Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Topic ban for UrbanVillager[edit]

There is an enormous number of words here and suggestions of disruption, but no consensus on a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2014 (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.

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See this talk page discussion for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban; the ownership and promotional editing have continued despite all attempts by other editors to intervene. I have long since given up trying to improve those articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Sadly, I can simply copy&paste my previous response: I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Clearly a tendentious and promotional single-purpose account with a massive conflict of interest. We don't need to tolerate such editing. Fut.Perf. 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have not decided on this issue yet but an editor from 2010 who had contributed to a variety of topics does not seem to indicate a SPA to me. Chillum 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The topics edited on all relate either to the filmmaker, to the documentaries themselves or to the people interviewed in the documentaries. I'm not seeing a large variety unless you're including some edits years ago related to Serbia generally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE 5th November, UrbanVillager, today made 7 edits on subjects not related to Malagurski, these are almost the only non-Malagurski edits in the last 3 years, even edits on subjects such as Serbian Canadians, or on talk-pages are almost ALWAYS directly connected to Malagurski (see also global edit histories below). Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A few very close calls. Most recent edits are mostly in the topic area of Boris Malagurski, however there are enough old edits in other areas that I am not willing to push too hard on the SPA side of things to a topic ban (I would need more evidence of actual promotion/advocacy that I haven't seen yet). [1] gets very, close to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point." Which I think applies in this case. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The two ANI's referred to by Ricky81682 above are examples of ACTUAL disruption. Having made these accusations, UrbanVillager, offered no further evidence, (but still repeats the accusations in his response below). Every editor substantially involved in the WoC over the last two years has been a target of UrbanVillager's specious accusations. I have created a section below detailing disruption[2]. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Ankit Maity made a relevant comment in the discussion further down this page, which I'm going to go ahead and quote:

I don't get this All SPAs are bad concept. Come on, this is not some satanic cult promoting their ancient religion of Sabbatic craft. It's simply a user who is interested in editing a specific topic. Unless the user displays really poor knowledge of policies, has COI or fails to maintain NPOV, he shouldn't be classified as a bad SPA. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 13:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

--Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that, it needs a showing of "has COI or fails to maintain NPOV", although if it is a SPA that suggests that such a NPOV/COI argument is going to be stronger, but it needs to actually be made. --Obsidi (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Plenty of evidence has been given about the tendentious and promotional nature of UrbanVillager's editing. Given the previous history of disruption and self-promotion by Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets, we shouldn't tolerate very similar behavior by UrbanVillager, even if he's not Malagurski himself. (And why should we care?) No such user (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban per Obsidi, Ankit Maity, and Richard Yin's comments. Yes, there are some tendentious edits here but it is not all UrbanVillager's doing. As an example, see this recent revert war between UV and Pincrete: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable. Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway. There is clear POV-pushing here from both sides. Warnings are deserved all around but a one-sided topic ban does the encyclopedia no service. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Ivanvector, names 5 editors above, one of them (NinjaRobotPirate) has never edited on Malagurski pages, nor (as far as I know), inter-acted with any 'key' editors, it is therefore unfair to make NRP in any way responsible for what has or should have happened or not happened. I will reply to IV's comments about me if he wishes. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Not necessary, Pincrete, my point is that I don't think there's anything actionable here. My apologies to NinjaRobotPirate, I thought I saw a comment from you in one of the sockpuppet investigations but I was mistaken, and it was sloppy of me to have named you in my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's alright. No harm done. Like I mentioned earlier, I came into this long-running dispute rather late. I think that I did post to a talk page once or twice, but I quickly gave up. I'm not especially concerned with whether anyone here is a sock puppet or SPA; instead, my concerns are the unending drama, edit wars, and POV-pushing. While it's true that neither side has been purity itself, only one editor has threatened to disrupt the article. I understand why some people are opposing, but it's just going to drag this drama out even longer, and we'll be back here again in a few weeks. I think it's better to resolve it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per User:Ivanvector and because I believe that Ricky abused the tools. Caden cool 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As editors have asked for evidence of 'disruptive behaviour', I have created a section below [15], I will attempt later to include evidence of NPOV editing. The two together, combined with edit history, constitute a WP:DUCK argument for a COI. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd only like to note that most of the editors requesting the topic ban (including Ricky, who initiated the ban and was given the "Official Frown of Disapproval for imposing a ban in a matter upon which they also expressed a deliberative view and been an active editor") are involved in the matter at hand. I came here to edit, not to fight with anyone. And anyone who checks my earlier editing work will see how much I contributed to Malagurski-related articles. He or she will also see how much I am unable to do so anymore because of constant obstructions by editors who would rather have no Malagurski-related articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. So, if the Wikipedia community wants to ban someone who is genuinely interested in this topic and has contributed to the best of my ability, I will respect that decision. It would've helped if there was at least one friendly editor working on Malagurski-related articles who didn't immediately jump on me, accusing me of being Malagurski or promoting him, just because I wouldn't join the anti-Malagurski band wagon. I tried to be neutral and anyone who invests more time into my edit history will see how much criticism towards Malagurski and his work I agreed to be added to the article, how much I brought up myself (sourced, of course). But it wasn't enough. If the decision here is that a ban on my contributions towards Malagurski-related articles should not be placed, any edit I make to those articles will be reverted, by Pincrete, Bobrayner, citing "consensus" they create through mere plurality. I am effectively already banned, so make it official, if you please. Or, instead of just discussing the matter here, have a look at the Malagurski-related articles, edit them, contribute to their quality. Help create real consensus, that's what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it? Anybody can open cases here, write "Support" or "Oppose", briefly divulge why, and leave. If you wrote here, show interest and help make these articles better. Banning or not banning me won't make them better. And I came here to make them better. Since I can't do that anymore, it's up to you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Reply to comment, Ricky81682 has been involved in the articles for approx. 1 month, bobrayner loosely involved for 3 years. How does 2 editors become UrbanVillager's MOST of the editors requesting the topic ban … are involved in the matter at hand? UrbanVillager says how much criticism towards Malagurski and his work I agreed to be added to the article, how much I brought up myself.[when?] I know of only one (very mild) criticism supplied by UrbanVillager (that the films are controversial, from a javno interview), correct me please if I am wrong.
I know of no anti-Malagurski band wagon, and when asked by myself and Euryalus, to prove "conspiracies", "editors that openly despise the work" and "canvassing' that UrbanVillager accuses other editors of (in 'response' below), UrbanVillager relied on a single remark from an editor retired two years ago, and (out of context) talk page comments from me on my first day as an editor also over 2 years ago. I'm afraid that the history shows that UrbanVillager HAS fought with every editor in the last two years, and HAS fought to keep article pages as promotional as possible, using disruption, personal abuse, misrepresenting sources, ignoring copyvio and pursuing spurious ANI's in order to do so. Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, you're forgetting Joy, who has been involved in the issue since as early as 2012 ([16]). You're forgetting NinjaRobotPirate as well, who is also involved [17], so the only uninvolved editors supporting the ban are No such user and Future Perfect at Sunrise, both, however, very involved in Balkans-related topics, such as the ones Malagurski discusses in his films. When it comes to editors uninvolved with Malagurski-related articles, 2 are for the ban, 3 are against. That isn't much of a consensus for a ban. Nevertheless, I have already explained why with the help of you, Pincrete, and your friend Bobrayner, I am already effectively banned from Malagurski-related articles as every edit I make is disputed and essentially blocked by you two, so any decision made here makes no difference. It's sad that Malagurski-related articles attract more editors who are against his work than those who are genuinely interested in making the articles neutral and of a good quality, but if that's the way Wikipedia is heading, I refuse to be a part of it. That's why any decision made here makes no difference, and I call on other editors who don't have a personal view regarding Malagurski and his work to join the editing process and help make those articles better. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
UrbanVillager, NinjaRobotPirate's 'involvement', extends to a single response on talk, to a RSN posting. Joy, has (I believe), not edited on any of these articles for 2-3 years, (though yes, Joy was involved in previous ANIs). You repeatedly allude to 'conspiracies', 'band wagons', 'canvassing' (in the above comment and in 'response' below), you contrast your own 'neutrality' with others (ALL others it seems) POV. I and others have asked for proofs, where are they? Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) … … ps I AGREE that involving new editors would benefit the neutrality of the articles and have posted a request in the past on the film noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
If anyone should be banned it should be Ricky. Caden cool 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, why is that? It's not like I actually used any tools here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Response[edit]

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be. … … (I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 )Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [18]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago.) Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) … … Further comment on response, UrbanVillager, above refers repeatedly to 'a few other editors', but (apart from me), does not name them (he cannot, there ARE only a few others). He repeatedly says that I and other editors have openly said we 'despise Malagurski and his work'.[when?] He accuses editors of canvassing.[who?][when?] Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Two quick questions - Chillum, are you still considering this? And UrbanVillager, can you please provide diffs supporting your statement that other relevant editors said they despise Malagurski and his work. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
No I have not considered this further. Chillum 17:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It would take a while to gather all the diffs, but here are a few: Opbeith saying "'Malagurski's work is crap ... and it's knowingly deceitful crap" [19] (Note: Opbeith stopped editing Wikipedia November 2012, but Pincrete continued Opbeith's mission and gave the following thoughts about "The Weight of Chains", Malagurski's film:
"I'm personally thinking of making an alternative view of the Second World War, I'll start off with some cute film of some Jewish people telling the world how nice the Germans families always were to them, I'll have lots of stories of the rape and slaughter of Germans as the Russians advanced and as the Western Allies bombed .... I'll of course devote much time to the terrible conditions imposed on Germany by the 1919 Armistice ... I can probably find many individual Germans who did - throughout - act heroically and humanely. This won't be a difficult film to make, since all these things are true. I won't of course bother to mention Auschwitz, the invasion of 20 countries, the suppression of any dissenting views within Germany .... Why should I? "It's a movie .... It's an alternative view" ... put your feet up, get some popcorn watch my movie." [20]
Pincrete also presents his POV of Malagurski's film, instead of discussing the quality of the article, not the content itself: "Anyhow, many of the claims made in the film are NOT from verifiable sources ... or are from sources that a MASSIVE weight of evidence contradicts." [21], Also, he said: "those who made, watch and attempt to whitewash this film are painting themselves into an intellectual and moral corner." [22]
Bobrayner calls Malagurski a "minor film-maker" here: [23], and discusses "Malagurski-spam" here: [24]. That's only a part of it, unfortunately I don't have time right now to look for more. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
UrbanVillager's quotes are ALL from remarks I made on the talk page on my FIRST and SECOND DAY as an editor in late 2012, I plead guilty to becoming involved (with UrbanVillager and Opbeith) in a somewhat esoteric discussion about intellectual honesty in documentaries, which - green though I was - I quickly realised was going nowhere. Even then UrbanVillager robs my quote of context as much of what I wrote that day was a direct response to HIS remarks earlier in the page. The more substantive point underlying that discussion, was HOW to represent the many controversial claims in this film, since Opbeith's and my complaint in 2012 was that the article was simply a copy/paste of the film's own website and press releases, and remained so till very recently (I didn't know about copyvio at that time, nor how to report it).
The fact that UrbanVillager needs to drag Opbeith into this (who made few article edits during 2011 and RETIRED in 2012), advertises the poverty of UrbanVillager's 'conspiracy theories'. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for further information[edit]

Obsidi, User:Ankit Maity, Ivanvector,Richard Yin have, variously, left comments or requested further information above. The subjects of there requests are (again variously), lack of evidence of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour, or of NPOV editing. This section is a response to those requests. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour[edit]

The two ANI's UrbanVillager recently initiated are examples of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour. In the case of the SPI, brought against me :[25], about which the 'closing clerk' JamesBWatson, later modified his comments :[26]. This SPI is especially absurd, since even if I WERE Opbeith (or his pet monkey), not a single comma was changed in any article as a result of the 3-4 weeks (two years ago) during which we overlapped as editors. Opbeith was not banned nor censured and if Opbeith had chosen to retire and re-appear as Pincrete, no WP rule would have been broken. UrbanVillager has himself been involved in enough SPI's to know that a check-user would be so stale as to be pointless. UrbanVillager initiated this SPI because he had, been warned about clogging the talk page with accusations and disruptive comments . Thus in this SPI there was no suspicion of any 'crime' having occurred.

The earlier ANI (against myself and bobrayner) was almost equally spurious.[27] While the matter was on the ANI, UrbanVillager made this edit on 17th Sept :-[28]. The first review he inserted,(VICE) was already the subject of a RSN here:[29], where it was rejected (editors concluding that this was an advert, not a review). The second 'review' (Elich), was actually from an interview between the director and one of the people in the film. The third review's intro is altered by describing the reviewer ('teaching assistant'), and source ('blog') in a way which UrbanVillager KNEW to be incorrect. The fourth 'review' (Pečat) has ultimately been accepted in the article. That UrbanVillager's changes did not have consensus, is shown by going to the 'next' edit. This happened at a time that UrbanVillager had recently been warned about making non-consensus changes to this section. All of the objections to the reviews (except Pečat), had already been made clear, including here[30], where a threat is made, which is executed the next day. [31]

UrbanVillager's edit reason on 17th Sept, is itself perverse ("re-adding valid response, as per User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's explanations of Wikipedia policy:[32]"), a relatively novice editor had left a comment on the ANI, which UrbanVillager chose to interprete as a statement of WP policy. Having not 'got away with' this edit, UrbanVillager then offered no further evidence on that ANI, replied to no questions, but 'disappeared' for several weeks, having wasted an enormous amount of my, bobrayner's and Admin time and goodwill.

Ivanvector, refers to an edit war between UrbanVillager and (chiefly) myself during the summer (In my own defence I say this, I have NEVER previously been involved in an edit war, I was defending a majority viewpoint, I repeatedly offered compromises which were consistent with what RSs said (which were not even discussable to UV), and I ultimately called a 'truce' voluntarily BEFORE we were both reported and censured). Whereas I attempted to de-escalate matters, UrbanVillager escalated the edit-war by removing/re-writing the entire 'criticism' section. Whereas I have since then been extremely cautious about modifying this section, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to insert dubiously sourced and misrepresented 'reviews'.[33] [34][35]

The first of these two 'reviews', turns out to be an artist's private website, the second (when a source was found, the given ref is simply a mirror), turns out to be a very brief account of a 'panel discussion', written by a student, and Markovic is not a 'Professor', (the word means teacher in many European languages). However despite reservations, neither I nor other editors have ruled out using the quote, as long as it is not given undue weight. UrbanVillager, when reverted by another editor, then attempts to appeal directly to Ricky81682 [36], again misrepresenting both Markovic and Kilibarda(Markovic = "Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received". Kilibarda = "teaching assistants at a Hamilton university"). UrbanVillager characterises me as 'His Royal Highness Pincrete', (because I have asked for a source/author), accuses Somedifferentstuff of disruptive behaviour, and signs off "Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up", a remark presumably directed at me.

I have strayed from 'disruptive behaviour' into NPOV editing, however the two are connected, the behaviour appears intended to retain WP:ownership. I finish this section by referring to interaction with other editors. During the 2+ years I have been (on and off) involved with The Weight of Chains, there have been about 8 editors who have been involved for more than a few weeks, '(additionally a few only on the talk page 'inc.Whitewriter), every one of them has at some point been accused of collaborating/conspiring etc. with the purpose of degrading the article (except recent editor Ricky81682 and Whitewriter), several of them repeatedly accused on ANIs.

Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse (I don't have a brain, can't speak English, can't read, know nothing about film's or festivals, don't know what a film credit or synopsis is, and shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit … as well, of course, as being 'His Royal Highness Pincrete' and various other things … does anyone actually want the diffs?). Enduring this stuff is mostly tiresome, however it does create a toxic atmosphere, which in itself is 'actual disruption'.

I intend to add the case for NPOV editing, when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Note I have not had time, but will do so of requested. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Yes, every time you make a claim about another editor attacking you, you need to provide proof in the form of diffs. I see in one of the discussions you linked to that other editors have pointed that out to you before, as well as advised you not to put up walls of text like what you wrote above. You could summarize: "here's UV re-adding sources [diffs] that were rejected by consensus at RSN [diffs]. Here's UV throwing personal attacks: [diffs] Here's where 700 editors have tried to reason with policy arguments [diffs] but UV reinserted material anyway [diffs]."
We've discussed above and elsewhere how being a SPA is not forbidden, if editors are not disruptive. UrbanVillager is a disruptive SPA, based on what diffs Pincrete did provide, but not the only editor misbehaving in this topic area. However, the extended detail of UV insisting on using sources deemed unacceptable by RSN and repeatedly reinserting material against consensus are more problematic. But is this enough to support a topic ban for a user who only wishes to edit that topic (effectively a community ban) when they have never been sanctioned previously? (except once for editing against an inappropriately applied topic ban - quickly reversed)
I'm not an admin here and I may be punching above my weight, but I would like to propose we try a block, for edit warring against consensus and (if diffs are provided) personal attacks. UrbanVillager will be free to edit when the block expires but if they continue the same behaviour that led to the block, it will be very easy to support a WP:NOTHERE ban as the next step. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
UrbanVillager, the paragraph above, beginning: "Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse", do you dispute that my record is accurate regarding remarks directed by you against me since approx. April 2014? Can you cite any abuse or accusations made by me against you that might have justified your remarks, EXCEPT my saying that you seem to look upon the film maker himself as the only reliable source of information? (which I don't believe was ever phrased abusively). Do you also dispute that I, and others, have several times asked you to stop making such abusive remarks?
Ivanvector, I really don't have time to assemble diffs for personal abuse and consider NPOV editing more important, however the above para gives UrbanVillager the opportunity to contradict me. Should it prove important, I will assemble such diffs. Regarding bans, I have no opinion, except that those extolling 'assume good faith' should be willing to get their hands dirty by staying involved with the pages, because those who HAVE been involved, even briefly, have all had their patience exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No, there are no such requirements for assuming good faith - we expect it of everyone. You've made some serious accusations of wrongdoing above with your "lion's share" comment, but I'm not going to just take your word for it - show your work. Or be prepared to retract. I could go look myself but we're talking about an alleged pattern of abuse going back years over dozens of pages. I don't have time either, but I'm also not the one making accusations. I'll suggest to you that if maintaining NPOV is your primary concern (which is good) and you see UrbanVillager as the primary impediment to that, then you should make time to find those diffs. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ivanvector, in respect of personal abuse against me, it has taken place since June this year. I have assembled the proofs below, but still regard other matters as more important. I have struck through my earlier remark about 'good faith', which was born out of exasperation. I have wasted an inordinate amount of time in the last 2 months defending myself against accusations which were wholly spurious. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have collapsed the proofs section below, as I do not wish it to distract this ANI. Belligerent behaviour is unpleasant, however, it is less serious than the purpose for which it is employed, which is to retain ownership in order that the article continues to be little better than a promotional outpost of the film maker's own publicity machine, which I contend it has hitherto been. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal abuse[edit]
Evidence of personal abuse requested by Ivanvector

I have been asked by Ivanvector, to provide proofs for my 'lion's share' para above concerning personal abuse. Below are the proofs, italics (except in brackets), are direct quotes from UrbanVillager, plain text (and bracketed italics) are used to clarify context.

Do you speak English? [37] ... This was a response to my observation that WP should not be using the peacocky description "Official selection for XYZ festival", where "Official selection" was not used by XYZ festival itself.

In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis[38] ... This remark was a reply to my observation that the synopsis needed re-writing, from ==synopsis==:-[39] My reply to UrbanVillager's post is Synopsis: I agree[40]. (large sections of the article were removed shortly therafter for copyvio of the film maker's website)

Edit reason here: can't you read? It was here before you started editing the article [41].

The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda.[42] ... This last was a response to a compromise I had proposed over the film's 'nationality',(during the edit war referred to by IvanVector above) my response is in the 'next' edit.

your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda.[43] ... This was a response to my querying whether, what appeared to be an interview given by the film maker in a Balkan paper (ie self-sourced), was a sufficiently RS for the film maker having given a presentation at Google headquarters in USA shortly before (the only source to report the event but phrased in 'our voice').

No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film" ... I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV. [44] ... Once again my response is in the 'next' edit.

His Royal Highness Pincrete[45] ... As referred to above, this also accuses two other editors and misrepresents the 'reviews'.

Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus[46] ... I claim that I was informing, since the editor had made edits and comments only 3 days before. The incident referred to by UrbanVillager is here:-[47]

"I shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, and ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit", this sentence is my summary of the discussion here.[48] ... The context is that I mis-read an ENGLISH translation, while doing article tidying, apologised and remedied the error. On this occasion I retaliated by pointing out that UrbanVillager's English isn't perfect (I believe this is the only time I have done so). The entire article (created by UrbanVillager) has since been deleted for copyvio.

Additionally UrbanVillager has 'outed' another editor on that editor's talk page, which I am willing to provide proofs of 'off-wiki', do so here would compound the 'outing'.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ps UrbanVillager has never apologised to any editor, (to the best of my knowledge), certainly not to me. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Global edit histories[edit]

These diffs show the edit histories of UrbanVillager: … … Commons [49] … … German [50] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [51] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [52] … … Italian [53] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [54] nb complaints about block [55]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [56] … … Romanian [57] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [58] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [59] … … Serbian [60] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … …Global[61] … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently (which caused it to be in breach of copyvio, nearly 4 years after its first warning). Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [62]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Chains: discretionary sanctions[edit]

There is probably enough of a consensus above to (re-)implement this topic ban, but as I said (comment buried in discussion) I think that is unduly harsh for an editor with a declared interest in only that topic - we are effectively community banning UrbanVillager by doing so. I suggested a block but that would be against WP:NOTPUNISHMENT at this point. And I also think that this discussion has tired everyone here out already, let alone the multiple other discussions that have happened recently. So I'd like to propose a different avenue of resolution:

The Weight of Chains is subject to discretionary sanctions in the Balkans subject area - the tag was posted by Ricky81682 on October 1, 2014, but all Malagurski-related articles could be tagged for discretionary sanctions for the same reason. I don't see that any of the editors involved in this discussion have been properly alerted (per ArbCom's guidance). There has been enough misbehaviour at that article alone that several of the editors commenting here could be currently waiting out their initial one-month blocks for disruption, had they been properly alerted. I propose alerting those users now with {{Ds/alert}}, and taking no further action at this time. If the users continue to be disruptive, they can be dealt with quickly under WP:AC/DS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think a topic ban may be harsh but the editor is taking on a topic (not just the filmmaker but the theory itself) that falls under ARCOM sanctions for a reason and it's being that there's a lot of nasty arguments from people who aren't here with the right mindset. Four years of warnings about editing on either that filmmaker, his films or other things in the same sphere seems like enough time with enough warnings about tenacious editing to say 'go work on something that isn't subject to these Eastern European arguments so we can see if it's you or the topic that's the problem.' Would this warning about Malagurski specifically be notice? (Based on this discussion it seems). I'm putting it out there, I don't think any editor would understand that the entirety of his works is within the sanctions but I can live with just warnings if everything gets tagged and all the editors all around are warned about it. The talk pages have been nothing but sockpuppetry accusations and other comments that really are poisoning the well all around but that likely comes with the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
That definitely counts as alerting under the WP:AC/DS guidance, but that is from 2012, and users are supposed to have been alerted within the past twelve months for discretionary sanction actions to be valid. The template is also supposed to be applied to the user's talk page, so the advisory on the Weight of Chains talk doesn't count for this purpose. My impression is that Malagurski is notable because of his controversial views, so it does make sense to me that the entirety of our writing about him falls under the ArbCom decision. We could request an interpretation, but I see no harm in delivering the warnings anyway - they are not meant to imply wrongdoing (the alert template says so). Ivanvector (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Also: this proposal is not intended to be mutually exclusive to the topic ban above. We could block/ban UrbanVillager and warn everyone else, if that is what the consensus dictates (although I remain opposed to the topic ban myself). Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Procedurally, the old warning on user talk is still valid; last time I looked, warnings under the old pre-2014 system were grandfathered in and are to lose their validity only 12 months after the coming into force of the new procedures, which was around May 2014 if I'm not mistaken. Fut.Perf. 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, bureaucracy! Well if that old warning can be considered valid, then the topic ban that Ricky applied is valid, although he did so under the auspices of community consensus and not under the authority of discretionary sanctions, and he may be involved. There's a weak consensus above; if the ban is restored and UrbanVillager appeals to ArbCom, citing procedural nonsense here or not being aware of the old warning, we're likely to end up right back here again. And it's possible that they will get the message from how thoroughly their behaviour is being criticized here that they'll shape up. And if not, then a long block supported by a fresh warning will be very difficult to appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Question. Is it the case that the proposed discretionary sanctions would automatically apply to ANY editors, (including new editors) editing these pages? If so, I think them a very good idea, since whilst I have argued elsewhere that the problems of these pages are NOT classic 'Balkan problems', the imposition of greater regulation would benefit ANYONE coming to these pages for the 'right' reasons. I would hold this point of view regardless of the outcome of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the Balkans discretionary sanctions apply to the topic, not the editor or the page. While the sanction is in effect, any editor who disrupts can be warned by any user, and then blocked by any admin if they continue. (This is not my idea, it's from WP:AC/DS) It was determined elsewhere that WoC falls under the sanction due to the film's content, but other pages we're talking about would be open to debate. Ivanvector (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So, it doesn't look like the ARBCOM sanctions are the way to go. Anyone want to close this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (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.

Conspiracy theorist at Talk:Illuminati[edit]

Looks like they are on their way out. No action seems to be the road of least disruptance. Feel free to re-open if they do continue editing; in that case a different road can be tried. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2014 (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.

XX_Jon_Doe_Xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Only edits consist of spamming conspiracy theories at Talk:Illuminati about Queen Elizabeth supposedly being connected to the Illuminati, says that we're biased and are censoring him... Actually, would someone mind proving him right on that count? His edits technically fall under WP:BLP, and he appears singularly focused on making sure everyone "knows" about these "facts". He is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, but right great wrongs, and may not be capable of or willing to provide useful contributions. Fnord. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Jon Doe claims that he found his information, quote, "while investigating a paedophile ring within the British government." Clearly not here to help. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Ticks all the WP:NOTHERE boxes - WP:OR to promote the 'truth', attacking contributors in his first post, while insisting that his conspiracy theory about government paedophile rings isn't a conspiracy theory because it is the truth, because he says so, and everyone here is out to censor him because he knows the truth... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
And now the conspiracy-monger tells us that "this conversation has been a study for a dissertation about bullying and bias on the internet".[63] Or, in plain English, either self-confessed trolling, or the delusional babbled threats of someone failing to get anywhere with their attempts to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. All the more reason to block indefinitely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2014 (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.

Harassment by Widefox[edit]

User widefox is harassing me by reverting all my edit or adding harassment tags to my activity everywhere on wikipedia. He has not proved his claim of conflict of interest and still he is stalking my activity and adding tags to my editing to discredit me. I ask him to go to administrator and he does not because he does not have any proof.

I was reported by user Rahat that I made conflict of interest edit at a topic. I gave my evidence that I was not making conflict of interest edit so Rahat has withdrawn his report. This user widefox added me to his list of sockfarm without proof then tried to stop me from clarifying that Rahat has withdrawn his report. Rahat posted his clarification again on notice board only then widefox left that report alone. But he did not remove my name from his list of sockfarm. Then he came to this notice board and an admin told him to be careful who he calls sockpuppet. After this he added conflict of interest tag on talkpage 2 times but I left him alone. Widefox was trying to hinder discussion on talkpage as well. Then I started discussing with one user every single reference which is on going discussion. I even made controversy section longer. If I was ERA worker why will I make controversy long. I made its conclusion as reference said. But widefox wants to revise it to incorrect data. Now he is also saying I am also working for Jason Minter. He thinks I am working for everyone and he is deluded about this. If I was working for other people why am I discussing every single reference in so much detail. Please stop this user from disrupting all my debates and please stop him from discrediting me everywhere on wikipedia. Please see proof of my discussion on talk page. Widefox is still stalking me and harassing me. I created a new topic separate from ERA. Widefox also followed me to that topic and prejudiced a neutral user AuthorAuthor who was voting keep on deletion debate. There is no concern with notability of topic and he is only discrediting me so that he can delete all my edits. Widefox has started same behavior on this topic now he is adding harassment tag on talkpage with my name on it and he is bombing the subject page with tags as well. He has reported me on another notice board without concern to discredit me but I have only removed his harassment tag I even corrected his one edit back when he requested [64].

Widefox has not made even one proven report against me and he is obsessed with conflict of interest. One admin has told him to be careful and still he is stalking me and harassing me. I move that widefox should be blocked from wikipedia until my debates of reference discussion and article deletion are over. Widefox has not proven it on conflict of interest noticeboard or here. And he is telling me to "take it up to COIN" where there is no proof. So he should take it up to admin or stop following. If he does not stop following please block him. Thank you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    • Pinging other editors who've commented Logical Cowboy, DGG. Comment about "careful" is from Dennis Brown about filing an SPI (see 2x SPIs above which weren't linked when he made that comment). Note I'm reworking the SPI as requested. Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Update. Widefox is editing archive to manipulate my outcome of this investigation so that it appears that he has reported me for sockpuppet investigation. But it is clear that he has not reported me in this investigation which he is claiming by editing archive and he is only harassing me without case. Next I think he will add my name to investigation and lie about it too. So I am asking admins to keep check on this kind of manipulation it may be intentional. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith report: I noticed the SPI links weren't there for Dennis (which was his comment), but didn't notice it has just been archived. I've undone already realising the error. TheSawTooth is not on the SPI yet, it is already too big and the majority appear to be meats - I've already said I'm reworking it, which will take time. The behavioural evidence is at the SPIs, COIN, and ANI. Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ping me when you file. Dennis - 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. deletedhistory permission is a growing issue for me - an admin is needed to see deleted article edit histories. Widefox; talk 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The links you are looking for are [65], [66] and [67], where he just requested a speedy delete on an existing article for A7 (claim of importance). It was soon after deleted for G12 (copyvio). Dennis - 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
My impression is that Widefox is making a tremendous good faith effort to root out a big complicated mess of COI editing while following WP policies himself. I don't see any evidence he is getting "personal"--the only personal aspect seems to be TheSawTooth calling this "harassment" in this forum. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That is my impression as well. After poking around a bit, I can see why he would want someone to look closer. Dennis - 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, thanks for the links, can't do anything much with them - all deleted so it takes an admin to see the A7 or who requested it who edited it. I can see more offwiki - those two articles are a paid job offered & taken on odesk.com . That may be all OK as I can't see who edited it to see if they've disclosed or not. Widefox; talk 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
update: seen the A7 notice now, but that's about it. Widefox; talk 20:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
You were not ready to report me to admins now saying that SPI was too large but you were happy to put conflict of interest tag on my name everywhere on wikipedia so that is bad faith as well if you want to make it a rule. Three deleted edits by Dennis are not related to ERA. I got them from recent changes and I saw on editor creating article which was not notable. So I asked for deletion. Some one else also asked for deletion at same time I did. So one tag remained and it was deleted. Two other were similar maintenance edits and I did not comment at deletion debate of two topics because I am not interested in that topic. Admins can see my history that I was going in recent changes and doing those edits. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
SPI being too large/complex is the comment from the SPI admin not me. The SPI aspect may be similar to issues faced with Morning277. Widefox; talk 20:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
His only one edit is on one subject that is on notice board concern of regular wikipedia users. It is sock but I do not know who is doing this. It is not compulsory rule of wikipedia to assume good faith. So do not accuse me of bad faith again. ERA topic has paid editors who are editing for or against ERA I do not care. I want to make it neutral. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not know what widefox is doing for wikipedia other than this but he is obsessed with conflict of interest. He maybe doing good work if you say but he is following my activity and adding tag to my name and my activity. So it is personal or not? He was doing this on ERA topic but I did not fight with him. See I have replied to every concern at ERA. He is saying that editor that I think is sock is bad faith accusation but he is doing samething saying that I edited ERA so I have conflict of interest only because my account is not as old as his account. This is unfair dealing by widefox. If I am not neutral then why am I discussing references at talkpage? Widefox's attempts to discredit me at ERA so that he can change to revision before my edit are not fair. I have told him ten times that I am ready to discuss and I am ready to make it neutral. I have given proof now that I am discussing. But no. He is not interested in that. He is only interested in his label of conflict of interest without proof to revise ERA topic. Same case with deletion debate on next topic where he has stalked me. Ask him to stop. Any admin can do it instead of him and help me in discussion to make ERA topic neutral. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to request that if widefox has no proof that I am related to ERA then he should stop stalking me. If he keeps on stalking and if he keeps trying to ask to revise locked topic he will disrupt my discussion with nikthestunned. Many editors are discussing and doing effort. User Rahat, Jytdog and nikthestunned have discussed concerns with me and I have replied. Widefox is not even discussing. he is just tagging and following to next then tagging then tagging talkpage. Then telling everyone that I have conflict of interest by showing them his list so that they change their vote. But in his list I have replied that I have no conflict of interest and again he has no proof in that list. A list full of other usernames is not my concern so I move that an admin should stop him from doing this or just decide now for future that what he wants to do because I have told him that I am not conflict of interest editor in 10 times. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I can do one thing for widefox. I can invite widefox to discuss with me on ERA talkpage what he want to add or remove in topic. Like a civilized person. I will answer him like I have answered nikthestunned. If he can do that and withdraw his allegation of conflict of interest I will discuss with him as well and answer his concern or remove. I have done this at Jason Minter topic two times at his request. He should have good faith as well because he has not proved anything. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I have treated the TheSawTooth account in the same way as all the other suspects. The only difference is that it was also independently reported at COIN by another editor for edits on ERA at the same time as I reported for similar editing patterns to confirmed paid editors (disclosed Fiverr and undisclosed). TheSawTooth's edit warring on the two articles was reported to AN3 but admin wishes it to be dealt with at a venue like this. I see no sign that editor has understood about edit warring on the two articles, and despite protests here, has accused an SPA editor of being a sock without evidence or listing them anywhere, in contrast to the massive behavioural evidence submitted (by me and Logical Cowboy) about their account in this. It would seem prudent to see WP:OWN and refrain editing those articles for now, and wait for this to be cleared up, even if (as editor claims) they don't have a COI. Widefox; talk 20:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The other editor realized his mistake and he has withdrawn his report. If editor who has reported can withdraw and take my good faith work to discuss. Why are you forcing me? You reported me for editwar on only 2 edits. So that admin said I am not in editwar. ERA editwar was stress because I did a lot of effort to make it neutral and he was not even telling any reason to revise it. But now he is discussing it and I am discussing it as well. So no concern in it. I do not own any article but you are accusing me without listening to me in same way. I will withdraw my accusation against new editor if any admin can check and tell if this new comment is possible to be fair new comment. First it was conflict of interest now it is ownership. I do not have both of them. If widefox will not discuss about what he wants to remove and why he should let other users deal with it on talk page. If he has concern he can tell any admin here but just get over with this so that I can use wikipedia without him. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is inevitable than in investigating the related but not identical problems of puppetry and promotionalism, mistakes will be made, especially in the early stages of an investigation. The general way of proceeding is to collect everything that seems likely, and then start more detailed checking. I only do the promotionalism side, but I as well as everyone else active in dealing with these problems have made errors, both in thinking that perfectly responsible editors were promotional (or puppets), and in being convinced that some editors were promotional or puppets, but being unable to prove it. The extent to which someone protests at being labelled does not prove either innocence or guilt: some people get outraged at the merest suspicion, some obviously guilty parties think their best strategy is to complain about it as loudly and often as possible, and denounce the investigators. I & others have sometimes needed to apologize to people whom we really knew were due no apology, but where the evidence did not convince others. It's reasonable that the standard of evidence for proving it be higher than the standard for checking it, or we'd miss a great deal. Sometimes an extensive ring of puppets has been first noticed as collusion at a single article.
I think that Widefox's investigations have been reasonable, and almost all the people they identified are indeed in need of blocking. A few are equivocal at least at present. What we need to be careful about is doing actual blocking on insufficient evidence, and we need to at the least be willing to remove the blocks if we or others think them unwarranted. I've been stopped by traffic police for infractions of which I was not guilty and been able to show it; I've been stopped when not guilty, and been unable to prove it & had to pay the ticket; I may also have been stopped once or twice when guilty, and talked them out of it. And of course I've committed traffic offenses and not been caught at it. Obvious the possibility of injustice gets very much more concerning for more serious matters, but unlike the real world, nothing we deal with here will lead to a criminal conviction. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your reasonable remarks. Can you tell widefox to not use COI word for before he can prove it. It is not a good excuse to delete data from subjects without proving COI when one editor is discussing with other editors. --TheSawTooth (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Early stage behavioural evidence is already at WP:COIN. In the meantime the COI tag hasn't been added to the article as a courtesy. TheSawTooth is, meanwhile, still edit warring on two three articles Kargil War [69] [70], Zarb-e-Azb [71] [72] [73] [74] [75], Jason Minter [76] (older with COI tag [77] [78] - note these BLP failed sources were correctly removed by User:Adamfinmo [79]) and claims harassment by several different editors in several forums. Widefox; talk 15:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I gave up on Jason Minter to wait until deletion debate is over. Saadkhan12345 crossed topic to revise me on Jason Minter you know that. I do not have COI at Kargil War and India is not paying me. Kargil war got to compromise just like real Kargil war stop now. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have agreed to Jytdog's draft idea. I hope they do not call me COI and help me to revise the draft by agreeing or disagreeing on each point like me and nikthestunned are doing. --TheSawTooth (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Longshot's voice actor[edit]

Something is really suspicious on the article for X-Men character Longshot (permalink: [80], as it mentions Formula One driver Fernando Alonso as the voice actor in the 90s animated series. I can smell vandalism, but revert fights prevent me from tracking who inserted that. Please help. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 11:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really an ANI issue, but the edit was made by an IP back in 2012 [81]. The acting was previously attributed to one Rod Wilson. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Check IMDB and see what it says. Not foolproof, but more likely to be correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't even see that character listed in the IMDB credits reference.[82]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Really don't want to post at ANI again, but since no one else seems to be willing to actually do some proper legwork - [83] and [84] support the presence of this character in the series, and the former also supports the Rod Wilson voice acting bit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Genre warrior on the loose and periodically changing IP addresses!!!!!!![edit]

(non-admin closure) Techno-rampaging IP blocked for 72 hours by Dennis. demize (t · c) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

79.166.125.45 appears to genre warring some of the articles relating to mostly Sash! and Faithless. Is there any way to stop this?

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S: Please don't sue me, I'm here at Wikipedia.

79.166.125.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Contacting them about it is a good first step. Also, please notify them that they have been mentioned at ANI. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked them. The IP was on a very obvious rampage to insert 'techno' into every article, ignoring sources and being disruptive. He was doing multiple per minute, there is no way he was checking sources. He isn't the first to do so, and my gut says this isn't the first block he's seen for it. Dennis - 00:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


67.236.182.55[edit]

BLOCKED
Two weeks by Martijn Hoekstra (non-admin closure) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:38, 19 November 2014 (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.

IP started adding funding information at various PBS related articles. Contributions were formatted oddly. There were no bullets, there were `` marks instead, and excessive whitespace.[85][86][87][88][89] It got messy. I fixed a few of these and notified them of correct formatting. They then started posting this odd content to their talk page, then got into a strange set of disruptive edits at Talk:Main Page,[90][91][92][93][94] which eventually got them blocked. At some point either during their block or after, they started up again on their own talk page [95][96][97][98][99]. Not sure what's going on here. Robot editing? The edits make sense generally, but there's some unclarity why we can't communicate with the user and why they keep submitting the same problematic content. Need admins. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bot. It's vandalism or incompetence. at first it seemed similar to how you optimise a blog for a search engine then I noticed it was PBS related stuff mixed with none PBS related stuff. I think the Admin was right in blocking them but wrong in putting on a 24 hr block. None of there edits seem to respond to anyone at any point. They've posted alot of nonsense I think it would be best if that block was switched from 24hrs to indef until they come forward with a human response.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that it is all vandalism. None of it is sourced, and some of the edits are clearly nonsensical - see [100] for example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a poorly-formatted list of the ads at the beginning of the tape. Silly thing to include, but probably not vandalism. --NE2 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I blocked for two weeks. All edits are relatively fresh; if they continue after the block, I wouldn't object to a longer block. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2014 (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.

User dissing Banglapedia and repeatedly removing citations to it; a topic ban may be warranted[edit]

User:বব২৬ has been involved in some heated arguments with several others, with a previous ANI for edit warring as discussed on their talk page User_talk:বব২৬#Warned for edit warring at Bengali calendar, which resulted in the reporter being warned as well as this user. It is my impression that two skilled editors, @Redtigerxyz: and @Nafsadh: have been driven away, outlasted by the combatant. I thought I could help matters by carefully adding sourced statements to the article, but User:বব২৬ has continued to remove them, including removing the citations. Most recently, the pattern appears to be that citations to the venerable work Banglapedia are removed and dismissed as in the note added with this edit "is at times also miss-romanized as Banggabda instead of the correct phonetic romanization". The article concerns difficult material, but this attitude is not helpful to sorting it out. It is not clear whether this person has a generally dismissive attitude towards Bangladesh and/or Muslim culture, or whether their failure to understand other people's edits and explanations and their aggressive responses are the real problem. In either case, I believe it would be helpful if this person were banned from editing pages related to the country of Bangladesh so that others can get a chance to patiently and carefully edit the material involved, including sorting out the points of confusion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • EdJohnston warned him under Discretionary Sanctions for WP:ARBIPA, which means he is one step away from a topic ban (or any other sanction the admin feels is warranted, including blocks) that can be given by any uninvolved admin. With these types of problems, that is usually the most effective way to deal with it, as it doesn't require a lot of debate. So now he will either get the point, or get topic banned. Dennis - 18:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. First, let me say, I am fond of both Sminthopsis84 and বব২৬; they are good editors.
I am not driven away, but I became busy with other things and thus I cannot gather much time that is needed for those articles. I hope to come back when I find more time. I suggested both বব২৬ and Redtigerxyz to refrain from editing Bengali Calendar, until the dispute resolves. Instead of trying to resolve the issue, বব২৬ started to edit the article after three days cool-down period ended. I also noticed, Sminthopsis84 is also involved there. However, the article has turned into a mess. Initially, Redtigerxyz appeared to be confused about Bengali calendar, and he is a bit pushy about relating Hindu calendar to Bengali calendar. While, বব২৬ is bold about not allowing any such relation. Banglapedia stipulates fully Muslim and Mughal basis of Bengali calendar, which is prevalently popular theory in Bangladesh. Redtigerxyz's source relating Surja Siddhanta, is however notable.
But, I am afraid, বব২৬ is either confused about the subject matter or cannot understand other editors' edits. I am not sure what he means by the modern Bangla cal. is not solar in nature! while it is indeed a solar, sidereal calendar.
The Wiki romanization is phonetically more appropriate, but I don't know who designed it, and it is not authoritative. বব২৬ should take note on that.
Sminthopsis84 has dissed some edits of বব২৬ which seems to be better wording.
I would say বব২৬ is a very skilled editor. But, several recent edit war indicates that, he may have to rethink his approach to other editors. – nafSadh did say 18:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. It is a catch 22, you need the skills to edit, but you also have to get along. It takes both traits. Both can be learned, however. Dennis - 18:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope বব২৬ would refrain from editing the article for one or two months, otherwise, a temporary (may be 2 months) topic ban is warranted. He is very experienced in Bengali Wikipedia, but he has to understand, there are different community standards in English Wikipedia. – nafSadh did say 18:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you can go to his talk page and explain this? Being an "admin" doesn't make us better at explaining nor give us exclusive rights to do so. I get the feeling you could explain this better than some random admin, such as myself. We all want the same thing, peace. Dennis - 18:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The only user here in this thread that I know is Sminthopsis84 (talk · contribs), for whom I have the utmost respect in all regards. If only all users were like said user. As for the combative attitude by one user brought up here, all I have to say is that all users should edit in a polite, mature, and cooperative manner. Wiki does not need users who can't get along. All material should be sourced with reliable quality references. If there are opposing views, both can be in article as long as they have quality references. HalfGig talk 18:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I posted a message in বব২৬'s talk to read this discussion. I assume, he haven't been online in a while and hope would respond when he is back. – nafSadh did say 22:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I have tried discussing with বব২৬ on Talk:Bengali_calendar#User:.E0.A6.AC.E0.A6.AC.E0.A7.A8.E0.A7.AC.27s_edit. But I was getting was WP:OR. The WP:RS were removed, however the user never introduced a RS to say the info I added was inaccurate; besides violations of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and WP:OVERLINK. As nafSadh suggested, I stayed away from the article but in the while বব২৬ continued to edit on the same day. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why other users report me without understanding and having a proper talk on the page. Anyways I recently am going through stress due to this and I give up on this article. Hope other users will develop this article well. Thank you. Cheer up ^__^ বব২৬ (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @বব২৬, I was in a long Wikibreak for more than a year and when I came back this summer, I noticed you to be a very good, prolific and careful editor in Bangladesh related articles. But, it seems to me that, you are probably stressed from something else than just Wikipedia. If you are disturbed and stressed up, it affects your personal and professional life. Recent events about you is very unlike you; you are more patient and collaborative. May be it will be great if you can take a vacation; winter is coming, make a trip to St. Martins Island may be (I assume you are in Bangladesh now); recharge yourself. Cheer up and nJoy! – nafSadh did say 08:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Sadh, I'll try planning going there, ^_^. Thanks for the traditional tea. Cheer up . বব২৬ (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And let me make clear to Sminthopsis84, That I am a Bangladeshi and Moslem. Why do you think I would have a dismissive attitude towards my own mother country and religion? You are one of the editors I have seen who edit without understanding users and articles. You misunderstood my identity and are stating "It is not clear whether this person has a generally dismissive attitude towards Bangladesh and/or Muslim culture, or whether their failure to understand other people's edits and explanations and their aggressive responses are the real problem. In either case, I believe it would be helpful if this person were banned from editing pages related to the country of Bangladesh so that others can get a chance to patiently..." againstt me! What's up with you? I would suggest you too a WikiBreak!
Do you like to plan go to St. Martin's Island to take a WikiBreak together? (A bad Joke to Sminthopsis84)
Like this one, you reverted my edit without understanding that it was enhancement.
Thank you, that's all I wanted to state. বব২৬ (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. However, it is not necessary for me to know anything about you, since the essence of contributing to Wikipedia is that edits should be encyclopedic, and backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not your personal blog; it is a social endeavour that gives little credit to individual contributors. In Wikipedia credentials are irrelevant; edits can be judged on their own merits. Your joke is in bad taste, an attempt to create an in-group that excludes me. That would be in bad taste no matter who it was directed at, but to explain a little, I will let slip one fact about myself: I have been to St Martin's Island; I spent two weeks there with my family and my father's students from Dhaka University. It wasn't really a wikibreak; it was hard physical work.
So back to the main point: why do you keep removing citations to Banglapedia? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
(off-topic) If you go to St. Martin's Island, you should not engage in hard physical work. What I like to do there is, just lie down and count (literally) waves.
Banglapedia, might not be comprehensive, as limited by its physical size, but it is a venerated RS and shall be cited. বব, please try to keep citations intact everywhere. – nafSadh did say 08:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of my archived talk page.[edit]

I have anonymous editor Special:Contributions/86.152.18.72 disruptively editing one of my archived talk pages. In short they posted a potentially libellous on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_American_Football_Referees%27_Association&diff=633356397&oldid=633292149 They then entered in an "argument" on my talk page where I pointed out that such a statement would need to be verifiable, relevant and adhere to the biography of living persons. They stopped the disruptive editing. I moved the conversation to an archived talk page. They've now started disruptively editing my archived talk page by removing their comments. I've asked them to stop with my reason being that I want to keep the comments in my archive as I want to record why I wrote what I wrote and why I acted. I have put the appropriate warnings on the users talks page, but I can do no more. I don't want to turn this into a revert war --Rehnn83 Talk 23:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. User:Dennis Brown beat me to the block. Secret account 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Rehnn83, in cases like that, repeatedly reverting the IP is fine; WP:3RR lists exclusions. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22 thanks Rehnn83 Talk 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's "fine" is the sense it's not an edit-warring violation, but it's probably a bad idea because it's going to amuse the troll. Revert once or twice, then file at WP:AIV, and/or WP:RPP. NE Ent 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Rehnn83, if this recurs you could ask to have those pages semi-protected. All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
I had actually applied a short-term semi-protection to the talk archive on the 16th - once it expires, should disruption resume, a request to WP:RFPP could get a long-term semi-protection applied. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you but I am no troll , I was trying to remove my words not his , as I had decided I was in the wrong. but hey keep calling me names it makes you all look really intelligent 86.152.18.72 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of recommendations: (1) The OP could ask for semi-protection on his archived talk pages. That will put a stop to such nonsense. (2) The IP could ask the user to strike-through (rather than deleting) any comments he regrets making. That's done by bookending the verbiage with < s > and < / s > without the spaces of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou , but he is refusing to even accept an apology. I admit what I put was in the wrong place , but he wont admit that what I put is the truth even though he knows it is. Anyway on the advice of a better editor , I am going to do what he said and that is drop the stick and move on.86.152.18.72 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV[edit]

There is something of a backlog at WP:AIV, your assistance is appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, people at WP:RFUB would be nice; the longest request open has been unanswered for almost a month. Origamite 18:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't there be a bot with edit count checks and only blocking tool etc to block users with obvious vandalism and a final (or escalating) talkpage warning(s) present on talk? Cluebot seems to be quite accurate in reverts. A category for unblock requests by editors blocked by bots would invert the backlog... just an idea. Probably needs to go through village pump. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Editors like yourself have requested this feature for years. Predictably, admins fight against it with their last breath, and make up all kinds of silly excuses why it won't work. Of course, it will work, and it will work so well that it will inevitably replace admins and their elected-for-life-why-should-I-care attitude, which is precisely why they are against it. Automating admin tools so that the rest of the community can get back to building an encyclopedia is precisely the reason why technology was invented. But they won't allow it, because adminship is really a mechanism for social control and authority. Take the red pill... Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
So the significant chunk of my evening that I spent clearing the AIV and UAA backlogs was a complete waste of time? Or an exercise in social control? Pick one. I know it's popular to go round bad-mouthing admins, but actually some us work bloody hard so that people like you aren't bothered by the shit that we deal with. We don't sit in darkened rooms grinding axes all day. For example, just this evening I blocked about 50 vandals, a couple of dozen spammers/self-publicists, and the odd sockpuppet or obvious case of NOTHERE. As a result, they're not at liberty to replace your writing with profanities or distract you from the mainspace by igniting old disputes while pretending to be new or get their self-promotion indexed by Google and risk damaging Wikipedia's reputation. And that's not the worst of it—if you could see how much effort goes into cleaning up after nutters who can switch IPs in the blink of an eye you wouldn't moan about admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You missed the point. Automation can replace all of your admin tasks and free up your time to improve articles. You've been sold on the noble lie that these tasks require admin tools to handle while the true purpose of creating an authoritarian control mechanism in a flat environment escapes you. Just as the shackled prisoners in Plato's cave preferred their slavery, so too do admins. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There's still a human factor required. I've said several times here, to equally deaf ears every time, that there needs to be a way for established users to issue temporary blocks against obvious vandals. They created the rollback feature years ago, there's no logical reason they couldn't do this as well. That would buy some time for the admins to review blocks and take some pressure off them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Viriditas's proposal is boneheaded, which he'll realize the moment some overeager patroller starts slapping around incorrect vandalism warnings and he gets blocked. Or the moment some sock starts slapping around retaliatory vandalism warnings and he gets blocked. Or the moment ClueBot acts up because he makes some weird edit that ClueBot interprets as the insertion of a foreign word for "penis" and etc. If you can't understand that the trigger for such a system, the warning template, is still placed there by human people and that this creates the possibility for enormous abuse, well. HJ Mitchell, I appreciate all the work you've done here and still do. And every afternoon when school goes out somewhere in the US I think, ah, here we go again. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
As a vandalism fighter and administrator hopeful myself, I can see the arguments for both sides here: yes, an automated blocking robot would be useful, but no it really wouldn't work. Whether I'm using STiki or Huggle, there are always edits that I mark as vandalism (or even do a good-faith revert) where I can't be completely sure my action was warranted. I do my best to make sure that I'm actually reverting vandalism, but sometimes there are edits that look like vandalism because they're improperly sourced or just poorly written. If a human can't always make that distinction, why would it be reasonable to expect a robot to be able to? Admins are necessary in order to sort through all that crap and make sure that they're only blocking editors they're sure are persistent vandals. A warning can be easily reverted, and an apology will make it likely the editor will stick around. It's awfully hard to revert and then apologize for a robot blocking someone who never did a single thing wrong. You gave some great examples of what that could be here. I think it's easy to forget that bots aren't perfect, that they're based on people. I'll probably get blasted a bit for "being sold on a noble idea" for posting my opinion, but that's alright. Maybe I am sold on a noble idea, but it's an idea that I'm firmly behind. demize (t · c) 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, Drmies. I can see already; some idiot figures out that he can temporarily block the guy reverting his vandalism, or Cluebot, or Sinebot if he just copy pastes a template a few times and boom! encyclopedia anarchy. To say nothing of the fact that this wouldn't work for those who (gasp) remove templates from their talk pages. Origamite 03:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but I suppose we can make a bot that looks into the edit history of the talk page, or devise a warning log or something. Which in turn will beg the question of how long until a warning "expires". And of course many of us don't start with level 1 warnings, which for most vandalisms is ridiculously mild, but ClueBot does. And some vandalisms are instantly blockable, and if you leave this to bots (and thus give admins less of a reason to keep an eye on things) then the worst of the racists may well have more opportunities to strut their stuff. Despite all the proceedings at ArbCom right now, I can't help but think that hasty, templated warnings and hasty blocks that sometimes result from them, esp. for IP editors, drive away many more potential editors than the occasional f-word. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I just turned down two requests at AIV, one of which was for a brand-new editor who just doesn't get it yet. BITE, anyone? Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Drmies. How many strikes before a bot decides that a newbie is out? Felony charges and plea bargaining, anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UAA is backlogged as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Holy moly NYB, you weren't kidding. Thanks for pointing me that way--and thanks for not doing all of them rightaway so there would be something left for me. Real grand of you. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like a random user came by this discussion by accident after hitting the wrong key on their keyboard or mouse and failed to read for comprehension. Perhaps they were in a hurry or maybe English is their second language, I don't know, but rest assured I am more than happy to correct them once again. As this thread shows, this particular proposal was made by TopGun, not by me. For the record, I merely noted that the proposal is of the perennial type, and is, IMO, a very good idea, as it eliminates the admin problem we currently have and replaces it with an automated model. I maintain that we have no need for admins, and that all of their tasks can be automated. This would free up these noticeboards and the valuable time of other editors to focus on improving the coverage of the encyclopedia. It would also remove 90% of the drama that many of the editors on this page seem to enjoy perpetuating through their MMORPG behavior and actions. Far too much time is wasted on primate dominance displays. The admin function is a throwback to ye olde mainframe days when sysops were needed. Computing is now more distributed than ever, and there is simply no need for anyone to block, ban or discipline anyone else. This can be done automatically with rules, mechanics, and karma metrics. Anyone with half a clue knows this. Stop wasting my time with puerile hand-waving. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course all admin tasks can be automated. All you have to do is create a select group of trusted editors, say about a 1000, who are allowed to instruct the bot when to speedy delete a page or to block an editor, to avoid that too many incorrect or vandalistic blocks, unblocks, deletions, ... are made. Give those editors a toolbox, where they can check e.g. all pages tagged for speedy deletion and indicate that yes, the bot may delete it (perhaps some protected page where they can list them?). This will make admins obsolete and give the new group, let's call them sysops, the last word instead. To decide who can become a sysop, let's create a voting process, we can call it RfS. Brilliant idea! If you want to eliminate the new sysops group altogether, first have someone create a bot that correctly tags pages for speedy deletion. If it can't do that, it can't correctly delete them either of course, as it will need to judge whether a tag is placed correctly. Good luck with that though... Fram (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • If it was possible to write such an admin bot (it isn't), we could just write an editor bot to write the encyclopedia. NE Ent 10:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Whoever writes that better be certified in English by Dr. Viriditas hisself, to whose karma metrics and superior manners I bow like a proper servant should. Perhaps they should run the show here, since they probably have more than half a clue. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
        • In all seriousness, the problem with automated processes is that something is needed to automate them, and they can't make judgement calls. If we only found copyvio based on Earwig's tools, a lovely page which I got speedied twice in the past two days would have been passed over because the computer only found ~60% probability. Origamite 16:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Can we require that this bot utilize a random number generator on the grounds that it's safe to assume X% of the AIV filings will be invalid for one reason or another? I think it would be reassuring to the editing populace to know that even if they were reported at AIV there was only a 70%...oh, let's be optimistic and say 80%...chance that the bot would auto-block them... If the bot could utilize a Big Six wheel graphic so that editors could view their likelihood of blockage in real time, so much the better...in fact, I say open up the betting to the masses and alleviate the need for fundraisers! DonIago (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
        • How about the bot just blocks every 3 out of 4 users listed at AIV, and deletes pages with CSDs and PRODs randomly? With all the equal-rights movements going on now, that will definitely give everybody an equal opportunity at being blocked and everything deleted. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
As long as it's a system we can monetize I'm happy. :p DonIago (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. "Do you want to opt-out of automatic blocking from this bot? You must pay $1 fee every day." =) Epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to take that approach I'd prefer that every dollar paid reduced the odds of an editor being blocked by 1%. :p DonIago (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Suicide threat[edit]

I've found a suicide threat on this page, so I thought I'd post here. Users who threaten to commit suicide should be indefinitely blocked, right? --Biblioworm 21:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Contact the emergency address per WP:EMERGENCY. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm

  • (edit conflict) An annoying one, yes, contact the emergency team. --TitoDutta 21:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I just sent the email a few seconds ago. --Biblioworm 21:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Biblioworm. I have also posted {{Suicide response}} to the user's talk page. Hopefully, if the threat is genuine, the user will be open to finding assistance. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR rule by User:Natty4bumpo[edit]

The article 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre is under the 1RR rule. User:Natty4bumpo has violated the rule by performing this first edit, this second edit, and this third edit. Furthermore, he rebuffed an editor warning him about the 1RR rule by claiming that he is not restricted by it in this comment. A block is usually helpful in such a situation. Tkuvho (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, he was also edit warring at Asperger syndrome and warned. Secret account 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Tkuvho (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
He seems confused about 1RR, he came to my page to ask for help. John Carter said at the talk page that this was probably more incompetence than malice, but if he's been edit warring elsewhere then ok. On the other hand User:ShulMaven removed the tag twice, once last night,[101] then earlier today.[102] ShulMaven has been warned about a 1RR violation earlier this month. Unless someone can see a way to see the 2 reverts as not a 1RR violation, Shulmaven also should be blocked and I probably will if there isn't a convincing argument otherwise. User:Secret? Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Dougweller. If the article is under 1RR violations, and ShulMaven violated despite knowing about it, feel free to block him too. In a high-profile page like that, its better to block the edit warriors than to protect the page. Knowing that Natty was edit warring (and blocked in the past for it) in another page a few days earlier, I don't believe he's clueless about edit warring. Secret account 19:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, Natty4bumpo hasn't actually edited Asperger syndrome since being warned about it 5 days ago. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess if one person who violates 1RR is sanctioned, others should be as well, but I would feel more comfortable letting @Secret: decide that. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I told him he was being discussed here and why, and he came to my talk page asking where with no comment on violating 1RR - not impressive. I've given him a link now. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I truly thought that I was making an edit (removing the POV tag) according to a consensus on a talk page.And that the page was being edited by people who were trying to get solid sources and facts up in a timely and responsible fashion.ShulMaven (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And Nattybumpo felt he wasn't violating 1RR or subject to it. You were warned about 1RR before, where did you get the idea that you could violate it simply because of the position taken by other editors?
I have no idea. It's not like I studied a manual. More like I slid into this sideways, writing articles when I wanted to know about something that didn't have an article, or saw an error or omission in an article that I was reading because I did want to know something. And I more or less figured out the rules and the grammar as I went along. Or not.ShulMaven (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
ThaddeusB, Natty4bumpo continued to edit war at Asperger syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) well after multiple warnings. To such an extent that I am surprised that his block isn't longer than 24 hours. History:
  1. There are multiple 3RR warnings dating back years on his talk page, including (but not limited to): June 2009, August 2010, January 2011, and October 2014.
  2. On November 6 23:07, after seeing that Natty4Bumpo was editwarring against seven other editors, and against strong consensus on talk with no editor supporting the position taken by Natty,[103] I again warned Natty about 3RR.
  3. After two previous warnings about his edit warring at Featured article Asperger syndrome, and with no editor concurring with the edits s/he was making, s/he again reverted three more times, after the warning. [104], [105], and [106]. (If I got those diffs wrong, please have a look at the article history, where Natty has reverts on November 6 at 23:38, November 7 at 00:03, and November 7 at 06:52 ... ugh on my diff gathering.)
This is edit warring supreme from an editor with a long history of same (please peruse Natty's talk page). I do not understand why the block is so short, and suggest perhaps this editor should not be editing in the area of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocks are not made for punishment. He hasn't edited Asperger syndrome since Nov 7, the date of his last warning. Today is Nov 19. This does not in any way justify his behavior there - and maybe a topic ban is warrented, I have no idea - but saying this block was in part because "he was also edit warring at Asperger syndrome" is deceptive. It strongly implies the behavior was today or at least very recent. We do not give blocks 12 days after an event, they are used for preventing further harm, not punishment. (The actual reason for the block is completely justified, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User returns from block to resume battleground strategies[edit]

Spotter 1 has returned from being blocked to resume the same tendentious editing activities he was blocked for in the first instance. While I don't usually revert any talk page entries or comments, I felt compelled to revert this entry on the RT TV network talk page as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The call outs to other editors was undoubtedly a WP:Pointy tactic to draw other editors back to the talk page in order to maximise disruptive impact because of his WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach to consensus and reliable sources. Evidently, he did not understand why he was blocked in the first place. I honestly don't think he has any intention of WP:LISTENing now or in the future. --Evidently (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not true. This user accused us of a minority position without any evidence! ("Two users jumping up and down and making a lot of noise in as many forums")[107] under "Motion NPOV tag") and the post was meant as a rebutal of her claim!.Spotter 1 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I might add that Iryna Harpy's behaviour is unacceptable. Reverting a talk page entry without understanding even slightly the intend of the post. Evidently Iryna Harpy wants WP to be immune to any ideologically inconvenient criticism.Spotter 1 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to also make a note of Spotter 1's aggressive resumption of casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding other editors per the section he's just added to my talk page here. The user is convinced that there could only be a WP:CABAL at work if consensus does not lie with him as a seeker of 'The Truth'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As regards not understanding the intention of the post, I beg to differ. Your intentions are being evidenced by further additions, using the talk page as a forum within a few minutes here and here. As regards my 'obfuscating' ideologically inconvenient criticism, you're tossing in red herrings. I've argued for and against 'ideological' positions, but always within the parameters of policy. I don't actually care what position you're advocating, so long as you don't pursue it by bullying and being WP:POINTy. You just don't seem to want to grasp that there are constructive approaches to discussing important issues and intentionally disruptive approaches (which your behaviour epitomises). I don't care whether you represent 'The Truth' according to small l liberalism, Ukrainian nationalism, Russian nationalism, or any miscellaneous branch of neocon kneejerk-ism: I would do my best to stop you from flouting Wikipedia's processes. The fact is that you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No not forum, what I do is setting up my argument into a context, point being how it is possible to arrive at a point where a multitude of editors is contesting the NPOV of the RT article. The core reason for all the disputes is the fishing for reliable sources which are used to justify any claim (mainly in the political sphere). Giving the example of Ofcom's methodological fact based approach to criticism of RT is part of my INTENT to show what a fact-based article actually means, thereby giving a constructive model how disputes can be avoided in the future. I don't care what your mission statement is but I do care if the claims stated in articles are factbased and therefore the encyclopicdic value of WP is preserved. I do not claim to have the "truth". I eschew any ideology that is not fact based. I'am open to constructive suggestions how to improve my approach, but keep in mind there is a history to our disputes which I pay special attention to. That's itSpotter 1 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"I'am open to constructive suggestions how to improve my approach" - a good idea would be to start with editing something less controversial, and learn the ropes of discussion that way. Volunteer Marek  01:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. The "Information-System", which WP is a part of, is one of the most important topics and RT is one of the most exposed organisations which are under considerable scrutiny right now. I think WP has much to gain through resolving any issue regarding the usage of opinions and facts.Spotter 1 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What I'm seeing looks like a POV issue with Spotter, particularly at RT (TV_network). They seem to have decided that neutrality mean showing 50% pro Russian perspectives, when that is not what neutral means. It means we follow the sources, where ever they lead us. No amount of verbosity or wikilawyering gets around that. Until you learn the basics around here, I strongly suggest you take Volunteer Marek's advice and avoid contentious articles. Dennis - 02:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Wrong, this shouldn't be a "what is the majority-opinion" contest but what are the facts and which RS is corroberating these facts. In effect you are saying that facts are meaningless, everything we do here is parroting American mainstream media talking points; that's not a neutral point of view, it's the mirroring of whatever is the majority opinion of the "Western" mainstream media.Spotter 1 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I said we follow the sources. If the majority are reporting one thing, that is where the majority of coverage goes. That is how it works. You keep saying "facts", but for some reason, it comes across as "Truth®". We should include more than American perspectives, but you seem to have determined what "fair" means ahead of time, and you are trying to find sources to back your claim. That isn't how we define "neutral". That is probably why you are getting into so many arguments. Your disdain for the American sources is pretty obvious as well. So yes, I smell a NPOV issue and that is a problem. Dennis - 02:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious how the user seems to think he knows the facts ahead of reliable sourcing. That's like putting the troika before the horses. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. That is the difference between searching sources for facts you don't know, and looking for sources to prove the truth you already know. Dennis - 02:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I was about to warn the user via WP:ARBEE, but I see EdJohnston already has (its on his page, but not logged). I'm tempted to sanction Spotter, but I've got to leave now, and couldn't follow up. Any admin can use any sanction they feel is appropriate here, without delay as this does fall under Discretionary Sanctions and he was warned on th 14th, and I wanted to make sure they knew that. Dennis - 03:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The answer was absolutely warranted because the accusation of being "only" two editors who try to make up things or a dispute was disproven; if it weren't for Iryna Harpy's accusation (others made it too) I wouldn't have posted the rebutal!.Spotter 1 (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok let's make it more tangible (RT and almost every other media organisation did report on it): RT in it's coverage of the MH 17 crash reported on the Russian Defence ministries public presentation of the tracking of a unindentified aircraft near MH17. Now the claim is becoming a fact when other entities (f.e. other defence ministries) independent confirm the claim by comparing their recorded data (radar signature etc.) with the Russian analogue. The most important thing here is the recorded data which can be used as evidence for a factual statement.

Or take Ofcom's report on RT's coverage. When it makes a judgement, it uses actual facts (starting on page 6, reproducing the actual coverage of RT), which can be independently verfied by footage (which is the data if you want) and applying it's rules in its specific judgement (becoming an opinion when it leaves the territory of facts, which it actually readily admits).

The link to its report: [108]

The summary statements about facts have to be sourced in/from independently verfiable data.

Spotter 1 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. Now you're using the ANI as a WP:SOAPBOX. Before you dig yourself in for another BATTLEGROUND stand-off, take the good advice you've been offered about learning the ropes by starting with uncontroversial articles you don't have a vested, emotional POV interest in. The majority of regular editors here have extensive watchlists and patrol, copy edit, check sources for articles from religion in the Maldives to the history of novellas to popular television shows. Whether you're prepared to accept it or not, they're all important and interesting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You see what I am dealing with? As soon as the argument is reaching its climax, editors throw different jibberish accusation at me to avoid any further discussion (when it looks like it is not going in favour of the respective editor). I have no intrest in a BATTLEGROUND stand-off, I think I've made it clear what my intent was and is, I pull back; let the reader decide.Spotter 1 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do you persist in calling Wikipedia's policies and guidelines "gibberish"? You've not even familiarised yourself with policies as they have been pointed out to you but, instead, find essays that appeal to your POV and try to base discussions around this along with huge tracts of anything you can find to throw into the mix. Policies and guidelines have been developed with care and much deliberation, and if you took some time out to understand them you'd see that they are most certainly not some form of irritating obstruction (except to your own agenda). The fact that you don't want to read them doesn't make them 'gibberish'. As to your assertion that "As soon as the argument is reaching its climax, editors throw different jibberish accusation at me to avoid any further discussion.": what 'climax'? You've established nothing other than the fact that you believe yourself to have proven some sort of spurious pseudo-case. Please be so good as to point out examples where editors were about to have an epiphany due to your insights. Are you really going continue to be so arrogant as to believe yourself to be the only person who has questioned how best to implement and serve policies designed with the spirit of Wikipedia in mind? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's your interpretation of what I wrote. I agree with WP:POLICIES and I am prepared to reflect on any mistake I make. "you don't have a vested, emotional POV interest in" this is gibberish nonsense. "Climax" as in the debate has reached the point when there is not a objective statement to make and you resort to ad hominum attacks. "only person who has questioned how best to implement and serve policies designed with the spirit of Wikipedia in mind?" I count on our fellow men to do just that.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Will topic ban for EE topics be in order here?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is hardly someone who is a neutral party but the complete opposite. I stated my reason for the rebutal if it is deemed invalid, so be it, but be aware that Ymblantar is not someone who should tip the scales. Ym is part of the conflict from the beginning, not a neutral observer and very distinctive by threatening to ban anyone who disagrees with him for a period of time (he had to retract from a recent threat made against Kenfree). Spotter 1 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Wrong prospective (I am not against you, I am against breaking Wikipedia policies) and outright lie (I did not retract from anywhere). The thread is about you, and I am perfectly entitled to propose a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Well then you should READ Wikipedia policies, Yblanter. They do not say that "any" admin is free to impose sanctions, but any UNINVOLVED admin. And you, sir, have been identified as "involved" ever since you declined to participate in the mediation request to which you were named as an involved party, and by your many one-sided comments before and since. Kenfree (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
A lie? [109][110] and if I remember correctly the relevant passage was crossed out. Still you are not a neutral observer in this context, the proposed sanction is in your interest.Spotter 1 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Iam obviously involved, and this is the only reason why you are still not indefblocked despite beinmg an obvious sock. However, I am perfectly entitled to propose a topic ban.--Ymblanter (