far. Rather, this would let Rob get back to work. I am unconvinced that any overlap here is actually a problem. These are intelligent individuals. If one is obsessed with the other, then that one will violate the IBAN in pretty short order. The implication that this longstanding problem, that has not resulted in a siteban despite two ArbCom cases and untold other drama, can be cured entirely by cutting one person out of the equation is contrary to everything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Disputes don't last this long unless there's at least some toxicity on both sides. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no issue with the two of them getting along professionally. There is an issue with Magioladitis stalking another editor's edits in a vindictive attempt to get revenge for being blocked from playing with his favorite toy. "The implication that this longstanding problem, that has not resulted in a siteban despite two ArbCom cases and untold other drama, can be cured entirely by cutting one person out of the equation is contrary to everything I've ever seen on Wikipedia." Well you clearly have not paid attention, Wikipedia at AN and Arbcom have a long history of cutting disruptive editors out. It stops the disruption extremely quickly. "Disputes don't last this long unless there's at least some toxicity on both sides." Ah the Donald Trump 'both sides' approach. Yeah that argument has no basis in fact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I think we have a new version of Godwin's Law being born here. I'm weirdly honored. Anyway, to get to the logical inconsistencies in your response, compare Wikipedia at AN and Arbcom have a long history of cutting disruptive editors out. It stops the disruption extremely quickly. with the facts. Neither AN/ANI nor ArbCom have taken the step of "cutting out" any particularly disruptive editor here, nor has there been any cure it would seem. As I said before, if these two editors cannot get along professionally, then require them to stop interacting. If Magioladitis is the panting, drooling, unhinged monster you make them out to be, then the IBAN will be violated in very short order, and we'll move to a proper siteban. Honestly, even for ANI, I am stunned with how quickly the torches and pitchforks came out. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately dense or you genuinely are unable to read an archive. You do know AN/ANI has handled hundreds of site ban discussions for disruptive editors right? Likewise Arbcom over the years has often site-banned editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I say above, you can't have it both ways. AN/ANI and ArbCom can't be so effective at handling disruptive editors as you claim, yet impotent to handle what you are painting as a clear-cut, one-sided, obvious case. Come on now. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed. This will resolve the interaction issues, as this is the topic area that the interactions were being made from. The community has clearly, repeatedly, and continuously expressed their frustrations, concerns, and their lack of confidence with Magioladitis' judgment in this topic area, as well as exhausted community resources and time (including numerous talk discussions on many pages, multiple ANI discussions, and two ArbCom cases - and to no avail), and this topic ban will resolve the concerns and put and end to it completely. Most importantly, this topic ban will allow Magioladitis to remain a member of the project (a logical and fair alternative to a full site ban) and give him the chance to contribute positively and be a net positive in other topic areas, while prohibiting him from the topic area that we agree will cause him to become a net negative. This will also place the ball completely in his court; either things will go well and we won't have any more problems, or they wont - and we'll know that the writing is clearly on the wall. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)07:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to put on record that, as a Software Engineer myself and as someone who has a passion for computers, code, scripts, and automation (that probably cannot be matched with the level of passion that Magioladitis has for the same thing)........... this was very very hard for me to write. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah I recently had interactions with Rob in an FfD and in a rights request. This is outside the automation area. It turns we iinteract in more areas than expected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apart from a possible boomerang for Magioladitis for filing a completely frivolous case in his section, I don't see anything actionable here. Magioladitis should possibly be admonished, but unless you're willing to agree to a two-way IBAN I don't see anything else that can be done. It's clear you don't like each other, is it possible for you to not like each other without involving ANI in it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This shows that the intearaction is not limited in one area. I am requesting i-ban for months now. -- Magioladitis (talk)
I found that template because you showed up in my watchlist converting many pages to use {{Official website}} instead of a regular hyperlink, with some of those changes resulting in errors due to bad data on Wikidata. Your edits were highly visible because you did a large number of them from a non-bot-flagged account, something editors have been trying to get you not to do for years; that's on you. I quietly reverted the erroneous addition to the documentation because I thought that was the path-of-least-drama; the alternative would be to start an ANI or something to get others to do it. As for "off-wiki communication", WP:INVOLVED states to pass issues to uninvolved admins as necessary, which is what I did; I posted openly in #wikipedia-en-admins on IRC, a channel available to every enwiki admin, asking someone to look at the de-PROD. I suggested no particular action for them to take, just asked for eyes on it. This is what the policy tells me to do. I have never privately communicated with anyone off-wiki about Magioladitis' behavior, such as by email, as Magioladitis has claimed (except to the Arbitration clerks when asking them to look at the personal-attack-riddled evidence section). I did it where any admin could see. I was trying to avoid the drama of ANI, though I'll just take it here in the future, given how severe things have become. ~ Rob13Talk12:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will refrain from any comments in your talk page. Please, respect me and do the same. I don't want to avoid control of my editing. I only ask you to limit your interactions with me to the minimum. Is that not possible? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem doing that, mostly because I've been doing it already. The totality of interactions with you since the second ArbCom case have been you coming to my talk page to complain about a 9-month-old comment, you de-PRODing a file I PRODed for no apparent reason, and my intentionally brief oppose to your request for template editor (where you responded by personally attacking me). Where in that do you see a lot of unnecessary interaction on my part? ~ Rob13Talk14:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the first: I believe that you tried to defame my work outside the frame of the ArbCom scope since my work is much more than just the bot editing. I think your comments were negative and unjustified. For the second: I had a reason because I worked in a smiliar way that we do not speedy delete redirects that are too old because of incoming links, etc. The FfD was the right route and as you see I did not pursuit further. The third one was only an echoing of that unfortunate situation. I have good intentions and I really would like that we discuss in a better environment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is this supposed to be evidence of? There is no existing IBAN, and this behavior is generally fine without one. Most of these diffs are very stale, and [42] is a very weak argument; I would expect somebody familiar with the case could figure out everything Nick said without detailed off-wiki conversation. @Magioladitis:, apart from the single comment at WP:PERM, do you have any diffs from September or October that are relevant? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
power~enwiki I am not sure if there are more diffs since I have done little editing the past 2 months due to my busy schedule. The thing that annoys me is that after my topic ban to bot policy I decided to switch back to other areas I have been editing for long time (xFds, template standardidation, Wikidata transition, etc.) and I still find Rob in all the forums I try to comment or act. So I do not want to see more drama with this person and I would like to protect myself somehow. Seeing the same person commenting in every BRFA I submitted, replying to people in my talk page it's too much. I do not want to see that happening again; at least for a while. Even his nomination for BAG member had a specific mention to CHEKCWIKI, a project I 've been running for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've seen enough. The last BRFA he interacted with you on was in August. Your only interaction with BU_Rob13 at XfD appears to be a response to a file he nominated, after you declined a PROD. This obviously isn't stalking or hounding on his part. I think you're acting in bad faith with this complaint, and after two ARBCOM cases I see no reason to give you more time. I Support any sanction up to a site ban of Magioladitis if this farce continues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
power~enwiki The de-prod led to a complain and then there was on more interaction in the rights page but there is a long history of comments in the past. Rob, I think, has agreed to stay away from my talk page and I'll stay away from his. I think we are finding a solution here. Some other misunderstandings have also been discussed in this thread. Don't you think that the situation de-escalates via this disscussion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no doubt that BURob has been very active in putting the case against Magioladitis in a number of fora in recent years. I think we may also accept without cavil that Magioladitis sees this as going beyond "just happening to be involved in that area", and that even if wrong, this is not an unreasonable belief.
Therefore it would be wise of BURob to avoid this sort of behaviour, unless we are to believe that no other editor is ready, willing and able to present the other side of the coin to that proposed by Magioladitis. I am pleased to see from the above comments that he is trying to disengage, though I have to admit it comes as a surprise given history of these interactions.
I've voiced my opinion, certainly, but I must insist on noting that I have started a grand total of one discussion about Magioladitis ever. This is compared to Magioladitis starting at least four discussions about me this year alone (two attempts at revoking one of my bot approvals, this discussion, and a discussion falsely claiming I gave false advice about bots). Ever since Magioladitis openly speculated about my location on-wiki, I have not felt particularly safe interacting with him, and so I have taken quite a bit of personal attacks, harassment, etc. from him without comment. It would have been possible/reasonable to take him to ANI after just about any of the incidents I noted above, but I never did, because I don't want to deal with the ensuing interactions. I've tried the "Ignore him and he'll go away" strategy from grade school pretty much since the beginning. No luck so far, although I remain hopeful. ~ Rob13Talk19:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The location comment came from my will to meet you in person and de-escalate any misunderstandings that have happenned on-wiki. If you check by that time many people were discussing who and how they go to Wikimania. If you think this was insulting or outing attempt, you can request the hide the edit in question. I apologise if you felt that way but my intention is to descalate any situation that has happened with you and not the opposite. I have met many of the people participating in the project offline and I always try to meet the people who contribute to the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very opposed to a two-way interaction ban here. Besides the fact that legitimate criticism != harassment and that BURob13 has done nothing wrong here, it sets the precedent that all someone has to do is cry "harassment!!!!" and the admin is sanctioned at ANI. I would support a site ban for Magioladitis. I just don't think he understands or will listen to criticism. --Rschen775402:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Rob has said that he won't comment in my talk page (in addition to the fact that he has already walked away from CHECKWIKI bot related discussions), I am OK satisfied that we are finding a way to cooperate in a solution here. From my side we can close the thread. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a coincidence that this thread was filed against me 3 minutes after I said I had reached my breaking point and was going to file something when I got home. I also don't think it's a coincidence the person filing this ANI desperately requesting protection against something that wasn't even happening is suddenly happy to pack up and go home as soon as it's clear the community isn't buying the baseless accusations. Personally, I'm very tired of this, and I'd like an actual solution. This very thread is the latest attempt to target me, and so I just don't buy that this will go away if nothing is done. It's about two ArbCom cases and a half dozen ANI threads late for another chance. ~ Rob13Talk03:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you that I am going to seek solution even before the second ArbCom. I am not sure why you want to have so much intearction with me. You have commented in all my BRFAs. What was the reason to even reply to others in my talk page? E.g. [43] and one minute later this: [44]. And these examples were during the cases. Do not you think this causes extra stress to me? Can you please name me another person you had so much interaction as with me? Were you just trying to help? Here you commented in m BRFA 1 minute after I posted. Here: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] (and in many other places) you were the first to comment and all comments were within less than an hour. Here within 2 minutes: [52]. Sometimes you comment to me that fast you had to reconsider: [53]. Some things I do may seem to be outdated (like my comments about trying to defame me etc) but this is because of my workload. I am trying to find a way to cooperate with you but for reason it fails. I do not try to limit your actions as admin and I would like to find a solution that you keep commenting when necessary but we do not interact that much. Sometimes with your comments you seem to want me out of the project. I have told you already that your actions, whether you wanted it or not, led others outside the project. We would not be doing this. Doing your admins tasks is not a reason to comment that much in the places I comment and participate. Wikipedia has many admins to control. I do not try to defame your work but sometimes you seem to act too much when it comes to me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Those diffs from the BRFAs come less than week after all of Magioladitis' bot approvals were revoked for cause. He chose to file 25 BRFAs within 48 hours, which was extremely noticeable, since it caused the WP:BRFA page to basically break. Since the issues with the past bot approvals that led to revocation were mostly caused by lack of oversight, yes, I went through as many as I had time to check and evaluated them. I supported many and opposed a few or asked for more details. I think I commented on about half of the 25, which is consistent with the number of BRFAs I comment on generally – I am, after all, a BAG member. That's what the community wanted to happen when the bot approvals were revoked. The only reason there's so many diffs is because he spammed the bot approval process. This was way back in February, for the record, not recent at all. ~ Rob13Talk14:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may get me an SPI but I agree with Magioladitis, in part. You've stressed him out a lot, and two of you used this API to argue with each other (ahem, Only in death and Mendaliv, that's not what we do on the Administrators Noticeboard.). I hate to be the voice of doom, but nobody else has commented for hours now. We've had a result already.This API is dead, let's close it. Sorry if this tone offends anybody, it's not intentional. TomBarker23 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it "offends anybody", but I do have to confess that I don't have much idea what you're talking about here. --Begoon11:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps the harshest criticism of ANI that I've ever seen; if we don't implement a sanction without thinking within hours, the whole thread is dead? Harsh (but possibly accurate). In any event, multiple editors have called for a site ban. At this point, if nothing is done, I'll probably kick it to ArbCom as a dispute the community is unable to solve. ~ Rob13Talk13:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to go back to ArbCom honestly. I'm very uncomfortable with the torches-and-pitchforks attitude that has dominated this discussion, as well as the "It's 100% Magioladitis" attitude, which strikes me as hopelessly simplistic. We should seek a nuanced outcome, and the Committee at least provides a structure in which nuance can exist. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs in Magioladitis's post of 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) are all pretty stale. The most recent one is from July 10, and most of the remainder are from February 2017. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa Yes. In my first attempts to do something else after 2 months of rarely editing I had two bad interactions after months of a lot of interctions with Rob. That's why I came here. If I want to edit I just need less stress from Rob. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome
Editors have supported various outcomes above. Can we come to some consensus to avoid having to return to ArbCom for Magioladitis 3? ~ Rob13Talk20:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a couple of trout would do better. Rob knows that he need not jump in on anything Magioladitis proposes, and that it will cause drama and stress. Magioladitis knows he should not "rise to the bait" as this exacerbates the situation.
Magioladitis is quite responsive to other editors, in the present case he followed Sladen's advice, and the issue is resolved.
I think Rob's evidence of hounding is strong enough that, at a bare minimum, Magioladitis needs to be admonished not to do that. I would prefer stronger outcomes, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (a) This situation is indeed one-sided; BU Rob has done nothing wrong. (b) Something has to happen here to make Magioladitis realize that he's again wasted a hell of a lot of people's time. Since (other than that) he hasn't done anything recently to piss me off personally, for the moment I'm open to anything from trout on up, and I'd like to hear others' opinions. EEng22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, despite his claim that he does not "initiate" anything, he has initiated this sub-section and initiated a mass ping. He also initiated objections to Magioladitis not being granted TE privileges. That's within the last couple of days. He has also initiated discussions on Magioladitis's BRFAs.
Really BU Rob behaves pretty well elsewhere, but I do find his behaviour WRT Magioladitis lacking.
A few suggestions for Magioladitis. (1) Don't pop in on Rob's talk page and demand an apology in September for a remark he made in January. That's ancient history in Internet years. Likewise, when making your case here at ANI, don't pull up stuff from months ago to demonstrate your point. Time to start fresh and let the auld stuff go. Rob certainly seems to be trying to do that. (2) Don't request any added permissions or such for quite a while. You were only recently de-sysopped. (3) Find something fresh to do that is useful and technical yet outside your previous work. Suggestions: formatting citations such as at Category:Wikipedia references cleanup; working on Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request; and the like. Perhaps I'm naive :). Also, see Wikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my preferred outcome would be for a voluntary two-way IBAN. And, to suggest a new area, perhaps one of you could try to improve the Government article. Don't both volunteer at once. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (edit conflict) I agree with User:EEng. There's nothing wrong on Rob's part. For Magioladitis, comments like this (and many others) really confirms they are not hearing anything that's being said. I find User:Diannaa's suggestions very helpful, and I would propose to format these suggestions into formal editing restriction. The idea is to get the user to contribute productively without continuously wasting the time of everybody here in English Wikipedia. Alex ShihTalk03:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with EEng, thus:
I strongly opposeany sanction on BU Rob, who has done nothing wrong;
I support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed for Magioladitis, as suggested by Oshwah, above;
And a warning for Magioladitis: One can be competent as a bot engineer, and incompetent at Wikipedia, and it is increasingly apparent -- to me at least -- that you may well be the latter. Thus, if a discussion like this comes up again, the only sanction I will be strongly supporting is an indef site ban for you. You have clearly crossed the threshold between net positive and net negative, and only your previous contributions prevents me from supporting that sanction right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed for Magioladitis and for the exact reasons I explained above. Having reviewed this ANI discussion in its entirety, as well as the discussions and pages that started this ANI discussion - I find that BU Rob13 has not violated any behavioral policies or guidelines with his interactions or discussions with Magioladitis. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah did you get under consideration and the older diffs from February I added? Rob said that one of the reasons h was doing is that he is BAG member dut he was confirmed as BAG member in July i.e. 4 months later. Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding says that "where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I have indicated many places where Rob has interacted with me. For example how does this make any sense? We had multiple interactionsot limited to automation. a) Template documentation b) Policy page c) Multiple interactions in BRFA d) User talk pages e) Rights request f) xFD. And probably other which I forget. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The incompetence shown again, and again, and again, is just staggering. Looking at his edits today, they make a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Opt-in "Edit source" for new accounts? based on utter bollocks arguments, and continue in the same vein with more nonsense when this is pointed out; and they are "alphabetising" external links to Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest and Twitter, with the caveat that they don't even know the alphabet apparently: like here (twice) and here, and here. And here, apparently. here they go from the correct alphabetic order to their own idea of it.
Either they are incompetent, or they are running some badly programmed automation on their account which consistently makes the same error (which would also make them incompetent, but at a different level).
In any case, after the above discussion, seeing how they cause problems and show incompetence at nearly everything they do here, I think it is time to just say "enough is enough" and not bother with further topic bans, restrictions, ... and just end this here and now. Fram (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[54] this is not just moving Twitter to the bottom, it switches Facebook and Instagram as well. This one doesn't even have Twitter in it. You simply can't be trusted to edit or comment correctly, and this has only become worse over the years it seems. Fram (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I've not seen anything in this proposal that actually merits a siteban. Having bad ideas, which is all I can really gather from this proposal, is not and has never been a bannable offense. Even if we factor in some of Magioladitis's more confusing behavior, it's evident from the above discussion that there's something more going on here that merits a more nuanced approach. That is, this case should go back to ArbCom. This is simply not a dispute suitable for resolving with a community ban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may well end up at ArbCom, but I see very few people apart from you notice anyhing "more" going on here apart from problems with Magioladitis' editing. Fram (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As I said above, were this so simple as there being a clear good guy and clear bad guy, ArbCom or the community would have easily removed the bad guy ages ago. I think there's an emergent toxic behavioral dynamic that needs to be addressed. I don't see the point in shrieking about another editor's incompetence over a handful of diffs. Particularly when it's obvious he or she just used the wrong edit summary when updating external links to rely on Wikidata rather than manual entries. I think that's quite a helpful set of edits you list above. Big deal if the edit summary was wrong. That's not bannable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No: I oppose your false claims against BURob, I oppose your problematic editing, I oppose the false claims in your proposal and the ludicrous (and in one case highly unethical) followup statements you made there, and seeing that the problems with you stretch back for years and only increase in frequency, I see no reason to let you continue editing any longer. Fram (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He/she also keeps adding entries to Deaths in 2017 in non-alphabetical order, despite being told not to. This person doesn't seem to interact and adhere to instruction.
It was created (innocently I would assume) using OneClickArchiver (a script that's a bit problematical as it's very widely used but there's no support for it at present). It's now redirected to the parent page, not by me but that seems like the best idea. WT:AIVis archived (so far only to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1). Our software etc doesn't handle his very well; Viewing the talk page archive now offers a Project page link that redirects back to WP:AIV. But that's probably adequate and best we can reasonably do right now. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there's cause for concern that User:他删之石 is not communicating with other editors. However, the part about adding the next day too early seems a very minor point. Yes, he's been referred to the FAQ, but the FAQ does not say "don't add a day before it has begun in the Eastern Hemisphere". It's a bit more equivocal than that. Further, when editing Deaths in 2017, there is nothing in the very long (longest I've ever seen embedded in an article) set of instructions in the comments at the top of the page...that says nothing about when to add a day. Also, if you directly edit October, such instructions are not displayed in the edit window because they're at the top of the page, not in each month. Even if you did copy the instructions to every month, an editor might not see them because they could edit day 19 and add day 20 without every seeing the instructions.
I took a look at Deaths in 2015, and that page has a page notice (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Deaths in 2015). There's also one for 2014 and 2013. 2016 and 2017 do not have one. Also, if you look at 2016#Deaths, it has "Main article: Deaths in 2016". That takes you to Lists_of_deaths_by_year#2016, where it has "See also: 2016 § Deaths" which is a circular redirect back to 2016#Deaths. Just a cursory review of this seems like how these pages are managed is a bit random and unclear to the outsider. I'm not surprised that 他删之石 at least appears to have not known when to add days. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, although the FAQ does say "A new date is added when a new day starts in the Eastern Hemisphere." That, in my view, implies "not before" the new day starts. But I agree that it can be made more clear. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The alphabetical order issue is now, in my view, even more problematic. In previous edits the user generally added new persons at the top of each day's list. In the latest edit [56], he/she added the person at the bottom, when it actually should have been added at the top... --Marbe166 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And that edit postdates the notice of this thread. @他删之石: you need to respond to this thread please. Ignoring this thread and continuing as you have before is NOT an option. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probable impersonation and disruptive behavior by new user "Nof9"
Last week I posted here about an IP editor who had been engaging in disruptive behavior on a few articles, including the biography for Intel's CEO, Brian Krzanich. As disclosed at Talk:Brian Krzanich, Intel is a client of mine through an intermediary PR firm, North of Nine Communications. Following this, Drmies and Timtempleton stepped in and the issue seemed to be settled. Now a new user account, registered only yesterday, has commented in the thread linked above (live here, until archived) and also in a series of confusing, argumentative posts at Talk:Brian Krzanich echoing those of the IP editor. This account makes some incoherent arguments about the article content, and accuses me of lying about Krzanich being a client, but the reason I bring it up is because the account name they are using is Nof9 which seems to me an obvious effort to impersonate North of Nine (whose website is nof9.com). If nothing else, this account can surely be blocked under WP:ORGNAME. I also suggest this article continue to be closely watched, as whomever is behind the chaos doesn't seem ready to give it up yet. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Funny timing, I was just finishing a response to this user at a deletion discussion I initiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Harris, where the user is making a peculiar argument against BLP1E, then happened to see the same username in the newest entry on this page. There is rally strange editing history here, such as the seemingly disjointed nonsense text at User:Nof9/sandbox, which btw was the users first edit, then the afd, then this Brian Krzanich article. ValarianB (talk)
OK, we are dealing with ongoing disruption here. The arguments brought up on the Krzanich talk page and in that AfD are pure nonsense. Plus, and BU Rob can confirm this, there is...well, whatever we want to call it. Then there is the matter of the user name, of course: it is clear to me that a block per NOTHERE is warranted.
Now, lest it be argued that I have some sort of interest here, because I supported Timtempleton's edit on the article, I have no interest in this person, and the careful reader will see I de-fluffed it some, but I invite your scrutiny. I also think that this user has some sort of obsession with the subject, and so we'll need to keep an eye on it. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editor creating poor machine translations of French articles with no attribution
بلهواري محمد فيصل (talk·contribs) has created 22 articles, almost all if not all being very bad translations from the French Wikipedia. I posted details of how to fix this on the 15th, asking them to stop creating articles and fix the old ones first. User:Mathglot made a similar request in French. Unfortunately these requests were ignored. Two of the 22 articles have been deleted, one after the editor blanked it and the other as an expired Prod added by User:Cabayi. That one was prodded as gibberish, eg "He made a long journey towards consecration. They were very efficient and fought with a valiant heart and an exemplary correction. Today, the face marked by the trial and the challenge, he returns to the news of the ring that has so much capsized the hearts of Algerians." and "The Algerian pugilate had just discovered a charming slugger, a baby-face without any sprain. A headliner which raised a clamor to the rhythm of a December 1960. A euphemism that the legend has put back on the carpet after the famous fight Maxschmilling-Joe Louis before the Führer."
Just to add the observations that their sole talk page edit so far has been this one which looks like a misplaced attempt at article creation. They have used no non-auto-generated edit summaries and have not yet appeared to be interested in communicating with other editors, despite attempts by others to communicate in English, French, and Arabic on their talk page. For whatever that observation is worth to any passing admin. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)20:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the terms of the question as posed by Doug Weller, for the duration of ACTRIAL, stripping the user of autoconfirmed would have the desired effect BUT I don't think it's the right thing to do.
The user's contributions, though incomprehensible, are obviously well-intentioned. They are clearly the result of having insufficient grasp of English to polish up the machine translation, or even to spot that the machine translation is meaningless.
The user's failure to respond on their talk page is either a refusal to collaborate, or the result of insufficient English skills to realise that collaboration is required. The second explanation would seem more in keeping with the general pattern.
Stripping autoconfirmed and forcing (permitting?) the user to create drafts which are unusable and, on past experience, beyond rescue, is a cruel misuse of their time which could be better and more fruitfully used on the French or Arabic wikis.
Just for clarity, does that mean, "They appear to have now started responding on ar.wiki" or, "They appear to have previously started their editing pattern on ar.wiki?". Thanks. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the timeline, the poor communications, the unattributed copying, and the reported similar conduct on other wikis, I have blocked indefinitely. I thank Doug Weller for bringing this up. --John (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think there are grounds for simply deleting the articles created, but they are extremely badly written. I guess stub and there must be a template for the talk page about the translation? Doug Wellertalk12:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Translated page. Basically: {{translated page|fr|<title in French>}} - if they are indeed translations from French Wikipedia. I started with the earliest and didn't see much resemblance, myself, although I didn't check for earlier versions of the French articles. Note that a regular cleanup tag, as I see being used on these articles, does little good and can lead to inaccuracies as people try to guess what was intended. The proper procedure is to report these in the rough translations section of Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English; there is a template to put at the top of the article and then you list it under "Translated pages that could still use some cleanup". However, raw machine translations are deletable, because they do more harm than good. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This case is but a small drop in the larger bucket of editors using machine translation to rapidly create articles, each one of which may take conscientious translator/editors and administrators significant manual effort to clean up or undo. (Most of the time they are never cleaned up.) While there has been significant gnashing of teeth among translators about this issue in various forums including at WP:PNT, in the wake of the ContentTranslation tool debacle, the feeling among translators is, I believe, that this problem has not been sufficiently addressed yet by the larger community. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 mentions it but has an escape clause that makes it useless for all but the purest gibberish.) In my view, beyond the problem of article quality, the more serious problem engendered by the perceived lack of attention to this issue is the disillusionment among translator/editors leading some with relatively rare skills to abandon the project. This whole issue is a large one and if there is significant interest we should adjourn to WT:Translation to discuss it, but this seemed like an opportune moment to bring it up. Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page has trolling contents by anti social elements who tries to insult the celebrities of this Movie.. Kindly unlock this which is locked by bot.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabu0 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm not seeing any of what this user is describing, but there is pretty much constant vandalism over box office returns, among other issues, which has occurred despite semi-protection. Perhaps time to up the protection level? ansh66605:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't file any SPI without knowing the sockmaster account. He says I am an old user who has taken special admin's (yunshui) permission to edit from this alternate account.@Yunshui:statesI would therefore appreciate it it if you would remove the claim that I have given you "permission" to edit from this account, since I have not done so. --MarvellousSpider-Man05:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not 100% happy about the phrasing of the "permission" thing on their userpage, but KA$HMIR has now disclosed their former account to me via email - they are not under any sanctions, have not violated the multiple accounts policy, and are using this account in line with the privacy provision of WP:SOCKLEGIT. I've therefore unblocked the account. Yunshui雲水13:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior described in the previous report had resumed. Diffs: [66], [67]. This user's POV appears to be causing disruptive editing (removing relevant text, removing sourced text, adding insured text in its place), specifically the removal of mentions of Christianity from White supremacists related article.
This user seems to be a constructive editor on music article. Perhaps a topic ban around Christianity or race would be better than a block?
Relevant discussion of interest. The POV editing is quite obvious and should be sanctioned; it's interesting to note it might not effective though, seeing the user has seemingly never engaged in any kind of communication (100% of 349 edits are in the mainspace). Alex ShihTalk06:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complete absence of communication I don't think it's unreasonable to block the user until they agree to start collaborating. Communication is not optional. ATraintalk07:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: Reasonable, but this editor has never responded to anything, including the previous ANI report. IMHO, if they edit again without responding, admin action would be appropriate. Otherwise, I think we should consider a t-ban. EvergreenFir(talk)18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this diff a borderline legal threat can be found -- Is it admin / Wikipedia policy to leave it to the victim to obtain fairness via legal action against admins or Wikipedia ?. Some appropriate action ought to be taken -- it might be best to read around a bit, concerning the subject and the content dispute on this article. Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 09:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Karlwinn It's against two of Wikipedia's main principles to threaten legal action. Nothing posted on Wikipedia that does not violate copyright is illegal. Keep editing, but please don't threaten to use legal action again, it makes you really unpopular.TomBarker23 (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TomBarker23, I mean the following in all sincerity. It's great that you're an eager new contributor, but ANI is not a good place for newbies to get their feet wet. You've been adding comments all over here suddenly, and a lot of them make no sense; your statement that Nothing posted on Wikipedia that does not violate copyright is illegal is preposterous. With your multilingual skills you'll be a great asset as a content contributor, so take my advice and hold on to your ANI-virginity as long as possible. Keep your mind on article editing until you've been around the block a few times. I repeat that this is sincere advice meant to help you remain a happy editor, and avoid premature aging. EEng17:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. the user in question is an WP:SPA whose mission is to whitewash an article about a racist neo-Nazi. Vanishingly little of value would be lost if the user were indef blocked for making legal threats, as is typical. ATraintalk10:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't close this down until another admin has reviewed my block and agreed that it's kosher. That's half the point of ANI. ATraintalk12:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Topic ban for tendentious editor Kautilya3
I was preparing to start edit some pages and I went through the old talk page archives to understand how the articles I was interested in have been built so far. What I saw shocked me. I read some of the old discussions and say that a highly active user Kautilya3 has been engaging in Civil POV pushing/tendentious editing. Though these discussions are now many months old I see that Kautilya3 has not changed his skewed style of pro-India editing. Indeed this edit summary still displays a tendentious mentality.[[68]] Such skewed and nationally motivated editing is ruining the encyclopaedia.
Given Kautilya3's anti-Muslim and anti-Kashmiri and anti-Pakistan prejudices I propose he should be topic banned from editing anything related to Muslims and Kashmir.
I am tagging here respectable senior editor @Fowler&fowler: and administrator @Dbachmann: to note these diffs and check the tendentious editing which has taken place so far on many Kashmir pages.
Diffs
1. Here Kautilya3 makes clear his anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan and anti-Kashmir prejudices
[[69]]
a) Responsible editor @Vice Regent: noticed his anti-Muslim comments: [[70]] Vice Regent had to tell him to stick to policy based arguments rather than his personal opinions about Muslims. In his comment K3 called Pakistani and Kashmiri Muslims jihadis and showed he agreed with the anti-Muslim views expressed by Savarakar.
2. But Kautilya3 shows even more history in displaying prejudicial views This comment is particularly telling [[71]]
Here he remarks ' ' These Muslims might think that running around with guns is their birthright. We, in civilized world, don't think so' ' .
3. Here [[72]] he describes large numbers of Muslims as 'treacherous'.
4. And unfortunately this anti-Muslim prejudice has carried over into his editing. He calls reputable political scientist 'Christopher Snedden' a 'biased source'. Therefore, he not only discounts his views but demands to do research (something outside the scope of wikipedia editors).
5. Here [[73]] Kautilya3 claims Regarding the larger Kashmir dispute that you are talking about, let me just say that I am a Wikipedian and my job is to inform. It is not my place to make judgements on any party, nor to identify with them as being a part of "we". You should not do it either because it is prohibited under ARBIPA sanctions
a) Unfortunately he fails to live up to this standard. (example: attempting another round of original research: [[74]]
b) You can see this through his above linked anti-Muslim comments and also on the rest of the comments on his talk page which is basically original research where he picks sources suiting his prejudices to form views which later impact on how articles such as 1947 Jammu massacres and 1947 Poonch Rebellion were written.
c) You can also see this failure to live up to the standard he quoted through reading his comment here [[75]] which reads ' 'And, I suppose one could fault India for failing to enforce its legal obligations. But this is nothing like what Pakistan and its British officers had done. The "neutral" "third party" British scholars have no option but to cover for them.' '
In other words K3 cares not about NPOV and describing the scholarly literature but judging it himself per his own prejudices.
d i ) He fails this standard once again in his comment here, where he rejects 'most studies' because of his own personal opinion [[76]] Here he says ' 'Most studies of Kashmir also think of the Maharaja as a dimwit. But I don't think he was. He knew exactly what was happening in the State and was taking defensive measures. ' '
d ii)Once again in this same comment he shows a prejudice towards a scholar such as Christopher Snedden due to relying on Azad Kashmiri sources even though he himself had no problem with calling a RSS-citing scholar a 'reliable source' whom he freely cited on 1947 Jammu massacres.
e) Kautilya repeats this behaviour here [[77]]
Kautilya3 is doing original research and discounting scholarly opinions where it does not suit him in total disregard of NPOV policy. (Kautilya3 says ' 'We have practically no information available about it except for Sardar Ibrahim's memoirs. All the scholars have been basciall repackaging what he wrote' ') Again judging scholars and not describing viewpoints per NPOV.
5. Kautilya3 was also warned by a respectable senior editor Fowler&fowler to not engage in such behaviour here[[78]]
a) Kautilya responded against what he termed as the'Muslim POV gripe' [[79]]
b) Fowler&fowler told him not to compare unequal sources [[80]]
c) Folwer&fowler also expressed concern at what Kautilya3 had been doing to the page [[81]] and also castigated his use of low-quality Hindu nationalist sources on the Kashmir page [[82]]
6. Kautilya3 forms 'judgements' prejudicial not only to Muslims but also against the British. In one comment he goes to the extent of mocking the death of a British citizen. (Kautilya3 says that he ' 'paid for his sins' ') [[83]]
a) Even his friend TylerDurden, a blocked sock master, noted Kautilya3's comment as strong [[84]] He says ' 'So I feel we shouldn't say that he deserved his early death at 35 years. Just saying. :) ' '
Kautilya3 does not even then deny that he floated over someone's death.
7, Here [[85]] he claims a figure of '30,000 and '20,000' Hindus and Sikhs killed by Muslims. When user Mar4d pointed out that the source for the '20,000' figure comes from a RSS activist being cited in a scholarly book Kautilya3 responded ' 'I am afraid you are second-guessing a reliable source. If we were basing our information on Balraj Madhok, we would definitely attribute it. But we are basing it on Das Gupta. How he gets information and what he finds reliable and what he doesn't, is not our business. Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts the information, it is not proper to question it.' '
a) So according to Kautilya3 when a scholar conveys Hindu/Sikh casualties from a RSS source it should not be asked where a scholar gets their information from. [[86]] But when a scholar backs a Muslim perspective then Kautilya3 will even declare that reputable scholar such as Christopher Snedden as 'biased' because they used 'Muslim' or 'Azad Kashmiri' sources.[[87]] and [[88]]
b) I will quote his comment about scholar Christopher Snedden from the second diff here: ' ' If you look at his book, the majority of his sources are Muslim Conference sources, in particular Sardar Ibrahim's book. He only uses the State government sources for confirmation. He ignores the British government sources. For example, the British High Commissioner's evidence, covered by Rakesh Ankit, is found nowhere in his book. So, I maintain that his book is a biased source. It cannot be treated as neutral third party source. ' '
8. So as you can see Kautilya3 is a POV pusher due to his treatment of scholarly sources as 'biased' or 'reliable' as per his own opinions. He picks and chooses opinions of his own liking. Just like Fowler&fowler said about his use of Hindu nationalist sources.
c) Even his friend the blocked sock master Tyler Durden had noticed Kautilya3's convenient discounting of sources if they are linked to Pakistan [[89]]
d) While here [[90]] Kautilya3 has discounted a writer who works for Pakistan he has no problem relying for content in the name of 'neutrality' on someone linked with the Indian state [[91]]
e) Again Kautilya3 makes a comment where he refuses to countenance Richard Symonds for being pro-Pakistan according to Indian Prime Minister Nehru.[[92]]
But he himself takes seriously sources from the Indian Government [[93]]
9. It becomes even more obvious when checking this discussion between Kautilya3 and Tyler Durden that Kautilya3 is here on a pro-India agenda, discussing on what India should have 'done', how scholars are regurgitating a perspective they do not like (again contradicts with Kautilya3's own comment that reliable sources should not be second-guessed).
The comment by Kautilya was ' ' What can you do outside Wikipedia? Well, you can do a Ph.D. on it and write high-quality journal articles. Then we will be able to cover them in Wikipedia.' '
In other words for K3 is not about describing scholarly opinions but making them. Now compare these words to what he said about ARBIPA sanctions to Tyler about not making judgements.
Basically its all personal research and conclusions (last link) which they plan to somehow enter into wikpedia (see Kautilya3's comments in first link). Since they are not happy with what the 'scholars' (RS) and 'most studies' say they are clearly here on wiki with an agenda to influence scholarly opinion and and have abused the writing of wikipedia articles with biased treatment of sources
10. Again this comment here [[98]] also shows us Kautilya3's pro-India editing. It's an obvious fact from his skewed editing and skewed treatment of sources and his comments that he is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Sardeeph (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not actionable. Two brand new editors proposing a block and a topic ban in one our most contentious areas? Rather fishy. The diffs provided above seem to be an attempt to sling enough mud that something sticks. Sardeeph really needs to read WP:TLDR. Those diffs that I've reviewed are not a problem; at worst, Kautilya is engaging in off-topic discussions, which isn't remotely a block-able or ban-able offence. These diffs aside, I've worked with Kautilya for many years now, and he is among the few folks demanding fealty to reliable sources in a topic that is ridden with POV pushing, socking, vandalism, and many other forms of disruption. The fact that he is accused of being anti-Muslim more or less as often as he is accused of being anti-Hindu is a sign that he is doing things right. Vanamonde (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia no editor is indispensable. It does not matter how many years K3 has been here. His edits are full of discreet POV pushing and these comments are open proof of that. Do not overlook that he has publicly floated over the death of a Briton here, besides saying prejudicial things to Muslims, calling them jihadis and treacherous and what not. Sardeeph (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid these prejudices go even further back than I thought. [[99]]Which shows me that if he has not improved in so many years he won't be getting better anytime soon.
Here Kautilya3 says But I myself think that there is an inherent "clash of civilisations" in the Hindu-Muslim relations and I believe this would have happened sooner or later no matter how the history went.
Vanamonde93 should take a glance at what other respectable senior editors such as Fowler&fowler and Vice regent have experienced with the same user.
Also read this [[100]] should experience hold so much meaning to you.
Wikipedia is also not a place for nationalistic propaganda. [[101]].13:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Sardeeph. To anybody with any experience here, it is fairly obvious that your allegations that hold no merit. To clear this up once and for all, though, let's take an example out of that wall of text. Can you please explain how this edit demonstrates prejudice, as you claim above ("I am afraid these prejudices go even further back than I thought.")? Vanamonde (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kautilya3 has recruited friendly users to come and support him. One can find many badge stars being given by these users to each other (Vanamode and Joshua and Kautilya). Their talk page histories reveal a great deal of closeness to each other, which explains why these two are here defending bigoted comments.
Bigoted comments such as gloating over a European's death, [[106]] (which even his sock
Aster friend could see [[107]] ) raising doubts on the credibility of British scholars,[[108]] implying Muslims are uncivilised [[109]], saying that Muslims are treacherous[[110]] and are jihadi[[111]]. He also even defends the Hindu extremist group RSS. K3's supporters (or friends) are also ignoring respectable senior editor Fowler&fowler 'a experience that K3 uses low quality Hindu nationalist sources[[112]] and then tries to equalise them with better sources. [[113]]
It would be more suitable for editors not close to Kautilya3 to examine this pile of evidence and leave a comment.
It also seems Kautilya3 has recruited an IP sock[[114]] just to close this thread.
Any editors or admins concerned about the allegations of "anti-Muslim", "anti-Kashmir" or "anti-Pakistan" are welcome to check my edit history at pages like Violence against Muslims in India, Jammu and Kashmir,
Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Kashmir conflict,
Pakistan, and see if they can detect any such prejudices. I have even defended several Kashmiri editors against admin actions [115], [116], [117] and tried to support them [118] when they were facing sanctions. Even the user PAKHIGHWAY, whom Sardeeph has summoned to testify against me, had my support recently. I can safely say that I have good working relationships with well-meaning editors of all nationalities.
The specific context from which Sardeeph took most of the examples of alleged prejudices is that of the highly contentious subjects 1947 Poonch Rebellion and 1947 Jammu massacres, which were significant events in Kashmir in 1947 before its accession to India. There was a news blackout in Kashmir at that time and the information we have about what happened then is very limited, mostly coming from anecdotal evidence. But Christopher Snedden, an Australian scholar who did his PhD in 2001 and then expanded it into a book published in 2013, wrote about them, and it caused a sensation. I wrote the article on Snedden, bought and read his book, and brought it as a source on Wikipedia. On these two topics, however, I stayed away because I knew that the information was limited. Snedden's book, titled The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir, was on history of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan-controlled Kashmir), but most of his research was done in Azad Kashmir and all his sources were either Azad Kashmiri or Pakistani. He didn't harmonise it with information available from elsewhere. His second book, Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris is broader and more balanced. Meanwhile, the two contentious pages got created without my involvement. Then Tyler Durden came marching in and wanted to expand them with more detail from Snedden, which I countered. Long discussions followed on my talk page and his talk page, during which we unearthed many sources and tried to find a balance between them. The end result is the articles you see. I believe they represent the best information on these topics available anywhere, and I am proud of what we have achieved. The free-wheeling discussions that happened on our talk pages were quite essential for getting there. They determined what we would keep and what we would leave out.
I notice that Sardeeph hasn't produced any evidence of any problems in the two articles. Neither has he contributed to the articles or to any discussions on the talk pages. He merely wants to throw stones from the peanut gallery while other people do the work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your response. But I am sorry to say I find in it obfuscation. Making good edits does not preclude one from bad editing and POV pushing. I have found many examples which clearly show that you push your POV discreetly and your anti-Muslim comments as well as your grave-dancing over a British man's death are clear proof of that. The diffs are posted above for all to see.
Here in your chat with Human3015 is another proof of how you push POV discreetly. Your discreet style of tendentious editing now stands exposed. [[119]] To achieve your aims you have even manipulated the very definition of a non-biased editor.Sardeeph (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This report seems to be a very flimsy wall of text, Sardeeph, Unless you're able to extract from it a small number of recent diffs and provide a proper explanation of why they are problematic, I'd beware of a boomerang because this just looks like an attempt at mudslinging. - Sitush (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of argumentation about sources and what they say. I don't see the islamophobia that is being claimed. If it's there, we need more context to see it. And by "more context", I don't mean a wall of text. Because that's what we've got now and it's entirely unhelpful. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Implying that Muslims are uncivilised, calling them jihadis and treacherous is not Islamopjobia to you? Relevant links are posted under diffs in points 1-3.
There is plenty more of evidence that this user hates Islam.
If you see this archive talkpage K3's buddy @VictoriaGrayson: makes hate comments against Islam (says Islam is the 'problem') and Kautilya3 discusses it with him without condemning or disagreeing with the anti-Islam statements [[121]]
Full quote The problem is Islam, not Hindu nationalism.VictoriaGraysonTalk14:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Same difference! - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
How then can people collaborate with him to make good edits when he has such a prejudiced view in Ye backdrop of his biased editing? But of course he is not here to collaborate.
There's an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude from K3 towards edits in these diffs. These diffs show Kautilya3's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Basically K3 added content from Primary sources on Mirpur massacres page. Those sources were then tagged unverifiable. When his mate TylerDurden ran to him for help, then In these diffs K3 basically concedes that he adds content and references with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
[[122]] In this diff K3 views an edit by someone else as 'propaganda war'. [[123]] Then his buddy Tyler asks him how to counter the other POV, to shock K3 says not to worry, he has plenty of sources. This is a battleground rather than collaborative attitude towards Wikipedia editing.
You have also ignored that he has expressed pleasure over someone's early death. (See point 6) Such people should not be allowed to spread more hate on Wikipedia. Pinging @Xinjao: and @Rigley:to take a look. Sardeeph (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've read most of this and my immediate reaction is that Sardeeph is not here to improve an encyclopedia. In their short editing career they've made a few edits and spent the rest of the time trying to get people blocked or topic banned (with, so far, a spectacular lack of success). Why are they here? Certainly not for any useful purpose. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk)07:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Red herring. I will only really be able to start 'improving' the encyclopaedia once I am sure that the experienced troublemakers on the pages I want to edit are no longer allowed to cause disruption through discreet tendentious activities. Sardeeph (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, Black Kite. I was planning on proposing some restrictions based on this conclusion, but I'm afraid I have little time for Wikipedia at the moment. I concur that Sardeeph is NOTHERE. Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Letters from the Portuguese (actually, Brazil) an/i version
Last night (my time) I saw a series of user pages in Portuguese with link spam. Deleted per U5. Blocked the accounts as spambots.
I was going to add to spam blacklist, but have never done it before and the instructions say not to if unfamiliar, so I bring it all here. I formatted it with summary templates, but don't know how that will work here.
Help wanted in finalizing Phase 1 of the new Wikidata infoboxes RfC
A few editors (not me!) have worked on an RfC about the use of Wikidata in infoboxes on enwiki (the previous RfC on this dates from 2013, since then there have been scattered discussions). For a number of reasons I feel it is rather urgent that this RfC is held, as a number of issues have surfaced (or been spotted) recently. I have posted my reasons at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft#Time to start phase 1 of this RfC.
What I would like is some experienced editors (admins and non-admins) going over the RfC question to make sure that the question is as neutral, clear and adequate as possible, and then when they are happy with it to post it. I prefer not to edit the actual RfC or if possible post it because I have a rather outspoken position and don't want the RfC to appear slanted before it has even started. I will obviously provide background and my opinion at the RfC, what did you expect? ;-) More info, if needed, can also be found at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs and its talk page. Thank you! Fram (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Connolly and Roy Chubby Brown vandalism needs rangeblock
Looks like Brown's page is now protected - maybe do the same for Connolly's for a week and see what happens. Hopefully they'll go away (I think it's half-term this week in the UK too...) LugnutsFire Walk with Me17:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes power~enwiki that is true but several editors at the AFD discussion told Gregory his recent additions are highly misleading and grossly inaccurate. Note also another AFD discussion following the first ANI thread where Gregory excessively commented. Personally, I am more concerned about his compentency issues with sourcing but the AFD behavior is problematic and ongoing as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday Huldra came to my talk page to threaten to start this discussion. We have met from time to time, most recently, as far as I can recall, at a perfectly ghastly AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis. Here is the response I made on my talk page yesterday: I have participated in a couple of dozen AfD discussions today alone, searching, bringing sources to the discussion, sourcing poorly sourced pages. I have no idea of how many AfD discussions I take part in in a typical month, but it's a lot. I do know that I spend more time on these discussions than many editors do; I invest time and effort into seeking out sources to make fair assessments on a range of topics. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack is an unusual AfD; notice that the Nom has made 14 comments, as has an editor named Pincrete who wants to delete this terrorist attack. And also note that I have made 99 edits to the page 2014 Dijon attack. I don't just opine; I expand and source the articles I find at AfD. Many pages where I make multiple edits are collaborative efforts; recent examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable Orthodox Churches North America, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzz Patterson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American King James Version and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood. But, yes, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Anderson (journalist) I do tend to double back and make multiple comments as I find time to revisit specific AfDs and search for sources, or as some aspect of a recent AfD that bears looking into occurs to me. I believe that my work at AfD will hold up to scrutiny, but it will never satisfy you because you and I differ on the question of whether ideologically motivated attacks on civilians (terrorism) is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the point when you made that suggestion, I had responded to your latest reiterated assertion that "there was no in-depth analysis" of the 2014 Dijon attack by bringing a list of 7 WP:INDEPTH articles from major international media. My earlier comments had included discussions of academic articles discussing this attack, two requests that your restore someone's keep iVote that you had deleted, and, swhen you ignored that, restoration of the keep iVote that you had deleted. The reason that I did not agree, however, was that I did not wish to endorse the wording of your "request" which was, "You give wall of text a new meaning E.M.Gregory. Can others be allowed to comment here without you trying to mislead them? You have already inserted your inaccuracies into the "article" (a fringe piece at this point) and I think the AFD should be spared these long lists and replies." I do not think that adding a list of INDEPTH articles is the equivalent of the comments you made on the page, accusations that I was "manipulating the sources," and, as I was sourcing and expanding the article, teh assertion that, "Even now, with the recent "expansion" (as it will soon be claimed) by Gregory, the article has been bombarded by fragmented quotes and half-truths to create the illusion of ongoing coverage. Gregory has even attempted to frame this as a terror attack despite no evidence in reliable sources. Shameful and shady." I do realize that you are attempting to make me lose my cool, and that you and Huldra are attempting to vote me off the island because I think many low-casualty terrorist attacks are notable and you disagree.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sounds as a conspiracy. Just for the record, I have no knowledge of work of TheGracefulSlick, nor for that matter, of Pincrete. E.M.Gregory: ok, just my 2 cents: if several editors find your work troublesome, it might, just might be because, eh, it is troublesome? And not because there is a vast conspiracy against you...Huldra (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete and Drmies have also noted the inaccuracies and misuse of sources so I am not the only one [124][125][126][127]. "I do realize that you are attempting to make me lose my cool, and that you and Huldra are attempting to vote me off the island" is a clear sign that you think this is some sort of of contest or battle and I would ask you to retract such a baseless statement but I doubt you will. Window dressing the article is not helpful, especially when your additions to do not reflect upon the very sources you use. I apologize but I consider that a serious matter and I -- and others -- had to call you out on it several times.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above, like the AfD, is tl;dr. That's a heated AfD, as all AfDs on this general subject matter tend to be, and I don't think it's fair to single out EM Gregory when the atmosphere in general has been as heated as it has been. Trying to load it all on EMG seems a bit disingenuous. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EMG's misrepresentation of sources on and during AfD's is commonly SO extensive, that if I did not credit EMG with more intelligence, I would have to question his competency. This is an enormous time-waster and I disagree with Coretheapple to the extent that personally I don't care tuppence whether these articles survive or not, but I do care, that discussions are 'poisoned' by misleading or false information being presented, to skew discussion. EMG behaviour IMO is a very long way from his claim above to be "improving sources". I was unaware of this ANI, and thus unprepared, however I will attempt to put together some diffs in the next 48hrs to illustrate. Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute. I went there to !vote (having read about it here, as I have not edited that article) and I was immediately subjected to polite but intense badgering. Let's close this out. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this has turned into a compentency issue. Misleading a discussion with false information is a serious charge and I am interested in the evidence Pincrete will surely provide within the timeframe he noted. Closing this out prematurely would only encourage the behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly MPS1992. Gregory has demonstrated he either does not have the competency to represent sources in an accurate way or he is purposefully adding false information to, as Pincrete says, skew discussions. One can only hope it is not the latter because that would be significantly worse than an editor who perhaps does not understand why including their own flair to content is a problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, the essay WP:CIR that you mention, discusses competency issues that would render an editor incapable of contributing constructively. If an editor with proven ability to use the English language and proven ability in rational argument -- evidenced for example by "winning" many of these AfD disputes in which he seems to engage -- merely had a little difficulty in accurately representing sources, then there would still be reasonable hope that he could be taught how to do so. (For example by explaining to them that adding "their own flair to content" is a problem.) Therefore the essay would not apply. If someone is repeatedly misrepresenting sources then we don't need to start discussing opinion-piece essays about competence, we instead need to discuss whether steps need to be taken to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I certainly agree. This is not a secluded incident where Gregory mistakenly misinterpreted some sources. For months, Pincrete has had the thankless job of cleaning up articles Gregory has grossly misrepresented -- and I highly commend Pincrete for remaining diligent. That is why, and I think you will agree, we need to stay tuned until Pincrete gathers all the diffs illustrating this behavior. The community will need to discuss serious preventive measures to protect the encyclopedia from any more damage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By chance, I will have little time/internet acces over next two days. I will attempt to put together diffs, but cannot guarantee to do so, Pincrete (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an absurd argument, MPS1992. Since "no consensus" defaults to keep, one can keep a shitty article and "win" by creating enough smoke to prevent a consensus from developing. Not from being competent in accurately representing what one's sources say. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk02:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting that a "smokescreen" approach has been deliberately adopted and repeatedly successful, that actually supports the point being made. Regardless, decisions here need to be made based on policy, not by making vague gestures to an essay that discusses an entirely different issue. MPS1992 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation of sources either deliberately or by editor incompetence falls under WP:V. The information (it is claimed) Gregory is providing is not verifiable. For continually (either deliberately or through incompetence) violating a core policy its perfectly reasonable to restrict an editor from doing so. (edited to point out I have not actually vetted Gregory's contributions) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
!)... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.
Done. This could probably have been done by contacting individual admin though, instead of coming to AN/I. And I am puzzled that you cannot use RFPP without Twinkle. Why? Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Alex ShihTalk 08:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
User blocked for that unwarranted attack. And suffice it to say this behaviour reminds me strongly of a particular user who disrupts national invention/discovery categories and casts aspersions as to the racial motivations of editors who revert them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
![[38]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=804821916&oldid=804821637#File:Seleccionada3.JPG){kind=link}
