Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

BLP Deletion[edit]

Nothing to see here, nothing to do here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I am representative of a person who has a biography created by another person but the biography is full of errors and has a lot of copyright issues. Please can you help me to review and delete the following page : https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D0%92%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2 Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slav.popov (talkcontribs) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the article is in Bulgarian, you should look at the Bulgarian Wikipedia at http://bg.wikipedia.org For procedural reasons it is difficult for editors of the English Wikipedia to delete things on another language edition. I trust you speak Bulgarian? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This page is for dealing with issues in the English Wikipedia, so I'm afraid that we can be of little help to you. Having said that, I see that you have attempted to add deletion request templates to the article, so I have converted these to what seem to be the local equivalent. Hopefully an administrator on the Bulgarian side will pick those up and deal it it appropriately. If you still require further assistance, you might want to try asking for help on this page, which is their equivalent of this fourm. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, editors on the Bulgarian wiki modified the page and then removed the deletion tags on the grounds that the concerns had been addressed. The OP does not appear to have posted again. I think we can close this now. Bovlb (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Erachima harassing me on my talk page.[edit]

Closed by mutual request. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've asked Erichima to stay off my talk page numerous times. Even at the ANI, Erachima was told to stop.[1] Erachima has made numerous attacks and cast aspersions and I said I would be ignoring this user, but this user simply will not leave me alone or stay off my talk page. Repeatedly violating my requests to stay off my page.[2] I'm at my wits end. This user will simply not cease and desist their abusive personal attacks and commenting on my talk page.[3][4][5] The user continues to badger me when their presence is unwanted and I was forced to leave a message on the users page about DRN, but since than the user has continued to post notifications that are not necessary or with good reason, like replying to DRN[6] and arguing about my removal after warnings.[7] This user has caused much emotional distress and I ask that Erachima be forced not to post to my talk page again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Chris keeps leaving me messages on my talk page, so I reply to him on his. Simple as that. Chris's labeling of normal communication as "harassment" is a disingenuous attempt at wikilawyering, and Chris's continued attempts to have anyone who disagrees with him banned from communicating with him are intolerable. Editors must be willing to discuss their differences. --erachima talk 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Erachima replied on my talk page about the ANI notice for the unwanted talk page posts being harassment with the message: "I have received your ANI notice and responded. ".[8] This editor is argumentative and disrespectful, I asked for Erachima not to post such worthless messages on my talk page after a series of insulting posts were made. This user has no intention of leaving me alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have agreed not to post on your talk page except in reply to you,[9] and I have kept to that agreement. Meanwhile, you go around telling other editors I'm a sadist in one of the most rankly hypocritical NPA violations I've ever seen.[10] --erachima talk 19:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This editor continues to violate WP:BLAR and edit war the removal of Bleach (anime), twice before. Going so far as to move to my userspace, than redirect the moved page. I nominated the page for AFD in accordance to BLAR and the user continues to post unwanted messages about "forum shopping" on my user page.[11] I don't want this editor to continue WP:WIKIHOUNDing me. I have repeatedly said I feel harassed and asked this editor to stop, but they will not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Current consensus is that the page should be a redirect. I have graciously moved the article under contention to User:ChrisGualtieri/Bleach (anime) so that Chris may continue to edit the article while dispute resolution is ongoing. Chris, however, shows zero interest in engaging in DR beyond forum shopping, even when approached by friendly parties such as User:Knowledgekid87, and at this point I believe he can safely be said to simply be WP:NOTLISTENING. I therefore request the following:

  1. Bleach (anime) should be fully protected for the space of one week to force discussion rather than edit warring.
  2. One page be officially designated the place for discussing this issue, rather than it being split across WP:DRN, WP:ANI, WT:MOS-AM, WP:AfD, Talk:Bleach (anime), etc.

Thank you. --erachima talk 14:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your harassment and wikihounding is the purpose of this ANI. And few people care about it. AFD is the venue for contested blanking and redirecting per BLAR. You should not have repeatedly removed the page per BRD. This has been discussed before, but clearly you are WP:NOTLISTENING. I requested some time to work on the Bleach (anime); it has from a mere redirect to a B in only an hour or two of work. You need to Assume Good Faith and follow policies; I feel bullied and harassed by your actions and you need to tone it down because it is making it impossible to work constructively on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Nobody cares because I'm not harassing you and your claims to the contrary aren't good for anything more than a chuckle. We're in a content dispute. --erachima talk 15:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that Chris is currently in violation of 3RR ([12][13][14][15]). I don't believe blocking him would be constructive to discussion at this point, but it's salient evidence regardless. --erachima talk 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I support Erachima's request to protect Bleach (anime) in its redirected version. A consensus has been reached on the talk page to keep the article as a redirect, if ChrisGualtieri believes he can improve the page, then he can work on a userified version and submit it later to the consensus, but right now ChrisGualtieri seems so convinced he's right that it is OK to violate a consensus decision, and something needs to be done to prevent this from further escalating. By the way, Erachima telling ChrisGualtieri to stop forum-shopping is not "harassment" but an appropriate warning relevant to the situation. Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I broke 3RR. I didn't get ECed and had no warning. With that said, this needs to go before the community and closing and reverting AFD nominations is problematic.[16] A local consensus of deletionists who actively preclude and delete articles with over 45 sources immediately after creation is a problem. This ANI can close as no one cares about Erachima's posting on my talk page. I am not going to restore the Bleach anime until an RFC or some wider consensus is done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course you don't think you did, you believe you are immune to both consensus and policy. It is the duty of every editor to police their own reversion, warnings are unnecessary except for the newest editors. You have 4 times reverted a single page (from a redirect to an article) in the space of a single hour, and it is only by grace that you are not currently blocked. --erachima talk 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Chris, your AfD nomination was contentious because you reverted a consensus-approved redirect in order to do so. Erachima was right in closing an obviously WP:POINTy action, in my opinion. It may be a problem for you not to get the consensus you want on certain issues, but that's part of the WP experience, and you just have to accept it. You can't just edit war until people get tired and give up, or forum shop an issue everywhere when you can't get people to agree with you, DRN or RfC aren't your personal trump cards to bypass a consensus that doesn't suit your liking. I note these kind of incidents about anime/manga have only multiplied around you lately, if you can't understand it on your own, as Erachima said, there's a point when administrators will be forced to act. That would be a waste, so I strongly advise you to take a step back and think about the way you interact with users.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ANI IS NOT A PLACE TO CONTINUE BICKERING All of you back off and wait for someone else to comment.--v/r - TP 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright, having taken a look - Chris, you're inviting these comments on your talk page with your poor behavior. Editing against consensus, taking pot shots in your edit summaries, and templating these editors is going to bring them to your talk page. Your behavior was also brought up in the last ANI thread. I think you're the root of your own problem. You're not being harassed. When you willfully violate consensus, expect it to be addressed.--v/r - TP 16:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Chris, at this point I would leave Bleach as a redirect, userfy the Bleach anime page and improve it while you work out your proposals. I do not think it (the Bleach article) needs protection, what we need is a solid consensus on the root of Chris's proposals when it comes to things like this. At this point I would suggest that this be the primary focus here as this is what is causing alot of the argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a question but what should be done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime)? The AfD was not closed right and as a result has no outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If I did the bookkeeping incorrectly, you're welcome to fix it. --erachima talk 16:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It has been placed for CSD which I support so will just leave it be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please close this thread. This section is only taking up space now. The DRN on the matter is closing as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's closeable at this point. Feel free. --erachima talk 06:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request[edit]

Not an issue that currently needs ANI attention - though, if left open, it might end up there :) --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is going to need closed soon. Given that there's about a 4:1 consensus in favour of Chelsea Manning as the article title, this should be a pretty uncontroversial close, thankfully. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While Wikipedia doesn't provide any hard and fast rules as to what constitutes consensus in general, but the one place that it does is WP:RFA where consensus is defined as somewhere between 70-80% where !votes towards the lower end of that spectrum may be rejected.

The current !voting stats are this:
Support 126
Oppose   37
Neutral   5
Abstain   5
-----------
Total   173

126/173 = 72.8%
I'll note that the longer the discussion has gone on, the less support the MR gets. Given that this entire discussion has been tainted by off-Wiki-canvassing[17][18][19] and its legitimacy is in doubt,[20] I suggest that it be closed as no consensus.

Instead, after the current ArbCom case is closes, an RfC be opened with neutral wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you kidding me?! First of all, your maths is fallacious: the relevant ratio is supports:opposes. 127/(127+36) = 77.9%, which is about the 80% that 4:1 is. And secondly, the very idea of extending one of the most harmful debates Wikipedia has had for literally no valid reason' in the face of that sort of numbers, only to drag everyone back through it in a week or so, is pretty much trolling. Further, the maths to justify it add in non-votes (abstains - the definition of abstaining is to state that you are not voting; they cannot be counted as part of a vote by definition.) to get a number that's still defined as consensus in policy. Even if you count neutral votes, it's still 75.6% support. Wikipedia should not be acting in ways that serve no purpose other than the creation of additional drama, and the pointless overturning of a clear consensus. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible edit warring and WP:OR issues at Sikhism in the United Kingdom[edit]

Situation appears to have been resolved to mutual satisfaction. Non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I’m having a dispute with another editor who claims I am “censoring” an article when in fact I am trying to remove what appears to me to be WP:OR.

On 2 October I first came across what appeared to be a misreading of the source cited: a Faith Matters report which quotes from this: the editor User:StuffandTruth had interpreted it (shall we say) to read: "However the organization [i.e. the Sikh Awareness Society] is known to have radical anti-Muslim Sikh elements according to the Mail on Sunday and Huffington Post; Faith Matters, a charity based on interfaith cohesion, notes that the group have ties with the English Defence League (EDL) and have even set up secret meetings at demonstrations in the past."

I accordingly made this edit. When StuffandTruth reverted this, I then explained quite carefully on the talk page why I believed that the text misrepresented its sources here, then reverted the article here. Within the last 24 hours StuffandTruth has made these reverts to keep the text despite the fact I had carefully pointed out his/her interpretation of the sources they cite is WP:OR:

[21] [22] [23]

Despite my spelling out even more clearly on the Talk page what the problem is, StuffandTruth has simply retorted that I am “censoring information” and that I am indulging in “non-neutrality and original research”.

I’ve tried to explain the situation succinctly here, but please let me know if anything’s unclear. Basically I think it’s an issue of WP:OR and edit warring, and I’m wondering what is my best recourse to solve this situation. Alfietucker (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Writing about the controversial aspects of a Sikh organisation known as the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) should not be a problem on Wikipedia. However the above user (user:Alfietucker) repeatedly wants to delete the controversial aspects of it because he believes that the SAS is a respectable organisation and so the controversial aspects do no deserve inclusion. He has stated: "the SAS has since proved itself an organization not only to be taken seriously but to respect". While he may respect it, he is also attempting to remove reliable sources that discuss the controversial aspect of the organisation. Surely this is not the way Wikipedia works, as noting controversial aspects of organisations is part and parcel of Wikipedia.
  1. User is attempting to censor, omit and misrepresent information regarding a report by a reputable charitable organisation, that has been peer reviewed by a scholar, Dr. Matthew Feldman, who has worked for Faith Matters in the past and is an expert on the far right in the UK, that discusses a Mail on Sunday article on the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL).
  2. User clearly has a problem with the reliability of Faith Matters, when reliability is not questionable owed to the peer review by the PhD. User is trying to re-interpret information from a separate Daily Mail article (note the website: it's clearly Daily Mail and no other source) and attempts to say Faith Matters is discussing this wrong article when they are discussing an article from the Mail on Sunday as they state and cite (page 29).
  3. User attempts to equalize the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail newspapers and tries to portray them as one and same, and assumes everything is published on Mail Online, from their newspapers. This is done without proof, as Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online.
  4. User insists Mail on Sunday article is the same as the one published on Mail Online but has no evidence to back this claim, as before Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online. In addition Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate magazine for the Mail on Sunday reference (page 29), another charitable organisation that is dedicated to fighting fascism.
  5. Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate, which first reported of the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL) in the first place. The Mail on Sunday is cited by Hope Not Hate.
  6. User has also been claiming that the word "consensus" is worthless or meaningless: stating that the words "common consensus" means "hearsay". Consensus is however, a universal/general agreement. Faith Matters author and the peer reviewer/academic state that the SAS involvement is "common consensus". This clearly is not hearsay as the user suggests.
  7. Further, user misrepresents Hope Not Hate citation, claiming that Hope Not Hate do not talk about the links between the SAS and EDL, when in fact they do on page 29 of the Faith Matters Report. They use Hope Not Hate as a direct citation. Hope Not Hate's magazines are widely available. Libraries commonly have them too. Organisations clearly buy from them.

Overall we have 4 sources discussing the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and the English Defence League (EDL), but the user does not want to include them.

  1. Lane, H.S.; Feldman, Matthew (September 2012). "A Study of the English Defence League". Faith Matters: 29.
  2. Elgot, Jessica (2012-09-24). "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
  3. Hope Not Hate magazine, July-August 2012, p.27. (cited by Faith Matters on page 29 of their report on the EDL)
  4. ...and lastly the Mail on Sunday article, the main discussion of which can be found from the third citation listed here. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


To reply to StuffandTruth's points and allegations. First: "Writing about the controversial aspects of a Sikh organisation known as the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) should not be a problem on Wikipedia." I've absolutely no problem with this, and that is not the issue: what I think is irresponsible is to sling what appear to be *ill-founded allegations* (as opposed to creditably citated facts) against any organization - most particularly one which has clearly (from the BBC report) done such positive work. To take his following points one by one:
  1. User is attempting to censor, omit and misrepresent information regarding a report by a reputable charitable organisation, that has been peer reviewed by a scholar, Dr. Matthew Feldman, who has worked for Faith Matters in the past and is an expert on the far right in the UK, that discusses a Mail on Sunday article on the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL).
  • That's all as maybe, but it seems clear to me that StuffandTruth is misrepresenting what those sources actually say. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the MoS article nowhere mentions the SAS, let alone suggest any link between that organization and the EDL. AT
  1. User clearly has a problem with the reliability of Faith Matters, when reliability is not questionable owed to the peer review by the PhD. User is trying to re-interpret information from a separate Daily Mail article (note the website: it's clearly Daily Mail and no other source) and attempts to say Faith Matters is discussing this wrong article when they are discussing an article from the Mail on Sunday as they state and cite (page 29).
  • I've already explained to StuffandTruth that not only Daily Mail articles end up on the Mail Online website, but also Mail on Sunday articles. AT
  1. User attempts to equalize the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail newspapers and tries to portray them as one and same, and assumes everything is published on Mail Online, from their newspapers. This is done without proof, as Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online.
  • I didn't say any such thing. They are separate papers, yes, but as I've explained to StuffandTruth they are owned by the same company and - not surprisingly - articles from both papers end on the same website. AT
  1. User insists Mail on Sunday article is the same as the one published on Mail Online but has no evidence to back this claim, as before Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online. In addition Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate magazine for the Mail on Sunday reference (page 29), another charitable organisation that is dedicated to fighting fascism.
  • Unless someone can prove that somehow the printed version of the MoS article is different from the article I have given a link to, then the claim that it is not the same is - I submit - unsubstantiated and dodges the issue, which is the citations given by StuffandTruth do not support what he/she thinks it does. AT
  1. Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate, which first reported of the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL) in the first place. The Mail on Sunday is cited by Hope Not Hate.
  • OK - so can StuffandTruth or anyone supply a quote from Hope Not Hate which confirms his contention about this link? AT
  1. User has also been claiming that the word "consensus" is worthless or meaningless: stating that the words "common consensus" means "hearsay". Consensus is however, a universal/general agreement. Faith Matters author and the peer reviewer/academic state that the SAS involvement is "common consensus". This clearly is not hearsay as the user suggests.
  • Constructions such as "everyone agrees", which is the drift of this, is not up to Wikipedia standards: see WP:WEASEL. AT
  1. Further, user misrepresents Hope Not Hate citation, claiming that Hope Not Hate do not talk about the links between the SAS and EDL, when in fact they do on page 29 of the Faith Matters Report. They use Hope Not Hate as a direct citation. Hope Not Hate's magazines are widely available. Libraries commonly have them too. Organisations clearly buy from them.
  • Can StuffandTruth please quote the relevant passage - I have failed to find it though I've searched twice over. AT
Overall we have 4 sources discussing the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and the English Defence League (EDL), but the user does not want to include them.
  1. Lane, H.S.; Feldman, Matthew (September 2012). "A Study of the English Defence League". Faith Matters: 29.
  2. Elgot, Jessica (2012-09-24). "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
  • This merely reports what the Faith Matters report presents. AT
  1. Hope Not Hate magazine, July-August 2012, p.27. (cited by Faith Matters on page 29 of their report on the EDL)
  • The citation there does not substantiate the supposed SAS-EDL link. AT
  1. ...and lastly the Mail on Sunday article, the main discussion of which can be found from the third citation listed here.
  • Again, this simply does not mention the SAS, let alone a connection with the EDL. AT
Alfietucker (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess you guys have been very busy: I brought the case here in the first place at the suggestion of StuffandTruth, but now I'm wondering if it would be better dealt with - leaving aside the time issue - by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion. I've posted on S&T's talk page suggesting this, and unless I hear from someone here, or receive an objection from S&T against taking it to Third Opinion (I've given him/her 12 hours to do so), if S&T agrees to this, then I'll remove this entire post ("Possible edit warring" etc.) and apply there. But until this happens, please assume that I would like this case seen to. Alfietucker (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is an awful of diffs on content and reliable sources for uninvolved Editors to sort through. I think you need a dedicated mediator to help you sort this all out. I think your best bet is Dispute Resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Though StuffandTruth hasn't been in touch with me about this, I noticed that he's been in touch with User:Darkness Shines here to ask for their input to this dispute. To assume good faith (though I'd already suggested Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion to S&T), I guess S&T is going about this in their own way. Alfietucker (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I replied on my talkpage about Third Opinion before going to Darkness Shines. Please see my talkpage. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, though I guess you didn't click on the link I offered on your talk page, as there is a specified process for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion. Never mind - I've since posted a possible wording at your invitation on Talk:Sikhism in the United Kingdom. Alfietucker (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This is matter is now resolved to any admins looking at this. Consensus was reached between us. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ganged up on by multiple editors, content-building edits blindly reverted, article deleted.[edit]

WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin or someone with access to deleted pages please check the history of Breakdancing Cop tweet and assure me that everything's kosher? In short, the article was tagged A7 despite several claims of significance from both BuzzFeed and Rob Delaney. As I tried to add more "reliable" references (since the stub was somewhat heavy on primary sources), I kept getting reverted (due to my missing the "please don't remove this yourself" blurb in the template and also due to my own habit of skimming over boilerplate talk page notices). I understand the template being put back on, but these edits also removed my additional sourcing. Frustrated with both this and the fact that other people's comments were attributed to me (one editor characterizing my talk page post as WP:ILIKEIT or whatever when it was not even close to what I said), I tried talking with editors, only to have the article deleted under A3 instead. I'm sorry, but a nearly 2-kilobyte article is not - at least in my mind - an "article that has no meaningful, substantive content". The quality of writing was poor, mostly due to my having to shoehorn in the material that - I thought - would help keep it from getting A7'd too quickly, and subsequently getting frustrated and, I suppose, semi-consciously distracting myself from further polishing... but the content was meaningful enough to get mention on BuzzFeed, for heck's sake! Clam Digging Johnson (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to read these and review (because I'm not an admin), but I might suggest that you take a look at WP:GNG. Notability is established through coverage in reliable sources; just getting mentioned on a popular website isn't necessarily enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Primary sources can be good for citing certain aspects of a subject, depending on what it is (WP:SELFPUB), but cannot be used to assess notability. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It definitely was an A7. No credible claim of importance, most of the sources were twitter, and the single reliable source doesn't even mention this meme. Obvious A7.--v/r - TP 22:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@Clam Digging Johnson: Had you considered going to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to ask to have the text put into your userspace? That would give you more time to work on the article without it being subject to speedy deletion for lack of notability. CSD A3 and A7 don't apply in userspace; it's only bigger issues like G11 and G12 that would lead to a userspace draft getting speedy deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have userfied the article as User:Clam Digging Johnson/Breakdancing cop tweet please work on it and return to the main space only if the notability is clearly establised Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also interesting to note: since "clam digging" is a euphemism for having intercourse, and "Johnson" is a euphemism for penis, having a username that's basically "fucking penis" is probably going to lead to people thinking you're not always here in the best interests of the project to begin with ES&L 10:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
That view is supported by their first edit. Ravensfire (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Holy crap - really inappropriate, and should have been a block (I'm not tracking to see if one was given) ES&L 14:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Also refer to other editors as "bozos". Not sure Mr Johnson is here to build an encyclopedia. GiantSnowman 14:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear lord... *polishes glasses* Blatantly WP:NOTHERE. (ES&L: No block was given, why though I have no idea). Support block as WP:NOTHERE, would do it myself but am heading out... Also, I've revdel'd that little gem per RD2 as a blatant BLP issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently all admins live in the US and have yet to wake up an smell the coffee. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Find me a job in Sweden or Germany and I'm your man. (Will settle for France, Denmark.) Drmies (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I have blocked the user. I will delete the subpage as well. Fram (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request - third admin needed[edit]

FOUND ONE
A few, a happy few, a band of admins has been identified. NE Ent 22:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero have volunteered to close and judge Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request sometime late on October 7th. The editors (including 'Bradley' supporters and 'Chelsea' supporters, and including me) who collaborated to set up the move request would prefer if three uninvolved admins closed and judged the discussion (because two might "tie"). If you're willing to be the third admin, please comment here, at the latest thread about closure (an earlier thread about closure was here). -sche (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have commented there offering to serve as #3 if a third is needed. 28bytes (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Great! Please let User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero know. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Kim, Guerillero and I are in touch and we will start the closure once 7 full days have elapsed since the move request was initiated (a few hours from now.) 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imtitanium (persistent copyright/BLP violations)[edit]

The indef will continue until understanding of copyright policy improves. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imtitanium (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for a week for vandalism, including copyright violations. In light of the scale of his disruption and his talk page posts while blocked I'd like to recommend that the block be extended indefinitely. My reasons are as follows:

In summary, I don't think our project is benefitting from his presence. We can no longer assume good faith about his copyright and BLP violations. As long as he continues editing, all of his contributions will need to be checked for copyright infringement and libel, which is a huge time sink. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support indef block if for no other reason than the copyvios: It's been a year since his CCI was opened, with the cost to community resources that followed as the few dedicated people who work in that area laboriously cleaned up after him. He claimed at that time that the copyvios were old and he had just gotten to know about our policies. His subsequent edits suggest that he is intending to return this material to publication. Beyond the incident reported above, see [29].(As an aside, note the BLP issue in that.) He had already edit-warred with several editors to keep that content in Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 5) (see [30] for instance), and the problem with it had been explained to him at Talk:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 5) months before. His edit summary here suggests he had finally understood the problem. (See [31].) He was further acquainted with our policies here when I left him a hand-written note explaining that there is a process that must be followed when you copy from one article to another. Yet, he has persisted in this practice as well (see [32] and [33] for two instance of copy-paste correction of his edits subsequent to that explanation). I don't believe that we can permit him to continue contributing without some strong indication that he truly understands our policies around copyright and intends to comply with them. Allowing him to undo the copyright cleanup already done and to continue to violate these policies simply creates more work for other people who have better things to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Indefinite block I agree, I think the blatant and continued policy violations (after blocking and counselling) make it quite clear that Imtitanium is not here to building an encyclopedia. Given the chances they have already had I think an indefinite block (with the standard offer or {{2nd chance}} certainly available) is the best and only way to deal with them at this point. I can't really see one specific area that there is bad editing (and others which there isn't) to make a topic ban effective, or a desire to make useful contributions which are within policy which might make adopting/mentoring effective. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - long history of copyright abuse. Recently, this shows a poor attitude while the unblock request shows arrogance. User is clearly not mature/competent enough to edit productively. GiantSnowman 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Do not unblock until he demonstrates understanding of our copyright policy, is willing to comply with it and starts cleaning up after himself. I have recycled the CCI. MER-C 12:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. Generally, I'm not in favor of levying a heavy block on a user during another block when the Editor can not come and participate in the discussion and defend themselves and address concerns people have with their behavior.
Why the rush? Can't this wait until their week-long block expires? Liz Read! Talk! 12:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no rush; this discussion is timely as it arises in part from his activity during his block—namely, his refusal or inability to recognize the disruption which led to the block, and his continuing to engage in behaviour that led to the previous blocks. His block is due to expire in a day or two, after which he can freely participate in this discussion himself; in the meantime he can respond on his own talk page and his comments will be copied here. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The indefinite block changes the parameters of future participation - we assumed at the time the CCI was opened that he would correct the behavior, and he has not - he has instead active begun returning content cleaned up for copyright issues to publication. At this point, I think the onus should rightly be on him to demonstrate that he understands policy and will comply. I routinely indefinitely block people who continue violating copyright policy after a CCI is opened - it's a bit much to ask people to clean up after somebody else and then let the user continue making the same kind of messes (or in this case exactly the same messes) - but the important point there and here is that an indefinite block is not a ban. It can be lifted at any time that they offer good reason to believe that the problem they are creating will stop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've extended the block to indefinite. If he was going to resolve the issues or understand copyright, he would have done so the first time he was under a copyright investigation. You get to two, then quite frankly you're done. Wizardman 13:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support indef An editor needs to gain a clue before their first CCI investigation or block. This is now a year of putting the project at risk, and steadfastly refusing to comply with something so vital ES&L 14:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion[edit]

Quack. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have just noticed that in the past few weeks 121.52.146.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly reinserted exactly the same falsely referenced, libellous material about celebrities which User:Imtitanium repeatedly tried to post: [34] [35] [36]. As with User:Imtitanium, almost all the account's edits are to Bigg Boss 7 and other Bigg Boss-related articles. All this points to User:Imtitanium editing while logged out to avoid detection, before 2 October in violation of WP:SOCK and after 2 October in violation of WP:EVASION. If others agree with this conclusion then I suppose the IP needs to be blocked as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP seems to be consistently used by Imtitanium. I've given a brief block. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obscene vandalism on Portal:Current events[edit]

Vandalism found and reverted by User:Fluffernutter. Pakaran 17:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone tell where this is coming from? I'm pretty sure I checked all the transcluded pages but can't find it. Thanks. Pakaran 17:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's coming through Portal:Current events/Inclusion but I don't know enough Mediawiki to figure out the names of the individual per-day subpages. Pakaran 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bot gone wild[edit]

I'm not sure of the procedure here but could someone please block or stop Cyberbot II from continuing its spam-tagging pending further discussion? It's making 20+ controversial main article tags per minute and it seems bot-edit-warring against editors who try to revert it, while the operator is offline. Please see User talk:cyberpower678 for the beginnings of a discussion on this. Best err on the side of not making a huge mess for human editors to clean up, if the bot gets fixed or properly approved it can always resume its rounds. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have shut down that specific task, because multiple editors raised concerns. I have no opinion on whether the bot functioned correctly or not, but since it is not a very urgent task, some more discussion and clarification can't hurt. Fram (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
These spam tags should be removed automatically, as it would take too long to do it manually.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this change happened (ok if spamming site), I found another (inferiour?) link and changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARM_Holdings&diff=574425185&oldid=574323253 comp.arch (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well I just woke up, so I am sifting throught everything to determine whether the bot was malfunction or not.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • From what I have been shown, the has been functioning correctly. It's validation engine to the regex list is exactly the same as MediaWiki's. The reason why it's tagging so many at once, is because it's running it's initial round. The bot removes them on it's own once they become whitelisted.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    For example, I just tried to add the link mentioned above right here, and was blocked by the blacklist.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The bot is back to edit warring.[37] Can we please shut it down pending discussion? I'm not sure the question is whether it's functioning as approved, but whether it's operating without consensus. Bot approval is not the same as consensus, and this one seems to be doing a lot of high-speed damage. Plus, AFAIK bots are not allowed to edit war or create policy. Let's organize a wider discussion on what if anything this bot should be doing to tag articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't see this high speed damage? I understand that the bot didn't make any incorrect taggings?
The bot is not creating new rules, it's just warning about infractions of current rules. If the blacklist and the whitelist are broken, that is a different problem that needs to be addressed elsewhere.
Mind you, the bot needs a few fixes: don't re-add the tags, and tag at much slower pace. I don't care if it's the initial round, it's still too fast. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes it's back. This bot is blatant spam and should not be allowed to tag article pages. It should place the tag on the talk page. The existence of a possible blacklisted link is not worth ruining the appearance of a page over. Please can this bot be shut down until it is modified.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If we have that many blacklisted links appearing on pages that the bot that's tagging for them is referred to as "spamming", that's a very troubling problem with the fact that there's so many blacklisted links that have snuck into the project, not a problem with the bot. We should be thankful that the bot is bringing this to blatantly obvious attention, not calling for it to be changed so we can stick our heads in the sand over the problem. (Also {{blacklisted-links}} works the same way as {{update}} or {{copypaste}}. Have fun moving those to the talk page.) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that links that were previously thought of as OK are now being thrown up as spam links. This is compounded by the agressive nature of the bot, which doesn't allow the template to be removed for more than about 12 hours, when it takes weeks for a link to be white listed. I have no real problem with the bot, but a huge problem with the way it operates, we all volenteer here, and loosing good links because of a mistake in the blacklist is not a good thing; this is happening. It is for these reasons that I shut down the bot, and would request it not be started again for a week or so, to allow time for the whitelist/blacklist issues to be sorted. Liamdavies (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No-one has problems with having a maintenance tag on an article for 1 year, why is it an issue to have this template there for a couple of weeks? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem is more with the template than the bot... A smaller tag on the link itself and a notification on the talkpage would seem more appropriate than a banner across the top of the page. MChesterMC (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am going to comment here regarding the tagging on the talkpage vs. page itself. Maintenance tags are generally added to the page, and this is a maintenance tag. Although I see that there is no hurry (like with copyvio tags), the problem at hand is worse than not having incoming wikilinks, or having problems with references: I recently ran into a case where I had to whitelist a link, revert a page to a non-vandalised version that mutilated the link in question, de-whitelist, and then ask for whitelisting (I did not want to make the call on whether the link should be whitelisted) - there are cases where a simple rollback (which is ignored by the blacklist) does not work anymore. That is a serious nuisance, and that is what this bot could avoid. I would ask to consider to make the template left by the bot in line with banners that are produced by the other maintenance tags. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninformed amateur, maybe not worth an answer, an opinion: This thing is clearly out of control. I tried to talk to Cyberpower678, and feel I was blown off. First I was told that it’s not his problem, then I was directed to a page that I don’t understand, and the same link keeps getting tagged, despite Liam. Now Cyberpower678 just posted that he’s gone for a while. This simply cannot be right, can it?Sammy D III (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that links are either (1) used inappropriately on an article, or (2) inappropriately in the spam blacklist. Complaining about the bot is just shooting the messenger. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn: (1)No (2)sounds good. Can’t this be turned off, or be made to skip this one link? I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head. Either way, thank you for your reply. Sammy D III (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes; you need to either have the link removed from the blacklist or added to the whitelist. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The bot is running fine and is highlighting a problem not creating it any way and maintenance tags aren't spam. The bot isn't at fault for links being on the blacklist and i think The Bushranger summed it up correctly it highlights a major issue of how these links got added to the project in the first place.Blethering Scot 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot. Personally, I'd prefer to see the tags on the talkpage, but opinions will differ on that, and I'm not personally keen on maintenance tags in the "customers'" faces in general. That's a separate discussion that should be had elsewhere.

If the bot is exposing a long term problem, that may be painful. If the bot is too keen on edit warring, or needs throttling, then let's address that somewhere. Maybe we should address it before the bot is active again.

But the main reason for my post is the first thing I said - I think Cyber is being responsive, and if the bot task has exposed a large number of incorrect pre-existing links it's going to be hard for one editor to deal with the huge amount of "bounceback" that is bound to cause. I write code, and I am often in the position Cyber is now. He's trying (very hard) to do the right thing, so let's cut him a little slack, even if in doing so we need to get him to hold off on the bot tagging for a short while so we can discuss. I'm personally grateful he's taken the time he has (and the flack he has) to look at this issue for us. Begoontalk 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am clearly missing something here. “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot.”
I started with “Comment by uninformed amateur”, in fact I am impaired. But I try. I don’t know how to do diffs, so I am leaving page urls. I first tried this as “why is cable car guyblacklisted?”:[38]. No answer, not a problem, nobody goes to my stuff, anyway. So I tried this: [39]. Helpful? Who but a code person could get this? [40]. Then I came here. Lots more help. And despite this: “I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head.” Not one of you in any way tried to help me check this, or did it yourself. At 11:37 and 11:53 he defended the action of his program, then he posted this: [41]. At no time has he offered any real help, turn his program off, or in any way address the problem it was causing. Then he left with “Since I likely won't be able to think straight for a while”. As someone who deals with neurologists regularly, this doesn’t sound credible to me. But I am not a Doctor, I admit this. Now I read this (I’m repeating it, I know): “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot”. This sounds crazy to me, and believe me, I know crazy. Personal attack? Feel free to block me, I certainly don’t belong in the ivory tower.Sammy D III (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Cyberpower has no responsibility for links being on the blacklist he never put them on there so 100% he has no issue to answer in that respect. He is also not resposible for adding or removing a link from said blacklist and cyber has pointed several users in the correct direction of what should be done. Now its time to stop putting the boot in on a perfectly functioning bot which has done exactly the task it is supposed to and a user who has no responsibility for the blacklist whatsoever. What has happened here is that a long list of users are unhappy that the links they want in the articles are on the mediawiki blacklist and these links should never have been put in wiki space in the first place and need removed or proven to be suitable for removal from said list. Blethering Scot 22:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Cyberpower has no responsibility whatsoever for what's on or not on the blacklist; asking him why link X is blacklisted is like asking a gas station attendant how a refinery works. And if you are "someone who deals with neurologists regularly" you should know very well that when someone gets frustrated/annoyed it becomes difficult to have rational discussions ("thinking straight") so that commentary is frankly rather disingenuous. Now let's get back to removing these bad links - and if there are some that are, in fact, valid links wrongly on the blacklist, Wikipedia will not get sucked into a black hole and implode if the link has to be commented out until it's whitelisted. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Cyberpower indeed has no responsibility for flaws in the blacklist, and Cyberpower correspondingly has no reason to complain if the community shuts this task down for being unwise and a harm on the encyclopedia. In the past few days about 10% of +/- 1200 the articles on my watchlist have received a tag that impugns the integrity of the article and that a casual reader who arrives on this project from google would have no meaningful way of understanding or dealing with. Clearly, degrading articles is not conducive to the apparent purpose of the bot tag, an automated function for trying to deal with spam. The vast majority of the tagged articles on my watchlist are not spam, they are commercial sites of uncertain reliability (and many, clearly appropriate for the purpose cited). When I've removed the tags as inapt, the bot just re-tagged them. I could remove 100 tags per day from my watchlist, the bot would retag them... am I supposed to submit a WP:3R report to see who gets blocked first? The problem with bots is that they do not watch or listen to any consensus process, and there is no consensus for this. The template encourages me to go through a ridiculous guilty-until-proven-innocent process (full of warnings that reports would likely be denied) just to assert that no, the link in the article is either something we can deal with, or is a reliable source and not spam for the purpose provided. This whole thing reeks of betabot if you ask me, and I hope we all learned a lesson there. No, we long-term editors (who may have day jobs, who are working on creating new content, etc) will not line up 24/7 behind a scrubbing machine to limit its damage. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry what? Do you know how bots work? Stick {{nobots}} on the page, and it won't war with you again. Legoktm (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be blunt, the only reason I can see for wanting the tags off the pages posthaste is a worry that it will stop people from clicking on the links in question, and I'll leave the implications of that to the reader. What I will say is that if the links are on the blacklist, they are likely inappropriate. I currently have 7,378 pages watched, and since this process started running all of two have been tagged. If the links are appropriate and you want the bot not to keep squawking, <!--comment them out--> until they are whitelisted, the encyclopedia won't be destroyed by this. And if they're declined for whitelisting, then maybe, just maybe, it's because they really are inappropriate links. The bot is not malfunctioning and it is not damaging the encyclopedia; the damage came from people who, in good faith or otherwise, and knowingly or otherwise, exploited a loophole in the blacklisting process that allowed the links onto the pages. The solution isn't to shut down the bot, stick our heads in the sand and declare 'no bad links here, nope', the solution is to thank the bot and remove the links. The scope of the problem is our fault, not the bot's. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a load of nonsense. As an editor of 6-7 years standing, if I look at an article and say no, no bad links here, nope, then my judgment deserves something other than an edit war ay a bot. Your "maybe" rhetorical comment is unintentionally apt: maybe yes indeed there is a bad link, but in fact, no. And the decision must be in the hands of human editors editing real judgment over articles, not a bot unleashed on the project to make policy by sheer persistence and in the process making a huge mess for us more thoughtful editors to clean up. That was exactly the betabot problem. Should my time here on Wikipedia mean I have to go to war with poorly conceived bots over their auto-tagging? If there's no deadline, then shut down the bot instead of making us human editors invest untold hours cleaning up messes, perhaps we could just stop dumb bots from causing damage. No, I'm not going to nowiki a bunch of links in my article, I'll just undo the harm by removing the inapt tag. I'm hoping we can all decide that good faith editorial discretion trumps hasty script experiments people unleash on the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Have you even looked at the time I've committed to writing this script. It's BRFA was open since May. You had a chance to comment all this time, and chose not. This BRFA was advertised and no one gave significant. You have the audacity to call my script a betabot and poorly conceived, after it's been reviewed by other BAGgers? So I basically just conjured this script from my ass. Ok I get. I just months of work for nothing, all because YOU didn't comment while I was actually still developing this bot. Gee since I'm such I'm such a disruptive user, why don't I just leave. You'll be rid of burden.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Back away from the edge Cyberpower! So, fix the code so that it doesn't edit-war ... maybe it should only visit an article a maximum of once a month. The bot's doing something unwanted - the best response is to find out exactly what is unwanted, and fix it ... that's what botops and bot designers do. So yes, everyone's bot is STILL in beta mode because they'll never, ever be perfect ES&L 11:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Like everyone else is writing on here, there is no issue for the tags to remain while the link is blacklisted. It's a maintenance tag just like an orphan, notability, and other tags. When a page is at AfD, do we remove the tag. No. What happens if it gets removed, a bot adds it back. It's no different with this tag. And your concept of what beta is wrong. A betabot is a bot still being tested. This bot is out of it's testing stage, running under scrutiny until the code was complete and bug free. Now it's approved and the code is final, out of its testing stage, hence no longer beta. Oh, and have a look at my talk page. It'll explain my attitude at the moment. Sorry.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
No. It's always Beta because you always need to be responsive to the community (just ask Bill Gates - all Windows versions are beta :-) ). You cannot compare an AfD tag to a linkrot/blacklisted tag - one is specifically noted by policy to remain (and that's the AfD one). Your bot needs to follow the same WP:BRD processes as any other editor ES&L 12:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Windows sucks. I'd say it's always in it's alpha stage. And since when does Microsoft respond to user demands? Windows 8 tends to go against that. Ok the AfD tag is a bad example, but allows one maintenance tag to stay and another, which is much more severe to simply be shrugged off?—cyberpower ChatOffline 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Visiting once a month is not the answer at all maybe less frequently but certainly not that infrequently given these links shouldn't even be on the site at all. The main issue here is several editors being unhappy that a link they want is on the media wiki blacklist and reverting the bot which has done the correct thing. Editors should either be removing these links or applying for it to be taken off the blacklist. As a community we should be trying to remove these links and taking seriously the issue of editors edit warring or insisting that blacklisted pages stay on the site. The bot is an essential part of that and should be thanked for highlighting a very worrying issue, punishing the bot rather than the editors initiating it would be highly inappropriate but a compromise should be made by reducing its frequency potentially once a week but equally editors edit warring with it without valid reason or applying for said link to be removed should equally be warned by the community as we cannot continue allowing blacklisted pages to live on the site.Blethering Scot 21:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Per Blethering Scott, removing the tag and waiting a month for the bot to re-tag is just going to do that, month after month after month. Editors are not going to solve the problem. Get those links whitelisted (and get more admins engaged in the process). Get two individual vandals where the first removes the link, and you are stuck with a broken page where you will HAVE to wait until someone whitelists the link for you. Been there, done that. Get the whitelisting process started, and ask for temp excemtion by the bot. I really wonder how many people who just removed the tag went on to ask for whitelisting or actually considered that the reference could be improved and the old site should actually be removed. Some of these links should really not be used - do realise that the less suitable sites do have more reason to spam and get more incoming traffic than the really good stuff, and guess which end up being blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly my problem Beetstra, the bot tagged a series of pages, people have removed the links before I had a chance to remove the tag, and I can't undo it. The links that were removed are not intended to be on the blacklist, and hence I feel justified in removing the tag. I have subsequently taken the link to whitelist request, but as that process takes an age I turned the bot off so I needn't fight it every 12 hours (or more frequently). I do not intend or request that the bot be turned off in perpetuity, but simply for long enough to get the whitelist requests sorted, whilst not having decent links removed from articles for no good reason. I would hope that others are doing the same thing, and by the looks of the whitelist requests they are, this will only slow down the process even more. The bot has already done at least one pass, so all links are now identified and users can now either request whitelisting, or remove them; there seems very little need to keep it going every 12 hours at this point. Once the first issues are dealt with there should be no problem with the bot doing a pass every day or two, it is only at the moment (initially) that I request it be deactivated, as it has shown obvious problems with the blacklist. Liamdavies (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Yes, it indeed shows the problem, the bot is tagging way more than the number of whitelist requests, which until now are just a few more than normal. So most people did not go through the problem of sorting it out, just ignore the bot, revert the tag, or at worst, blindly remove the link. I agree that it should not edit war, but once a month is absurd. Once a day or every other day would be fine. And the solution to solve the long waiting time on the whitelist is simple - send or select some competent admins that want to help out there. We do seem to have a system for that. ;-). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

there is a way, i'm sure, to limit edits to each page, to , say once every-other day. but, as far as it saysin "hey, there are some links here that need taking care of", I see no problem with that. cyberpower has spent ALOT of time (months most likely) slaving away at the script, and getting it through BAG. i'm sure that any serious issues would have been raised during the process. if the whitelist process is slow, that's another issue entirely. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Late reply to User:Wikidemon: As an editor of 6-7 years standing, if I look at an article and say no, no bad links here, nope, then my judgment deserves something other than an edit war ay a bot - No, it doesn't, because if you look at an article and say "no, no bad links here, nope", when there are links that are on the blacklist in the article, your judgement is in error, regardless of whether you're a "vested editor" or not. If links are in an article that are on the blacklist, inserted via a method that circumvents the blacklist knowingly or not (the method should be obvious but I won't state it outright per WP:BEANS), then the links must be removed until/unless they are whitelisted, full stop, as they shouldn't be in the article in the first place - they should have been flagged as blacklisted and the edit that attempted to add them stopped as happens when blacklisted links are inserted not using that method. WP:BLACKLIST is a Wikipedia guideline - just as WP:GNG is. I'd love to see the arguments against the enforcement of the blacklist that have been made here used against the enforcement of notability; just let me get my popcorn first. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Bushranger, you can't honestly tell me that it is no accident that cable-tram-guy.com is blacklisted, along with all links ending in guy.com. Can you? I feel fully justified in removing the tag and saying no bad links here, it is an obvious mistake. There are surely other cases like this, and until they are whitelisted I feel that it is appropriate to ask for a reprieve from continually having to remove the tags in a race against other editors, whom like you, believe that the blacklist is faultless and any link that shows up MUST be removed. Beetstra, given the gauntlet that RfA has turned into I'm surprised anyone voluntarily subjects themselves to it, and know that I have zero chance of achieving adminship due to my relatively low level of activity. Liamdavies (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Liamdavies, my remark regarding RfA was a bit tongue-in-cheek - I know that RfA's are decided on other merits, it is not always a nice environment, and people are not probed on their ability/willingness to work on the anti-spam/whitelist/blacklist front.
Bushranger - some of the links are just plainly wrong catches of a, apparently, too wide net. Others were not removed as 'were there, but not added by the spammers' or just forgotten to be removed. I don't expect much bad faith circumventions of the blacklist (I've run in good faith attempts at that .. but well). Also, a lot of the links that are still there are in the grey area - some respectable organisations are relentless in spamming (or their SEOs are), still their info is good reliable info. If the ratio of spam additions over regular additions is really going over the top, sometimes the blacklist is, unfortunately, the only way forward.
Anyway, most of these should be whitelisted (or indeed plainly removed), and some might be even suitable for de-blacklisting (we're discussing such a case on meta at the moment). Those requests should preferably be made by regulars on the pages which are having those links on them (as they would know the validity of the links, and can give the best advice regarding replace-ability or appropriateness). Those requests often go uncontested (though may get some return questions). Problem is, as always, the manpower to actually whitelist the material (and also, to blacklist and clean out the rubbish). And when the whitelisting / de-blacklisting requests are there, the bot can be set to ignore that specific case, the bot will remove the template, and there will be no edit warring, page-defacing and whatever. I also suggest that the bot does not add the template more than once every 1-3 days, but some insistence would be good until the links are whitelisted/de-blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is accepted as a mistake, correct? Then a practical thought. I knew about this at 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC), but didn’t know what to do. If there was a “false positive, report it” link which worked, I would have filled out a short form, it may have been fixed by now. I don’t know the backlog, but we would have been closer. Instead, later I got “don’t modify if you don’t know” something on a page of code. I can’t even find it now, not really a simple process. And I am. Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There it is in plain sight. Sorry to bother youSammy D III (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not easy, either. Should it be difficult for an amateur to ask if something is wrong? I KNEW that link was good, I still don't know how to do a simple report. Not real fast, but I hang out around there.Sammy D III (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I just noticed this discussion for the first time, after having posted elsewhere about the situation several days ago. I seems that this bot's script has tagged many domains that were once blacklisted a long time ago, possibly inappropriately, but were not previously tagged. My concern about the blacklisting of the newspaper Education Update was resolved through discussion at Meta, but I see that other users who are encountering these templates are frustrated and bewildered. For example, another post at Meta expressed concern about the mass removal of links to reverbnation.com, which is an important music website that is (or was) widely linked in music-related articles. Another user posted at Meta about the template on Gerard Majella, only to discover that jesus-passion.com is not globally blacklisted; in that case, it appears that the bot is tagging all occurrences of "passion.com", which is blacklisted here at EN. It appears that the bot unearthed some sort of problem with the blacklists. That problem needs to be resolved before the bot tags any more articles -- and, as suggested in one of those discussions at meta, the bot should be enlisted to work on undoing the damage that was done to articles where valid reference citations and ELs were mistakenly removed as spam. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    The bot simply tags pages with a maintenance tag. It doesn't remove any links, and the bot automatically removes the tag if it's no longer valid. The bot has already tagged every page that it wanted to tag. Starting up the bot now, is not going to have it tag new pages.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    Given that, I'm in favor of turning it back on. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't accomplishing anything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    If the bot isn't planning to tag any more pages for having links that were blacklisted a long time ago (and have been here for years without bothering anybody), I suppose that it could be turned back on to start removing the templates about links that (like educationupdate.com) have been removed from the blacklist since the recent tagging. However, don't allow it to re-tag articles (like the ones that Sammy D III is concerned about) that it recently tagged until a more comprehensive effort has been made to resolve the large number of inappropriate blacklistings that it uncovered. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    The fact that it will tag pages that have blacklisted links where the tag has been removed is exactly why it should be turned back on. The blacklist entries need fixed, and turning off the bot isn't getting them fixed any faster. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • From what I'm reading, more people are for the bot while a few express concerns about it's constant retagging. It seems the main concern lies with the fact that the whitelisting process takes so long, that the link may get removed accidentally by a new user as a result of the tag, the longer the bot keeps retagging it. So I have amended the instructions. Since I respond promptly to the bot ignore requests, if you file a request for whitelisting, you may proceed to the exceptions request page, link your whitelist request, as well as the page and link itself, and it will go onto the ignore list. The tag can be removed afterwards. I think that sounds like a fair compromise to the situation.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering. I ran into a case a couple of months back (April) where a page was vandalised by one editor, and another did an independent follow up edit, and the first of the editors removed a blacklisted link. I could not revert, and had to emergency whitelist, revert, de-whitelist and request. I wonder, how many cases have there been that editors who ran into the same situation, and chose to just disable/remove the 'offending' link and save the page .. I, for one, do not recall people coming to the whitelist requesting such emergency whitelistings to facilitate a revert (but I may have missed that). Seen that there are so many pages with (rightfully or wrongfully) blacklisted links, I expect that others must have ran into such situations as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Beetstra, I'm in that situation, I'm waiting for the white list so I can reinsert these two links here and here. These are the two that I've managed to keep track of, I'm sure there are others that I have failed to keep track of just from cable-tram-guy.com, I don't want to have to keep track of all links and then revert the removals after the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Coming to this thread very late in the game but here's my impression:
Editors screaming for an emergency stop: This has been a problem for a long time, the bot is simply drawing attention to articles which do have the bad link in the wikitext. Just because we haven't enforced it in the past doesn't mean we should continue to ignore the problem. You had plenty of time to review the bot task (and assuming good faith) had multiple opportunities to discuss the changes. At this point you need to sit down and figure out how to resolve the tag. Willfully removing a tag without resolving the underlying issue is more disruptive than tagging the article. There might be a case for holding off the bot's re-checks/re-adding of the tag but that can be calmly discussed without using pejorative language like "Bot gone wild". Bot operators have to be experts in balancing the good of the project (that they will accomplish by doing the bot task) with the wishes and consensus of the project. Cyberpower has made several offers for how to make the bot's exclusion better, but I would argue that it would be better to not exclude if the page still has a problem. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hasteur, please see my comments above, if there are actual problems with links that can be dealt with. Just let the whitelists happen first, a few weeks wait won't kill the project, we have survived this long without this bot and there is no deadline.
Cyber, would it be possible to embed a script function into the template, where a user can apply for a whitelist and have the template exempt for a certain time period all in the same action? This would greatly help the lay user in applying for a whitelist and removing/hiding the template temporarily while the request is processed. Liamdavies (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I can but, it will be in the template documentation. I can write a little tool that you fill out information with and it then it submits a request for whitelisting. Then places an exception on to the exception's list. But that may take some time, given the current conditions. I have also noticed that the number of pages requiring tags have dropped by 400. I'm tempted to let the bot run again, given the direction this discussion is taking.—cyberpower ChatOnline
I think that would be a good and appreciated addition, if possible and you are willing to give time to it. I for one would prefer you not run the bot again, as it involves me editing 46 45 pages to remove the tags in a race against other editors. Liamdavies (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Two things. Number one, I have amended the wording in the template to include a bold and italicized statement to be careful when handling the blacklisted links. Number 2, if you give me a list of pages and links on those pages, I can temporarily add them to the exceptions list. Provided you also filed a whitelist request. Does that sound okay?—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I just gave you the link in my last comment, but as your obviously aren't keeping up here it is again (THIS IS THE LINK TO ALL THE PAGES WITH CABLE-CAR-GUY.COM LINKS). Yes, a whitelist has been filed, two actually, the first was closed as a miss catch, and you commented on the second (THIS IS THE LINK TO THE WHITELIST REQUEST, THE ONE YOU COMMENTED ON). I would suggest that before you start the bot, you take the time to go through the whitelist request page and exempt all the pages that currently have open requests, or simply leave the bot off until this gets sorted out (check meta too). This is getting increasingly frustrating. Liamdavies (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I remind you that my mind is not all there, that I am still recovering from a blow to my head from a roof gutter that decided to fall at the wrong moment. So forgive. I will happily add those to the list for the duration of the whitelist request.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If you are still a bit groggy and unwell, maybe it is best to wait until your better to resume the bots operation. This will all keep going the more the bot tags, I'm sure there are people who have (wrongly) removed the tag and think that it is dealt with. When they get proven wrong and the tag starts reappearing the complaints will start again. Get well first. Liamdavies (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If you are driving down the right road in the right lane at the right speed and see school kids in the road, you don’t drive through them, saying that your engine is running smooth. You stop and think is there a bus? are they running from a fire? can I go around them? Should I turn around? This is just common sense, but was not done very well here. This was running right at its speed limit (already too fast for humans, different issue) right through the kids. Whoa, give us a chance.
Many talk about the blacklist sites being evil, ok, a real problem. But not always. The links blacklisted were already up, no one has shown that any one had caused any problems. Some must have, but no one had any example to show, just theory.
This link is clearly a mistake. This is a nice place, and it’s only being used as an External link. There are not groups of vandals, editors agenda, or whatever, this is clearly an “oops”. But it could have been lost.
If one looks at the programmers talk page, then the names here, well, in some places that may be considered a conflict of interest. I don’t recall seeing any disclaimers.
When Orlady came with other examples, the first answer was another programmer excuse. The next answer assumed that the programmer’s single post was enough to resolve the situation, when it hadn’t been before. A real matter can become a matter of theory with the drop of a colon, while the real problem becomes background.
The bottom line matters. How much time has been spent on the program does not matter. The amount of memory used does not matter. The theory of damage from black lists does not matter. What matters is that the program is causing real problems right now, and must be stopped. It was turned off by force by someone other than the programmer. The programmer was aware that there were problems, and refused to act. Now he is, probably effectively, but look what it took.
There are more than one person here who owe Liamdavies an apology.Sammy D III (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Sammy D III You offering first? The problem with your example in the first case is when you're driving, you're also watching for pedestrians in the road. And conversely the pedestrians are supposed to watch for cars coming. The real bottom line is that your posting here provides an extraordinary amount of heat but zero light and ratchets up the drama of the situation further. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be honored to be the first.

Liamdavies, if I have in any way interfered with your efforts to edit a site, I am very sorry.
Liamdavies, if my posting here has in any way embarrassed you, if you think I am counterproductive to your efforts, I am very sorry.
Liamdavies, if you feel that I have not represented your problem accurately, I am very sorry.
Liamdavies, if you feel that my outside POV has been inappropriate, I am very sorry.
Liamdavies, if you feel that in any way it would not be in your best interests to associate with me, please do not, I am sorry if I put you in an awkward position.
Haster, I stand by my example, the programmer was not driving, he was making excuses to the parents of the victims.
I think I will now go to a mirror, and look at someone who stood up for a human who he KNEW was right, over a program which appears to be a problem. Sammy D III (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
??? I'm confused.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
@Sammy D III: Tagging (and even removing) blacklisted links is completely different from a car deliberately running over children. I don't even think it's appropriate to make that analogy. Also, the bot wasn't causing any "real problems" and wasn't turned off "by force." Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jack, I think we have talked before. You are being entirely polite with me, I’ll do my best.
I think that “a car deliberately running over children” is part misunderstanding. I absolutely not think this is “deliberately”, I don’t think anyone here does. I absolutely think this is an unexpected side effect. My meaning is that nothing was done to prevent it, even after it was known.
I believe that Liamdavies’ reverting, apparently struggling to maintain links was "real problems". Maybe not big in your world, but it was happening. And Orlady had other examples. “making 20+ controversial main article tags per minute and it seems bot-edit-warring against editors who try to revert it” was posted above in this thread.
I believe I saw that Liamdavies, a victim, turn off the program, not the programmer, who knew of the problem. There is no physical force here, I apologize for implying that there was, I thought it was a run of mill term.
Someone else posted “And conversely the pedestrians are supposed to watch for cars coming” which I find horrible. School children: “is there a bus? are they running from a fire?” how much do you expect from a first-grader?Sammy D III (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sammy D III: "The links blacklisted were already up, no one has shown that any one had caused any problems. Some must have, but no one had any example to show, just theory."/"The theory of damage from black lists does not matter." (my bolding) .. No, it is not just theory, it does matter, it causes damage. I said that I ran into that situation where I had to emergency whitelist, revert and de-whitelist because of a blacklisted link (spam-diff damaging the original, blacklisted link, unrelated follow up edit making it impossible to repair the link that was there (it is blacklisted), temp whitelisting, repair, de-whitelisting, remarking on whitelist (some other edits missing to remove more of the affiliate spamming that broke the bet-at-home-page - I felt uncomfortable to whitelist/de-blacklist myself there, feeling somewhat involved and wanted other independent admins to do the real call). Those situations must have occured more, and I am very, very afraid that most editors (especially non-admins) will just have removed the blacklisted link (maybe not even knowing about the possibility of whitelisting) and revert to that version and ignore the problem (as happens now after the tagging, unfortunately, as Hasteur says). Thát is real damage, not theory. The bot, however, is not causing any damage, its tagging may result in damage (for example a human editor is just removing the link), but that is not the bot, that is the human editor who comes afterwards (who does not do what the bot suggests, but just wants to get rid of the, in itself not causing more damage than a {{cleanup}}, tag). Your analogy with running into school kids crossing is not correct, the objections against the tagging that I see are not of a kind that they think it breaks Wikipedia (or the schoolkids). This is more like running down the road putting warning signs on places where the schoolbus is stopping so that people know that there may, in the future, be schoolkids crossing there, and having objections for the guy doing it, even while he is within the speed-limit. It is one thing that I don't understand here on Wikipedia - if someone (or a bot) is repairing or tagging 50 pages which are on the watchlist of an observer, it is always the messenger that gets shot - what is it: darn, I had 50 pages with mistakes on my watchlist and now I have to check whether they have been repaired properly, or even, I have 50 pages on my watchlist that are tagged as having a (serious) mistake .. I don't have time to fix those 50, lets shoot the messenger and remove the tags so I forget that there is a (serious) mistake? Hasteur, I know it is happening now with the tagging, I was asking for more examples from the past before the tagging (like the one from April, above), showing that having a (inadvertently) blacklisted link on a page has resulted in damage regarding not being able to revert and, probably, loss of data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Dick, I am so sorry for wasting your time, you presented a thoughtful post to what I had turned into a shouting match. I will answer out of politeness. It is hard for me to understand you, I will try.
I don’t mean to belittle the blacklist (even though the idea has historically been misused). I don’t get the reasoning for the urgency, I’m guessing porn somehow. Numbers here are way too large for me to grasp.
The “does not matter” was meant right here, right now, to immediate matters. The list does matter, but not right now to someone who is trying to keep their work intact against a very fast opponent.
The school bus stuff was meant for taking immediate action, instead of debating the theory while the actual stuff continues. The sign is more accurate, but for the effect, I would have had to say injuring kids by pounding the sign through them, nonsense. It was intentionally exaggerated and inflammatory.
The stuff wouldn’t be targeted to you personally, there have been several of you who have taken a reasoned, balanced, thoughtful approach, I thought you were one by at least yesterday.
I believe that many here get a tunnel vision, looking at the big picture but missing the immediate area. Liamdavies is one of you, with a real, immediate problem. I feel he got thrown to the wolves, and that some who dismissed him should apologize. (There are also social issues, which I have tried to skip.)
I don’t really know Liam, I’ve seen him around, and had one really short conversation about this link on his talk page. But I knew that link was good, black and white, absolutely a mistake, and I felt that he wasn’t being listened to. But to be clear, he hasn’t had anything to do with me, and is probably thinking W.T.F?
Thank you for your (wasted) time. Sammy D III (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Sammy D, I don't really need an apology, we're all adults here and I continue to assume good faith. My problem is that although the bot itself isn't causing harm, the templates it is placing is causing harm through the removal of good links. If nothing else the few runs that the bot did showed enormous flaws in the blacklist. I think the net has been far too wide, and there are many many links that should be removed from the blacklist. Given that I first made my (second) request almost a week ago (the first was dismissed as a false positive with no action taken), and the link has still not had any admin attention I am starting to be quite disheartened with the whitelist process and don't think a bot should be operating if the underlying issues aren't being dealt with - which they aren't.
Over at meta they seem to (due to the diligent work of a steward whom I have ample respect for) have the issue under control, the same cannot be said for here. Simply put, we need admins to start clearing the blacklog and trying their hardest to not have a link pending for more than a few days. If there isn't the infrastructure in place to remove links/sites/pages from the blacklist/place them on the whitelist, then the bot is simply going to - by proxy - cause the destruction of many good links in part of a process of clearing out the bad. The links that shouldn't be on pages should be removed, there is no argument here, and if they were the only links the bot was highlighting there would be no issue, but it is the other links that are being lost that is the issue.
We are here to build an encyclopedia, the process has been going for over ten years without this bot, there is no time limit and when the blacklist issues get sorted the bot should resume full-time operation, but with a clearly broken blacklist the bot will simply (though no fault of its own, or of its owner/operator) cause disruption to the project. Liamdavies (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The process for the tagging has been resolved for a good chunk of links. I have added every link you gave me to the ignore list and am currently adding links requesting whitelisting to the list as well. That way, as the request is being processed, for however long it needs to be, the bot will simply ignore that link on the page and not tag. As a matter of fact it will remove it. Have a look. I think the bot can resume it's operation if this kind of process is maintained, and since I'm really active, addition requests to the ignore list should be answered with 24 hours.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sammy D III .. I think we are talking, inadvertently, on different wavelenghts, my apologies. The urgency to whitelist links which are in use, for proper reasons, while blacklisted has always been there: sometimes a little-bit-useful site gets blacklisted because of their owners/SEOs pushing just a bit too hard (and whitelisting is there to help that), sometimes a net is put a bit too wide (a site owner of hunrdeds of sites with similar names overlaps in regex with that one site that is not part of his scam), sometimes an owner/SEO of a very, very respectable site is just pushing too hard and the use was not properly researched (no, it is not just porn, in my experience, porn-spam problems are just minor in comparison to other sites, viagra and similar excepted, we do sometimes run into that). Is there now an urgency to tag all of them now: no, maybe not. But since it is now finally done, can we please get over it.
I don't know if the blacklist is really broken .. there may be some mistakes on it or accidental too wide nets .. that is hopefully now also being solved, so that new editors will not run into the blacklist for wrongly/accidentaly blocked links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Beetstra, but nothing is happening. Only today - for the first time in over two weeks - were some of the links at the whitelist request page dealt with. Admins need to go an clear the backlog, it is clearly unacceptable that requests routinely wait months for any action. Without adequate infrastructure in place to deal with the blacklist problems I don't see how even a fraction of the 5000 pages highlighted by the bot can be dealt with. If we, the lay editors, are to have faith in this process it must move quicker, if just a fraction of the effort given to this thread were directed to the whitelist requests the backlog wouldn't be there. Liamdavies (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Dirk (I got it right this time).
My question is why was this program not immediately shut down, adjusted, and brought up slowly? Is it crucial to keep this up while the list problems still exist? Why hours, instead of days, or even weeks?
The list is absolutely a big problem, but it isn’t going to go away today, while good links may. Couldn’t the program create its own list, or at least go to the talk page? People have been begging for breathing room.
Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sammy D III, Liamdavies .. first my apologies, and I will keep my sarcasm and cynism at bay, and if I don't, it is aimed at the community at large, not at any of you two personally.
This problem has caused loss of good data for the whole time that the blacklisting existed, which is likely something like 10 years now. There have always been good links which have been blocked, there have always been good links (or even not so good links) still there on pages. That is, obvious from the many tags, still the case. Some of those links are bad, some of those links are good, some of the links are just accidentally caught. Is that an urgent problem - yes, I think so, if there are blacklisted links on a page then there will be situations where the link accidentally (or due to spam/vandalism) gets removed, ánd a subsequent edit is made unaware of the problem. Most editors, trying to repair that, will be unaware of blacklists and whitelists, and, at best, just disable/comment out the link, at worst remove the link. That has likely been causing damage to Wikipedia, likely for 10 years now (I do recall other whitelisting requests regarding this problem, but am not sure and they will be impossible to track down - finding cases where no whitelisting was requested will be even less obvious, however, most cases for whitelist request are there after an editor tried to save their (good) link and failed, there must also be cases where editors are trying to save a good link, and leave it because it is blacklisted - the basic issue is the same). Does it have to be solved NOW .. hmm .. no, but I would not let it linger for another year.
List problems are there, mainly accidentally, but most of these links were (well, IMH(somewhat POV)O) rightfully blacklisted as the sites were pushed, spammed or added with a promotional goal, often by large sockfarms whose only interest is to get people to their site. It is mostly not a problem of the list, and even if it is a problem of the list, it will need to be solved and the only way of finding out that something needs a solution is to flag that problem.
The whitelist procedure is slow. <rant>Yes, the community has always been good to slow down the RfA-process, editors don't want to go through that hell, and those editors who do have that urge of self-mutilation are generally not interested in spam (XfD's are much cooler!), and if you are as an editor not interested in XfD but only in spam and self-mutilation, then you will be grilled on both sides during your RfA for not being interested to help with the everlasting backlog of to-be-deleted pages (and plainly fail the RfA, but at least your self-mutilation-goal has been met). And when I ask an editor on RfA on his knowledge and capability to help with the spam blacklist (or the WikiMedia namespace in general where admins could cause havoc as well), I get complaints that the editor is not interested in helping there, the editor is more interested (or at least, should be) in XfD's, that is where the backlog is, and that is what they should be grilled over. I think that it has been years since an editor was made admin who immediately started helping out with the blacklist - the last case I know is someone who got the admin bit solely for keeping the list clean, not making any administrative decisions further. And you say, there is a backlog on the whitelist - there is an even bigger backlog on the blacklist (most of which actively spammed so the non-admins reporting it have a lot of work keeping mainspace clean while waiting), and there is a lot of rubbish being added, spammed, which should be removed and maybe blacklisted while admins are debating whether John Doe is notable enough for his own article on an AfD. Yes, it is absolutely unacceptable that requests routinely have to wait for months. It is also unacceptable that spam stays on Wikipedia for months, years (yeah, every now and then we run into a campaign where spam is being added for a long, long time and no-one notices). I totally agree. But that is not a problem of the tagging, that is not a problem of the bot, it is not a problem of me, it is not a problem of Cyberpower - we have a problem with our own admin corps, there are not enough volunteers there to help out, which results in damage to Wikipedia (more damage than an XfD, or even speedy, that has to wait another day to be deleted).</rant>
Now, we could spread this out - but in the meantime more links are added to the blacklist. And even if it is 10 pages on your watchlist, I don't think that you are the only person watching them, there will be enough other editors watching the page as well who could request the whitelisting for you. Also, I don't see why that tag is such an issue. It is a maintenance tag - just like the cleanup-tags (which are sometimes on pages for 2 1/2 year, or 2 years, and no-one is making an issue out of thát). Why exactly is this tag a problem, even if it stays for a year, and any other maintenance tag is not?
Is this an urgent issue to have the things whitelisted - well, I think there is some urgency, as people are, obviously, deleting blacklisted links (before and after the tagging) because otherwise they cannot save the page, so they (without wanting to!) damage Wikipedia (I had to emergency whitelist, otherwise I could either delete the link altogether, comment it out, or leave the spam). Is it a problem that the page is tagged for 3 months for that, well, I don't think so (and once the whitelisting is requested, Cyberpower's bot can ignore your page and the tag will be removed anyway). Is it a problem that we do this slow so we can spread it out: well, pages are being damaged so I would start the whitelisting process as soon as possible. Is it a problem that the whitelisting has to wait for 3 months, well, yes, but again, that is not a problem of Cyberpower, their bot, me, or the tags. The sooner they get tagged, the sooner one can ask for whitelisting, the sooner the whitelisting is done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, I don't see why that tag is such an issue. It is a maintenance tag - just like the cleanup-tags (which are sometimes on pages for 2 1/2 year, or 2 years, and no-one is making an issue out of thát). Why exactly is this tag a problem, even if it stays for a year, and any other maintenance tag is not? Simple, as I have said over and over, this tag is a problem because good faith users remove the link and it cannot be replace. With all other tags if a good faith user makes a change that should be undone, it can; in this case if a user makes a good faith change that should be undone, it can't. You can, but you are an admin. I can't and must keep track of pages to fix while I wait the unacceptably long time to wait for a whitelist approval. Beetstra, how many whitelists could you have processed in the time it took to write that rant? How many whitelist requests have been processed since this bot started? Why should the lay user have to be put through this? What is the urgency to this bot starting? Admins need to go to the whitelist request page and start processing them, without that the bot should not be operating, we shouldn't be tagging pages with a problem that admins are refusing to fix. Liamdavies (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Liamdavies, that would happen in any case, you would have to wait for whitelisting whether you were told today or next week or in 6 months.
Whitelisting a link is not a matter of adding it to the whitelist. Those are considered thoughts, need some research, discussion. I am sorry to say, but some of those links for which we have whitelist requests are simply complete rubbish to start with. They should simply not be used barring some exceptions. Links are cannot be blindly whitelisted. So as an answer, maybe 1 .. probably none.
So, we have to leave the problem stand, because there is no-one to solve the problem. What was the urgency of having this bot start? It has been discussed for months, doing a couple of trial runs, and I, for one, have been asking over and over to have more admins on the whitelist. Your suggestion is right, first get more admins to solve the problems, then tag the problem .. but that former does not get done without the latter (and even with the latter, it does not get done). So that postpones the problem into infinity, it will never be solved, it becomes a circular argument: without the tag there is not a huge backlog, so no interested admins preparing (and knowledgeable) to help, with the tag there will be informed requests, but no admins to handle them, just listing the links that are a problem does not help because we don't have the knowledgeable users who know whether a link is really necessary, should be deleted or is replaceable. Doing it slow .. it would not make the requests being handled faster (that slowness is a general problem, tagging or not), moreover, it would likely result in recurring cases and actually give more work. It is a loose-loose situation, resulting in just the damage that we are now trying to prevent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually Beetstra, in my case it is a simple case of adding it to the whitelist, it has been stated three times that it is a miss catch. My whitelist request has been open longer than this AN, in that time over 10,000 words have been added, six admins have been involved (not one, including you, have process a single request), and nothing has been done. I have completely lost faith in any admin's (including your) ability to deal with this. It is completely unacceptable. Do what the community has trusted you to do, process the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, whether tagged or not, you will have to keep an eye on the 'destruction' of the links on those pages, as they, and likely have before tagging, can not be put back if the page gets edited in a 'bad' way (someone removes the ref with the blacklisted link and puts a {{cn}}, the cn-tag gets dated, and even I cannot put the original ref back (without administrative trick of emergency whitelisting)). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I feel we are beating a dead horse, there is only Dirk left.
Same question over and over, why does this program need to run so urgently?
I have compromised myself, and should go. Long ago. Good luck Liamdavies, and thanks to everyone for their time answering me. Sammy D III (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It's my impression that this recent bot run was unusual for tagging a large number of links that had been here for a very long time, but went unnoticed. I was aware of the tagging of links to educationupdate.com because the bot tagged a reference citation that I added in June 2010 (5 months before it was blacklisted at Meta) -- and that had never previously been flagged as problematic. (If the links to that domain had been flagged back in November 2010, the blacklisting would have been amended a long time ago.) Apparently the bot screened for -- and tagged -- many other domains that had never previously been screened for on this wiki. The bot should not be blamed for the fact that these had been overlooked for so long. However, the mass-tagging of links like that one that I added in 2010 has created a need to examine a large number of blacklistings that need to be sorted out by humans. If users are removing templates from articles because they judge the links to be OK, that doesn't solve the problem with the blacklist, but having the bot go back and re-add the template the next day doesn't help either -- and is disruptive to the community. Let the dust settle on this "bot gone wild" collection before letting the bot re-tag the same articles all over again. (Is there a concise master list of the domains that the bot tagged in this run? Instead of waiting for individuals to figure out how to file whitelist requests, it would be useful to look over the list to identify blacklistings that need to be reviewed.) --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to turn on the bot and let it make one run. There are now 100s of tags that it wants to remove, and I applied an update that will identify the rule and blacklist is causing the link to be flagged as spam to make it easier to request whitelisting.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I've turned it off. This ANI is still open. Liamdavies (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement on my part to wait for this ANI to close. This thread has become a dead horse at this point, and many here have defended the bot with few objecting to it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I want my objection to this action noted. There is a moral obligation (if nothing else) to not operate this bot until (real world) objections are dealt with. Liamdavies (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I would also like it noted that I - unlike the bot - will not edit war this (bad) choice. Cyber, do the right thing and voluntarily turn the bot off. Liamdavies (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
More are in favor of this on, than off. Your pages, are not going to get tagged. I don't understand morality behind this. There is a process of getting rid of the tags quickly set up. The bot is making a run to add more information to the tags and remove hundreds of them that are no longer valid. Your objection has been noted. Please only disable the bot if there is a bug. This discussion has gone on for an entire week and has died off at this point, with several editors commenting and only 3 of them with objections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 3 October 2013‎
I think one run is okay for now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This is why I said I was compromised:
”I have been wondering how fast someone can learn to program. Could programming skills be learned faster than life experiences? If I am old and stupid, why couldn’t someone be young and smart? Maturity is so subjective, and easily offensive, but couldn’t it affect Wikipedia? It would be almost impossible to address there, but could be an issue, correct?
Now that I have contacted you outside, I have to stay away from you inside. Conspiracy/conflict of interest bothers me more than some. Besides, I only have one question, no matter how many times and ways I ask it."
I don’t know if this can even stay up. I have received no answer. And the programmers talk page is still active on this issue.Sammy D III (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible solution[edit]

I haven't had the time to follow all fine points of this discussion, but in the dozens of cases on my watchlist the tag is inapt and inappropriate most of the time so i'll simply remove it. In most cases, I think the link is a good link. In other cases, the link may or may not be questionable but tagging the top of the main article page to call a link into question is a disservice to the reader and should instead be some kind of comment or request on the talk page. That reflects my opinion on the article, and I don't think a bot editing thousands of articles per day establishes consensus otherwise. I trust that the bot will not edit war against me here, as it continues to do.[42] Again, bad memories of betabot, the notion that aggressively uncareful bot coding can create policy over the objections of human editors. If the bot persists, either the bot or I have to stop. I'd appreciate if the bot creator or someone else would call a halt to this, and create a script to simply remove them all. If anyone wants to suggest that articles have blacklisted links on them, they can put a notice on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The article you linked to contains a link on the blacklist, removing the tag is not a solution, whitelisting or removing the link is the only solution. Although I agree the bot should only tag a page once every two days or so, you shouldn't think that by removing the link the problem is solved. One of two possible scenarios arise, one is that the link is actually spam and should therefore be removed, the second is that the link is valuable and should be removed from the blacklist or whitelisted. I suggest you make a choice on what to do, removing the tag without further action is not an option.
My primary problem is that the whitelisting process is pathetically slow, and that to edit war an overly ambitious bot while awaiting action is absurd. Cyber has addressed to an extent this problem by having a temporary exemption list for the bot. But that does not remove the need for a link to be whitelisted, or for admins to go and process the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a solution to remove the tag. In these cases I don't believe the link is spam nor do I believe defacing the top of the article is an appropriate solution to an editing concern. It's up to the bot creator to respect consensus here, not up to me to chase behind the bot on the bot's schedule (one of the Betabot flaws) making dozens of whitelist requests whenever it happens to be active. I suspect it would revert past 3RR if it came to it, it's coded to edit war, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is to be patrolled by edit warring bots. Anyway, I've stumbled on a potential solution, I'll see if it works. Wikidemon (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not. If the link is incorrectly being caught by the blacklist it should be whitelisted, not ignored. If you think the link is good go get a whitelist request and get Cyber to get the bot to ignore the link while the whitelist request is being processed. I agree that the bot shouldn't edit war, and should only ad the tag once every few days. But removing the tag and doing nothing else is not the solution. Liamdavies (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That's your opinion, I have mine, and we may each edit accordingly. I do not wish to participate in the whitelist process dozens of times to deal with inappropriate tagging of article pages by a bot. If I look at an article and think the tag shouldn't be there, there's no policy reason why I'm not allowed to do that, nor any reason I should be forced to work on the bot's schedule just because some users play with to bots and others like me do not. That was exactly Beta's problem, and you can see where that one ended. Bots should not be making disputed edits, period. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
A placeholder for the record here. The original purpose if this AN/I report is stale, and it's likely this will expire with no action. Fine, but don't interpret the lack of actionable administrator response (other than shutting down the bot initially) to reflect policy or consensus on the matter. The more I look into this, the more clear it is that the bot operation is against procedure, policy and consensus. The history of comments, bug fixes, objections, and disputes over this bot make clear this is not wise or according to consensus. Disputed mass edits by bot are at a fundamental level antithetical to Wikipedia. I'll make sure this gets fixed one way or another. To Cyber—"ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?"—power, you have much to learn here. You can get with the program or fight it, but in the interest of maintaining the encyclopedia I strongly urge you to be less combative and a lot more collaborative about automating mass-edits. I'll try some simple approaches to minimize the damage if the bot keeps running amok. Best figure it out informally than keep digging the hole that got Beta banned. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Since the BRFA passed, consensus IS that the bot should run, and that remains so, since no clear consensus against it was established here. Also, how is tagging problems with articles antithetical to Wikipedia? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
What consensus? Nobody asked me or any of the other editors on these pages. Local consensus in one place, here an obscure bot approval page, does not make policy across the encyclopedia. It's pretty obvious that the community has not approved the notion that thousands (or more?) of articles containing old links that are later blacklisted, some of them highly rated prominent articles, should retroactively be tagged on top of the article page with an often-inaccurate claim that the article may contain a spam link. If there were consensus for such a thing, then approving the bot to carry it out would be a technicality. However, the burden is on people wanting those tags across the encyclopedia to establish that's something the editors agree to. If not, per BRD, the editors will remove, disable, or otherwise get rid of the links and then we can have a wider discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring. The approval was to tag articles -- not edit war with human editors to keep applying the tag. Basic wikiquette is BRD -- if the tag is reverted the bot should be going to the talk page, not retagging. Even during the BRFA, the coder was argumentative; concerns were raised regarding the interaction with the community: [43]. Additionally, it's not working correctly -- tagging http://www.2ndchapterofacts.com/recordings/hymns-instrumental.htm [44] on Hymns Instrumental. This bot needs to stop. NE Ent 01:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Requested BRFA remove approval [45] NE Ent 01:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want the bot stopped. The articles I watch that have been tagged were all tagged correctly in my opinion - copyvio sites in particular. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I just posted the following:::That is the first time that I have seen copyright violations mentioned.Sammy D III (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC). Why was it deleted?Sammy D III (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right, so sorry for the implication, thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Template:Kurdish separatism in Iran[edit]

A recent community consensus to remerge template Template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict into template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran was violated and reverted by user:HistorNE - see revert (he also used another IP account [46] when implementing edits on the second template).

Previously, HistorNE was the one doing the disputed split of the original template in early September and the only one opposing the remerger, though consensus was reached. He had previously also proposed to rename the Kurdish separatism in Iran article, and when opposed decided to split a "competing" article with a desired name. HistorNE has a general tendency not to apply the community consensus, use harsh language, dispose of reliable sources and engage in edit warring, specifically on Iranian and Kurdish related topics - like this,this and this incidents. The editing culture of this user is very problematic - he clearly acts in a disruptive matter and against the community and i don't have an intention to edit-war with him.GreyShark (dibra) 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I exluded all events irrelevant to separatism and that's all. No consensus can change fact that you don't have any reliable source which describe 80% events as "separatism". Regarding editing culture of this Israeli user, just to mention few from this talkpage: misusing sources, violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, insisting on WP:POV directly opposed to WP:RS, prefering unreliable sources and unfinished working papers instead of academic books written by most eminent scholars, forcing version full of inner "citation needed" and header POV template, reverting everything like he WP:OWN article and acting WP:ICANTHEARYOU toward all relevant criticism, etc. --HistorNE (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. It should be noted that during proposed merging user Otr500 adviced merging under some neutral name like "Kurdish conflict(s) in Iran" or "Kurdish–Iranian conflict", but still Greyshark09 deseperately wants to keep all conflicts under "separatism" title. --HistorNE (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The issue is simple - you refuse to follow community consensus and edit war at all related articles and templates (apparently nothing changed since this explanation by an administrator). Currently i don't edit those pages, so WP:OWN applies to you.GreyShark (dibra) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Another topic[edit]

  • This editor also removed a category from an article, where that category was justified by a sourced part of the article's text, see this edit. This edit might be POV related. At best, removal of a sourced category is careless editing, and the editor should be warned. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
For an encyclopaedia article on a historical topic the source is junk. Popular history written by a non-academic, non-specialist, non-historian, not published in an academic press. The claims you want to introduce to the article (that the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt was an example of genocide that resulted in "an almost complete depopulation of Judea and an attempt to erase Judeans from history") are fairly exceptional and would require good quality sources. Added to that, the claims seem to be at odds with what has been written by academic experts published under academic imprint (see e.g. Davies, Finkelstein, Katz et al 2006 pp23). Dlv999 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The point is that HistorNE shows a pattern of edit-warring, which he continues even after this thread was opened and after I warned him not to remove sourced information [47] [48]. In addition, he posted an personal attack and insult on my talkpage [49], which comment I find bordering on anti-semitic in fact, convincing me of a lack of good faith from this editor. Not to mention, Dlv999, that calling the source "junk" is an exaggeration. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Harassment[edit]

I am being harassed by Spc 21 (talk · contribs). First time was an insulting edit summary, for which GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) warned. Tonight, I edit Tim Howard after (not revert) to correct the timestamp and User warns me for Edit warring on my Talk page. Finally, when I sought the opinion of an experienced editor, I was insulted again User talk:Struway2#Everton_reverts by Spc 21.. "your antagonistic editing style is aggravating multiple editors on this issue. Perhaps you should stop as we would hate to see a valued contributor as yourself blocked." I have done nothing wrong and user is not acting in a WP:CIVIL manor towards me. I would appreciate feedback from the community. JMHamo (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even going to waste my time on this. User leaves invalid edit warring template on my talk page so when I dare to leave the same one on his I get accused of harassment..... That was the first time I have ever left anything on his talk page! The first insulting revert he mentions is done on my talk page to remove another of his unwarranted warnings out of frustration. If anyone is being "harassed" here (and by the way nobody is) it is me! Spc 21 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Worth pointing out Spc 21 has been blocked three times for edit warring in the past, so rather than myself reverting his change to Tim Howard (and other articles) I looked for advice, where I was insulted. JMHamo (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Worth pointing out I haven't broken the 3RR. I changed dates of footballers infoboxes to more accurate ones and get accused of harassment.... On a side note please stop bombarding my talk page with continuous notes, templates and invalid warnings..... some might view such behaviour as harassment..... Spc 21 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── For the benefit of the reviewing Admin, can you please provide Diffs of these. When I try to enter in to discussion with you per WP:BRD you blank your Talk page and insult. You even did this when I notified you on this ANI For the love of god - go away. JMHamo (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Has my continuous blanking of my talk page not given you any sort of clue that your contributions are not welcome there? Where have you attempted to talk to me anyway? You just leave unwarranted warnings. I have left my opinion on your talk page before you started this ridiculous harassment accusation. In fact I am the only one to have tried to discuss your edits on what is a very minute and uncontroversial issue!
Perhaps you should both just let it go? It seems like the easiest thing to do before it gets out of hand. Ross Hill Talk to me!  23:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate a block for this user as I feel very harassed and bullied by his behaviour towards me especially as he has been warned by an Admin about this a few days ago as I have included above, not very WP:CIVIL at all. JMHamo (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It is clear at this point both JMHamo and Spc 21 have been adequately informed about the 3rr rule, so hopefully there is no need for either of them to post on each other's talk page. While Spc 21 has been incivil, editors are generally not blocked as punishment for that. I also note there was reversion back and forth on, for example, Tim Howard but neither editor posted anything to Talk:Tim Howard. Discussion on article talk page is highly preferred to dualing edit summaries. NE Ent 23:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry JMHamo but i kind of understand the angrement from the other editors. You often "abuse" the warnings and it looks like trying to scare people of. I understand if editors feel "attacked". Instead you should also have started discussion at for instance WT:FOOTY or somewhere else about how the timestamps should look. I have not seen all of the discussion and certainly have not ssen that the majority favours the 5-tilde timestamp as you said at one place, so maybe I missed something, but to me you are way to aggressive. You are probably right about the timestamps, but I dont see that you have the consensus for how the timestamps should look. And claiming you get fake warning is incorrect since you currently are edit warring just as the other editors. You dont need to revert to edit war but you are adding the same content over and over again. To me both editors are just edit warring and acting "childish" without any consensus how it should look. QED237 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC) ─────────────────────────@Qed237: Please get your facts straight before you edit. Making an ~~~~~ Infobox datestamp is not edit warring, in fact it's the right thing to do for that template, as it states in the template documentation. JMHamo (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox football biography

─────────────────────────@JMHamo: this is the first time from what I have seen that you told anyone about this template documentation. Do you have a link for it? To me you are aggrevating all other users. The warnings feels misplaced sometimes. User:GiantSnowman (an admin) also stated that "I think you were being extremely childish JMHamo but hopefully you have learnt a lesson", about the 5 tildes he says: "Yes, it's preferred, but there's nothing wrong with using the date of the last match, as long as it is clear that is what is happening" and also " I don't understand why he insists on changing it." about JMHamo. However, right or wrong, your actions are not appropriate and as I said you have not said a word about the template doc before. To me you are edit warring. QED237 (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This template doc is not a secret. Here is the link again Infobox football biography
@Qed237: Please check your information before you post, so that you don't look silly. The comment "I think you were being extremely childish JMHamo but hopefully you have learnt a lesson" was posted by a disruptive IP, not GiantSnowman. JMHamo (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@JMHamo: IF I should follow your example maybe I should warn you for harrassment now? I dont like editors telling me "dont look silly". I might have made a mistake but no need for that comment. You are unfortunately an editor that has easy to make other angry and should look at your behaviuor. And also I dont see anywhere in that link the the timestamps "must" be like you want them to be, it is just an example. I get the feeling I ahould probably end this now before being warned bu JMHamo.