Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive892

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Edit warring at high-profile BLP that's subject to discretionary sanctions[edit]

The issue of which picture for Jeb Bush is a content dispute that needs to go back to the talk page now. Everything else belongs somewhere else if it belongs at all. No further action will be conducted by sensible admins since there are as many as seven different images to choose from, greatly increasing the probability that all we can do is protect the wrong version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2015 (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.

Today, User:MrX has twice deleted the image at the top of the Jeb Bush article (first deletion, second deletion) which had been stable since June 22 23. MrX replaced that image with one that he had previously inserted on June 22. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions,[1] as MrX has been well aware.[2] MrX has been involved in image disputes and inappropriate editing at other articles of Republican presidential candidates (also subject to discretionary sanctions). For example, last month, he inserted a top photo into the Mike Huckabee article [3], only a day after explicitly saying at another talk page that that image will “convey anger”. [4] But getting back to the edit warring today over the top image at Jeb Bush, MrX has not bothered to use the article talk page since June 23, and his second revert today ignored my objections at the article talk page to his first revert. I will repeat that comment of mine right now, because MrX has not yet acknowledged it in any way:

The image that has been atop this article since 22 June (called "jebcropped") was removed today.[5] I will restore it because no one at this talk page has disagreed (with my assessment above on 27 June) that the poll above has been overtaken by additional images. Indeed, only two editors were involved in the poll above, between addition of the "jebcropped" image to the poll on June 23 and my assessment on June 27. Instead, people have continued commenting in the subsections below.

Instead of responding, MrX decided to edit war, and I think this ought to be unacceptable at such a high profile article that is subject to discretionary sanctions, even if the BLP subject happens to be a Republican.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "decide to edit war". My first edit implemented the clear consensus in which five editors supported the edit by a wide margin. This can be readily seen here: talk: Jeb Bush#Infobox photo. My reasoning was articulated in my edit summary. I made a total of six comments in the talk page discussion. I was not aware that I had a quota.
I did not see Anythingyouwant's objection on the talk page before I reverted, else I would have responded that consensus supports my edit. Does anyone see any other interpretation? The only reason that Anythingyouwant's preferred version has been stable since June 22 is because that's when he first forced it in against consensus. He did this during the poll, and brushed off my objection.
As to my editing on Mike Huckabee, my edit was based on the technical qualities of the photo. Note also that I did concede that I had overlooked the expression of the subject's face.- MrX 17:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, when MrX reverted a second time, he could see my edit summary explicitly referencing the article talk page three times.[6] In addition, he must have the article and its talk page watchlisted. MrX has sought to make his edit-warring stick today by templating my user talk page after his second revert to the BLP.[7] MrX is a pretty savvy guy, and I do not believe he could have overlooked the article talk page since June 23 without doing so deliberately. I'll leave the rest of his comments above for others to sort through if they are of interest, and will be glad to answer any questions from third parties. I don't see that MrX's diffs and links show any error on my part.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This really seems like a matter that should be hashed out on the article talk page. The next step should be an RFC, not an ANI discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I will revert to the stable image and start an RFC if people don't see anything actionable in this ANI section. It looked actionable to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't restore your personal favorite image when five editors favor another image in the current RfC. Why would you post another RfC when there's already one in progress? The correct action is to request that an uninvolved editor formally close the current RfC and abide by its consensus.- MrX 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there was an open RFC when you last visited the article talk page on June 23, but there is none now, as you know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have linked to it. Here it is → Talk:Jeb_Bush#Infobox_photo. The poll started by Hammersoft has been running for 23 days. Image 2 has five supporting !votes; images 3 and 7 each have two supporting !votes; all of the other choices have one or fewer supporting !votes. - MrX 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
As you know, that's a straw poll, and I addressed it in the big blockquote in my first comment above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus seeking can take many forms. As I mentioned on the talk page, straw polls can be very useful where the dispute is based on subjective factors rather than policy interpretation. Perhaps you should consult with the other editors who already took the time to make their preferences known.- MrX 18:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, straw polls can be very useful. As can RFCs. As can article talk pages more generally. In this instance, I would support an RFC to consider only the two images in question, while restoring the stable image. Whether you are blocked or not is up to others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Relatedly to non-neutral editing at GOP presidential candidate BLPs, I also want to flag the comment that MrX just made at Talk:Marco_Rubio. The BLP currently attributes to a specific opinion piece that Rubio used to be the "crown prince" of the Tea Party. MrX contorts WP:Weasel to assert that attributing such stuff as "opinion" is improper. In other words, we have a broad problem here with an editor of certain candidate BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, what I said was "the addition of "opinion piece" is awkward and unnecessary bordering on WP:WEASEL". I never said it was "improper". Of course it should be attributed, but the phrasing "opinion piece" casts doubt on the source. It would be more appropriate to simply say that "James M. Lindsay in Newsweek said...". Anyway, I'm not sure how my article talk page comment rises to the level of an ANI complaint.- MrX 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If the source itself says "OPINION" then that should be the end of the matter for us, and WP:Weasel does not in any way discourage us from saying that it is opinion. Merely saying "James M. Lindsay" is ambiguous about whether he's a reporter, and such weaseliness is inappropriate, and is obviously not supported by WP:Weasel, as you ought to know. I'm bring this up here because I've already described substantial problems at two similar articles (Bush and Huckabee), and all three articles are high profile BLPs under discretionary sanctions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2015 (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:Curse of Fenric[edit]

Withdrawn by filer; named editor was already indef blocked. (non-admin closure) -- Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, my fellow Wikipedians. I bring before you the user named Curse of Fenric (talk · contribs), currently indef blocked by Nick (talk · contribs) for being disruptive and clearly not being here to be productive. I bring him before you even though he is indef'd to make the indef block officially in to a ban so the user in question must go through a ban appeal to return. Curse's presence on Wikipedia since his return from a seven year self-imposed absence for not getting his way before has been marred by name calling, uncooperation, complaining, ignoring of consensus, ego, and ignoring behavioral guidelines. He has edited/removed other people's comments on talk pages, even to the point he was even called out by an IP user. He has told me personally to "butt out", while trying to excuse it by saying he said "kindly", as if that somehow makes it okay in relation to WP:CIVIL. He called his blocking admin "pathetic". He has been rude while trying to excuse it by saying he was "provoked", again, as if that makes it okay in relation to WP:CIVIL. He's labeled any comments that challenged his position and/or actions as "baiting". He even "banned" three users, including myself, from leaving him messages on his talk page. And when Mareklug removed it, he re-added it. When Nick removed it again, he re-added it again, though he hid it. In his departure, he left a "self-block" message on his user page. I ask that the community impose an indefinite ban that the user must appeal to return so he can prove that he intend to return to be productive and not waste the community's time. Thank you. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's far too early to be thinking about a ban given the indefinite block today is their first block and there's not an enormous amount of discussion about the user previously. I'm happy for anybody to review and lift the block if/when Curse of Fenric makes suitable assurance about their future behaviour, editing patterns and interactions with their fellow editors. The onus is now on Curse of Fenric to illustrate how they intend to become a productive and trouble free contributor. Nick (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Nick definitely deserves a lot of credit for taking the initiative and blocking Curse, typically you have to jump through hoops to get unproductive editors who don't specialize in outright vandalism blocked. While my only experience with Curse was at Professional wrestling in Australia, and we never had any particularly heated arguments, his arguments with seemingly everybody else in the Professional Wrestling Wikiproject were really uncalled for. I hope that Curse sees the error of their ways and make those suitable assurances but that would be a complete change of character for them. If his block is to be overturned I would suggest a topic ban in the area of Pro Wrestling as that seems to be the source of most (all?) of his contention.LM2000 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a feeling his block log is clean and there's been little discussion about him because of the aforementioned seven year absence. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me add fuel to the fire - Not sure exactly what COF was blocked for exactly, but I've recently had a run-in with that editor over at Talk:Incidents at Disneyland Resort. First he accused me of anti vaccine conduct TBH and trying to hide the truth of why California now has a new law. Then went on to basically Call me an activist. When I tried to explain why I objected to the information he basically said straight out that I was a liar. And he even went so far as to admit that he was assuming bad faith. Finally today he said If you can't see that then there is clearly something wrong with you. These links were not mentioned above so I thought I would add them for consideration. COF clearly does not understand how to assume good faith and does not understand how to not attack other editors motives.--JOJ Hutton 02:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't read that discussion, or I probably would have linked a few difs. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 02:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ironically, I was planning on opening a case here just after I read the last attack on me by FOC. But I was just going to put it off for a few hours because I was watching The Blob with the wife. When I came here I noticed that one was already opened and FOC had already been indef blocked, and for something completely unrelated to what I was going to report him for. Just goes to show that when it rains, it pours.--JOJ Hutton 02:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If at this point he is indeffed and it's only his talk page that is disruptive, might revoke Talk page access for at least a while. Agree with Nick that there is probably not enough history for a policy-based ban. I think this ANI filing served a purpose by creating a record of some problems if someone needs to check on these things in the future. However at present, under the indef, there's not much point in doing anything more other than possibly a revocation of talk-page access (and adding a link to this ANI on his Talk page) for whatever period seems appropriate, if that is the only disruption he is creating. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The !voting hasn't started yet but I Oppose a ban for 2 reasons. First, as a personal principle I will oppose ban/sanction proposals by one party in a dispute. Second, COF was just blocked and has not engaged in any sort of the typical behaviour one expects. No socking (IP or otherwise), vandalism, trolling, harassment etc. They're obviously upset that things didn't go their way and that others don't see things the way they do. This happens regularly and should not be something that is held over their head like the Sword of Damocles. I suggest leaving the block as it is now and move on. Blackmane (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose a ban as well at this time. It's too premature to even consider. TrueCRaysball should maybe remember that he got away with a lot more misbehavior before he was banned himself, before proposing to ban other people.--Atlan (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, consulting the OP's block log does put a rather new light on things. Suggest closing this thread as a waste of everyone's time. Softlavender (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I realize the OP isn't exempt from scrutiny, but for pete's sake that was over four years ago. But Atlan's point is well take. Though I don't get Softlavender's point of how that "put things in a new light". TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 04:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban; no justification has even been given for a ban because it doesn't exist. The notion that this editor has committed some exceptional misconduct that demands nothing short of a community consensus to ever return to editing is excessive and draconian. They are blocked indefinitely; this is a perfectly ample preventative measure for the protection of the project, and there's no reason the standard block appeals process is not applicable. Basically it just looks like OP has beef with COF and wants to see them punished with a ban. Nope. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    I honestly don't have a beef with the user in question, I just thought (incorrectly, apparently) that his actions justified a ban. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:BMB: "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors." I suggest you withdraw/close/archive this thread as in error before it starts to boomerang on you. And don't repeat the error (i.e., don't come to a noticeboard requesting that an editor be banned less than an hour after they've been indef blocked. Or, preferably, at all.) Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In fact, it appears that, per Atlan, that I jumped the gun and as such I withdraw this proposal and apologize for wasting everyone's time. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:35, 14 July 2015 (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.

Calibrador again[edit]

There is nothing on the English Wikipedia that prevents an editor from adding their name to a photo they have taken. I would point out that the files are uploaded at Commons and not here. So any discussion should be there rather than here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • (I should point out Calibrador wasn't brought here a month, Calibrador infact brought another editor here so I apologize for that mistake. –Davey2010Talk 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC))

About a month ago Calibrador was brought here[8] because he basically adds his name to the end of his images and I and others thought it was SELFPROMOTION, He's returned and has reinserted his images everywhere, I did revert but obviously he's reverted back and well edit warring isn't going to solve anything.... Anyway can anything be done in regards to the image title-naming and or mass image adding as there were proposals in the ANI discussion but nothing was done, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 03:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Before anyone comments on this, I suggest taking a closer look. One, Davey2010 reverted my addition of my photos to articles that previously did not have any free image available (at least 5 or more instances of this). Two, no edit summary was given by Davey2010, aside from this one, "Stop spamming your fucking images." Three, in each instance when I added an image, I made sure to include an edit summary for changing the image if one was already available, moved the previous image further down in the article if it helped to better illustrate the article subject, and did not add an image of someone I may have a free photo for, but the previous image was better. His objection involves naming policy, which none of the previous ANI discussion yielded any sort of result from, as there is no policy, that I am aware of, regarding the author name in the title of the image. If there is a specific policy against this, then I am all ears. Calibrador (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit I should've looked closely instead of blindly reverting and so I apologize for that, Anyway I know for a fact someone is going to end up reverting Calibrador which is why I want this resolved instead of everyone going in one big circle reverting each other and ending up at various noticeboards, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 03:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone could propose an edit filter that disallows "gage skidmore" in filenames. That would solve the issue rather quickly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Genuine question: Is there a policy against wiki editors who live-post a lot of their own photos from having their name in the file name? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious. Not going to name users yet but one fairly high-profile noticeboard case of late concerned an editor who does exactly that. Is it against policy? Or not? Rightly or wrongly, I agree that editors need to establish consensus before replacing existing photos with ones they themselves have taken unless they receive talk-page consensus first -- especially if they are reverted -- per WP:BRD. And no, I don't like it when people spam their own work onto Wikipedia, especially in large quantities and especially if it has become problematic and people request them to stop. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
So to clarify he is adding his name to the file names of the images in question. His name is neither within Wikipedia nor within the displaced image.
This is sort of borderline. Not the typical Wikipedia way but not against policy either as far as I am aware. Someone can create a bot to change the names if they so cared. We should thank User:Calibrador for his images though. Good images are hard to create. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: to Doc James: My understanding is the images he is posting already have his name in the file name, and he is replacing perfectly acceptable (and often superior) existing images with his own images (whose files include his real name), without consensus or reason other than seemingly to spam or promote himself. See the previous lengthy ANI linked in the OP. Davey2010, kindly provide a lot of diffs for the behaviors you are talking about ... don't make us search or wonder. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In a sane world we might think that placing the creator's name in the filename would be a useful way to reinforce attribution. In all of the recent cases reverted by Davey where there was a previous image in the article, the images Calibrador added were more recent and of equivalent or higher quality. (I guess there's a handful where I'd call the previous image more flattering, but that's subjective.) IMO this needs to stop coming back to ANI and anyone who objects to this style of file naming needs to start an RfC on the subject that is not about any one specific individual's contributions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I would gently suggest that if anyone creates an edit filter to enforce a "policy" that doesn't exist and is being actively discussed, that person might very well have the ability to create edit filters taken from him. We already have a case at Arbcom that involves an admin using an edit filter to create a permanent block of an IP address with no record of the action in the block log. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this is definitely an unacceptable use of the edit filter. I do think the name-in-file issue is worth a discussion somewhere (not here) though. Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree that username in file, if it is the uploading wiki editor's, is a questionable and self-promotional practice. If it's a one-off photo from outside wiki (a non-wiki photographer) that had to be OTRSed for copyright release, that's one thing. But mass uploads of photos by a wiki editor who puts their name in the file itself is in my mind like spamming numerous article ELs with links to one site. There has definitely been controversy about this issue recently in other wiki venues; I lost the trail of the outcome but I recall some of the parties involved. In any case, regarding the editor in question, if the OP is not going to give us any actual evidence in the form of recent diffs (preferably a good deal of them), I don't think they've sufficiently made their case here. Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I apologize for not explaining better yesterday - Stupidly I assumed everyone would've known - If only we were mind readers eh :), Anyway basically Gage Skidmore (Now Calibrador) has been adding his name to the end of the file names of his own images[9] for quite a long time despite all of the Metadata stuff, I and others thought this was self promotion and had reverted him, I and others went to his talkpage but to no avail, Realizing he (and others) weren't going to stop I took him to ANEW [10] but he was only warned[11], A month later Calibrador took another editor to ANI and it all backfired and was turned to Calibador and his images/behaviour - There was proposals in the report [12]for interaction banfor a ban on Calibrador/Gage Skidmore to add his name as author/photographer to articles on en-WP but the entire discussion was archived with no action being taken, A day later he was blocked for 24 hours [13] for edit warring and wanting to add his own images to an article[14][15][16],
I hope I've explained a bit more better, I agree with the above he does upload some great images and I personally have no issues with the bloke but the "Gage Skidmore" part at the end is problematic - That's my only issue, As I said on his TP this morning[17] if he removed his name from the file names I honestly would have no problems with him adding all his images here but too me it does seem like selfpromotion, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, so what policy or consensus is that violating? If none, then you have no business reverting him, and there's surely no admin action needed here? Mr Potto (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That's my point I and others believe he is violating WP:SELFPROMOTION by adding his name, There's been a divided discussion above but no one has said "yes it's fine" or "no it's not fine" and since nothing's been done so far I would like someone to either take action against him (either telling him to stop or to block him) or say "Nope he's allowed to do it" otherwise he's going to keep being reverted by everyone. –Davey2010Talk 17:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:SELFPROMOTION is clearly about "Writing about yourself and your work" and he has not been doing that. It says absolutely nothing about using your name in a file name (or anything other than writing about yourself or citing yourself in a reference), so I don't see how you can possibly think you have a mandate for reverting or for asking for admin action. If you want to modify policy to prohibit this file naming approach then you need to go get a consensus and make the modification, and stop trying to enforce a policy that clearly does not exist. Mr Potto (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No but it's plainly obvious it is Selfpromotion and an RFC won't accomplish nothing as even if there is a consensus to ban names he'd carry on anyway, But anyway as I said I'm simply looking for an admin to take some sort of action or to say it's fine ... That's it. –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It's fine. There's nothing in the relevant project standard about including your name in the filename, which isn't officially a guideline or policy anyway. A prolific image contributor, User:Shankbone, has done this in the past, and as far as I know, he didn't get complaints; he's never been blocked, for example. Finally, we don't have jurisdiction over the names given to these files: decisions made here at en:wp aren't binding on Commons, and you need to go to COM:AN/U if you want to seek sanctions for doing something that's permitted by policy. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah I wasn't aware of that at all, Well if others have done it no problems then really it should be fine here, Anyway Thank you Nyttend for your reply - Much appreciated, Can someone close this please? –Davey2010Talk 18:12, 14 July 2015 (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.

LooneyTunerIan[edit]

BLOCKED 6 MONTHS
Blocked for 6 months per the commentary below in order to prevent further disruption and unpleasantness; this is a janitorial block and I personally have no objections to unblock by any uninvolved admin if they consider that the user shows a realistic appreciation of the problems with xyr editing and demonstrates self-awareness and a willingness to improve. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed talk page access from Loony due to repeated misuse of the unblock template. Chillum 18:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

This user has been discussed previously, when he was adding repeated copyright violations and acting uncivilly. See the past discussion.

Since then, this user deleted all articles he contributed to the wiki as he said he would in the past discussion. He also edited multiple articles about specific cartoons and removed information about their availability on VHS or laserdisc. It appears that he intended to remove all references regarding Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki, as he feels "wronged" due to the previous warnings regarding copyright infringement and unsourced content. As he stated in the previous discussion (linked above), "It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs." Examples of removal of content: [18], [19]

He's also continued to be combative towards other editors. See examples: [20], [21].

Unfortunately, this editor is simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Even after several attempts by multiple users to reach out to him and interact in a constructive manner, he continues to snap at anyone who disagrees with him and has acted in bad faith by attempting to remove all references to Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki after not being allowed to continue adding unsourced articles with major copyright infringements. At this point, he's making exclusively disruptive edits. ~ RobTalk 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If this sort of thing is bothering everyone, someone should issue a warning watermark stamp/template on my talk page. It's the only way I'll back off. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
LooneyTunerIan – please review WP:POINT. At this point, one of us could add a {{Uw-point}} warning message to your Talk page, but is it really still necessary?... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
IJBall If it's the only way to refrain myself from editing all those articles, SO BE IT. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No, there's another way. An admin could take a look at your edits, take a look at the copyvios, take a look at all the deleted artcles, amd finally take a look at your deliberately pointy behavior, and simply decide that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and block you from editing. Is that what you're looking for, or would you rather moderate your behavior on your own and continue editing? BMK (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Per user request, I placed a level4/disruption warning on his talkpage. Please don't consider this prejudicial against any blocking others might be considering. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Recommending 6 month block. It may be possible that there are some constructive edits among their 328 mainspace edits but the overall persistent unconstructive edits and infringements of policy and the refusal to 'backoff' unfortunately conclude that LooneyTunerIan's presence on Wikipedia is a net negative at least for the time being until they can demonstrate some level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung - I've already gotten my warning. I've learned my lesson. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That's why I didn't block you yet myself and am asking for input from other admins, LooneyTunerIan. However, other admins may suggest that it's time for you to go per WP:NOTHERE. Only time will tell and a six month prevention of disruption would also give you time to think how you would prefer to edit the encyclopedia in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung - Well, then how about a perma-block or a foreva-block? If you think I'm causing trouble on Wikipedia, maybe you should recommend that I should be banished forever. And you can even add a message for me, just to make sure I stay gone. Maybe it can say something like: "LooneyTunerIan, you are hereby blocked and banned from Wikipedia, forever. As such you will not have permission to edit any articles. Now go find your own wiki to edit as much as you please and never come back. Ever." Honestly, Kudpung, why can't we just leave me with a warning and leave it like that? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see Law of holes and WP:Wikipedia does not need you. BMK (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Support permanent block, good suggestion. Flat Out (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Flat Out - If you're going to support it, don't forget the message I've included in the previous reply above. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
LooneyTunerIan your proposal of a total ban, and the manner in which you raised it, shows that you have learnt nothing. Flat Out (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan is obviously quite upset, and a short block is in order given the disruptive behavior. It is not clear to me why anyone thinks long blocks (6 months or more) are appropriate -- it seems extremely likely that LooneyTunerIan will cool down and not return to disruption after a short break, and if I'm wrong then we can deal with that later easily. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He;s lucky I'm recommending only 6 months. I was originally tempted to unilaterally indef him per WP:NOTHERE without the tralala of this ANI thread.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 3-6 month block, LooneyTunerIan may cool down, his facetious comments here, don't suggest that he has yet 'learnt his lesson'.Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support indef block; standard offer if s/he wishes: WP:NOTHERE. Six months plus several hundred good-faith edits on Wikibooks or Wikivoyage is enough to think again before demanding allegiance. Esquivalience t 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 6-month to indef block. The kicker is their (repeated) statement "It's the only way I'll back off". If any editor says that about anything, regarding anything, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support(uninvolved non admin) Simply WP:NOTHERE and is disruptive. I question if 6 months is long enough, but its a good starting point. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've unarchived this, as it seems clear that "do nothing" was not the consensus. ~ RobTalk 02:35, 15 July 2015 (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.

Concerns about the behavior of User:HughD[edit]

I am opening this thread to seek guidance on how to handle the increasingly un-civil behavior of another editor, HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), towards me and others (including DaltonCastle, Comatmebro, Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin, and One15969). This editor, myself, and a number of other editors have been involved in a series of content disputes at Americans for Prosperity. HughD has been blocked several times in the past few months for edit warring on that article. He has recently escalated a campaign of personal attacks against me and others. Without providing diffs, he has accused me of "whitewashing" and "section blanking." His behavior is contributing to an increasingly toxic editing environment. His extraordinarily condescending talk page comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Last time he was blocked for edit warring, the blocking admin wrote: "This is getting out of hand; if you continue editing in this manner, you may face a topic ban or indefinite block. Please reconsider your behavior before that becomes necessary" [22]. I have asked HughD a number of times (most recently, here [23]) to discuss content over contributors to no avail. Some recent examples of uncivil remarks/personal attacks include:

  • "You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss...I think you think you know better than our pillars." (No examples of my alleged refusal to discuss, or egging on of other editors are given. I find the accusation of refusing to discuss odd given the dozens of talk page edits I've made on the article in question) [24]
  • "It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion." [25]
  • "We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar." [26]
  • "I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed...Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk." [27]
  • "In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position...a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. " [28]
  • "Any competent editor would anticipate some of these edits might be considered controversial." [29]
  • "Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says?" [30]
  • "This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of WP:DUE not usually associated with experienced editors such as yourself. We sometimes find this type of misapplication of WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors." [31]
  • "You have taken your first, small step to understanding NPOV!" [32]
  • "I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong." [33]
  • "It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it." [34]
  • "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." [35]
  • "Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking... because you are not hypocrites." [36]

I would like guidance on how to handle this user's increasingly hostile and unproductive comments. I want to ensure this user is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to continue posting snarky, incendiary talk page comments. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang[edit]

  • Support boomerang on Champaign Supernova and DaltonCastle for deliberately targeting HughD and turning a content dispute into a behavioral dispute by misrepresenting the actual dispute under discussion, portraying HughD as the problem (when in fact the problem is biased editing by the above editors), and taking Hugh's quotes from talk pages out of context to misrepresent his position and attitude. The above editors seem to be working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles. This is a violation of basic policies regarding content, and their railroading of HughD is an attempt to distract from the actual problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind providing diffs of me engaging in "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles"? There have undoubtedly been a number of content disputes on the article's talk page, but perhaps you are mistaking me with another editor(s)? Earlier today I made this edit to the talk page [37] "This article has ebbed and flowed between 'washes,' both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a WP:COATRACK with too many intricate funding details per WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground..." Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And speaking of boomerangs, Viriditas, maybe don't call other editors "trolls"? [38] Your entirely unprovoked rage-spiral at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour looks a lot like Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ive made zero changes on the page since I was told to avoid edit-warring. I havent edited it in weeks. I have only noticed the changes made by Hugh. Viriditas is rather new to the page. I can assure you that Hugh was not improving the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
After all the chest thumping and bluster, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff showing a problem with HughD that requires admin intervention. Instead, the diffs show HughD calling out other editors on their policy violations, quite the opposite of what you intended to portray. If this isn't a classic case for a boomerang, then I don't know what is. This is an attempt to silence the other side in a content dispute, and what we have here are trumped up charges with no basis in reality. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me for jumping in, however, I feel that I have also been affected by HughD's actions in regards to the AFP talk page, as well as DaltonCastle and Champaign Supernova have been. I'm sure you are aware, Viriditas, of the simple distinction between "calling out other editors on their policy violations" and personally attacking them as being "rookies" and "cowards." There are polite and professional ways to discuss policy violations without offending users, and HughD has simply not been successful at this. Thank you. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for the diffs showing my apparent "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles" that you accused me of. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Perhaps you missed the diffs I placed above?
Diffs copied from above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
POV content
Community consensus
Wikiproject ratings & Canvassing
Blocks

Here are warnings and mentions of misconduct removed by Hugh from his own page:

And here are examples of similar warning he was quick to place on my talk page and others:

Hugh has himself been warned about edit-warring several times in the past:

/3RRArchive274#User:HughD_reported_by_User:Champaign_Supernova_.28Result:_No_action.29

DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff indicating a need for admin intervention. No matter how many times you spam the same diffs over and over again, you cannot expect reasonable people to be fooled by this transparent attempt to fling mud, hoping something will stick to Hugh. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing by HughD, but loads upon loads of evidence against his accusers, who appear to be violating in NPOV in articles about the role of the Koch brothers. You are clearly abusing the administrative reporting process to try and get your critics disciplined in the hopes that nobody will actually notice that you've misrepresented the evidence against HughD. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still a few of us left who are aware of your shenanigans and know exactly what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Reject this claim. I took a few weeks off, and I return to this article to find that HughD has unfortunately been baited into making some unfortunate personal remarks about two or three editors that have been sniping at him for quite some time. In my early interaction with HughD, before I took a slight absence from this project, I found him extremely polite (sometimes obsequiously so), and I believe any fallback from his previous often-unctuous persona was due entirely to the hammering he received from those opposed to his rather perceptive edits. There is just no reason for this editor to be raked over the coals as this "incident" is doing right now. I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary. (In other words, never use the word "you": On a Talk Page a good editor should just forget that the second-person singular exists.) Any administrator reading this might just wrap up the discussion with an admonition to all concerned to WP:Assume good faith and get on with improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That is an excellent suggestion ("I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary.") That is the type of remedy I'm looking for. Quite simply, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of condescending, snarky unconstructive comments, and I'm tired of being looped in with other editors with whom Hugh has a problem, and of being accused of things I had no part in, like "section blanking." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable start. It would be helpful if Viriditas took the same pledge. It might be adequate to allow the article to attain some semblance of WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making this incredibly long post readable, remotely. I have no comment on the matter at hand, just making it easier for admins and editors. DaltonCastle would be well reminded that excessive lists of diffs may not actually serve the purpose intended. Blackmane (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the jumble. I had hoped to get my points across but totally understand I failed to meet TLDR. I'll be better about this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at a few of the supposed POV diffs and didn't see obvious problems (stuff seemed to be sourced and matter-of-factly written). I did notice a couple looked very similar to each other, i.e. at least one was a revert. No opinion at all about surrounding conduct allegations that I haven't tried at all to examine--it's late here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, DaltonCastle's homework assignment today is to read WP:TLDR. I see good faith disagreements, not any incivility. Reading the talk page, it is clear that HughD disagrees with the consensus on most issues, and is right on a few issues. The correct way to proceed when you think the local consensus is wrong, is to open an RfC. And at some point, you need to accept the consensus and drop the WP:STICK. Kingsindian  08:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

understood. I do apologize for that jumble. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute[edit]

There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, while we make no mention on our Rockefeller Foundation page of the Rockefeller Brothers bankrolling Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,[39] just to pick an obvious example.

Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:

 Top Organization Contributors
RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1%
2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0%
3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1%
4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4%
5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0%
6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1%
7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100%
8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52%
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7%
10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2%
11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1%
12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58%
13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6%
14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100%
15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47%
Source: [ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ]

It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.

BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.

Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/

Wikipedia should give the same WP:WEIGHT to donations and criticisms of same no matter which side they support.

This is a content dispute, and those involved should go to WP:DRR if they cannot resolve the dispute on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed on the issues listed above, this comment caught my eye - mainly because it seems to be totally and completely irrelevant. If this were AFD, I'd link WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other organizations/individuals give more money doesn't mean that the donations of the individuals in question are not relevant to their articles. Especially if there are proportionally more sources discussing their donations than the ones you list. I don't edit in this area much, but it seems to be that $28 Million is a pretty significant number, yes? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There are content disputes on this article, but that's not why I opened this thread. I came here to seek help with negative user conduct directed toward me. I'm focused on the behavior issue. Does anyone have recommendations on how to handle that aspect? Thanks you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely this is a content dispute and shouldn't be at this board. Civility is not obsequious politeness. HughD has indeed been blocked once or twice but this noticeboard should be used if he returns to edit warring. I think he is way too snarky when calling out logical errors to make rapid progress in disputes, but I will settle for slower progress. But it is not reasonable to infer from the diffs in context that he has erred so far from civility as to be routinely making personal attacks (or other incivilities) and thus requiring administrator intervention. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a content dispute here; however, HughD has never accepted consensus except when it can be interpreted to agree with his POV. When it cannot be, he finds another noticeboard to seek "consensus". Few of his proposed edits are unrepresentative of the source, which is often reliable; but he includes only statements from a particular viewpoint, and adds more of them than are warranted. I cannot give a specific example of "cherry-picking" except his removal of third-party approval of "secrecy" of donor lists, but the entire funding and transparency sections are much too long with respect to the weight given in reliable sources. Even that would be a content dispute, except for the edit warring and his refusal to understand that his stated interpretation of guidelines can be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a single diff supporting any or all of your allegations. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
My previous comment seems to have been misplaced. I do much of my editing on a smartphone, and cannot easily copy diffs into my text. However, I might be more easily convinced that Hugh is not being intentionally disruptive if someone could point out a single edit which could be considered "pro-Koch". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would be interesting. He has posted here [40] that he views AFP as "a key player in the organized, corporate-funded suppression of unions in the US" and here [41] that "I would say AFP has done more to raise the avg temp of our planet than Watts ever will" [42] The attempts (here's another [43]) to convince members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour to adopt the article seem like an attempt to recruit like-minded editors to edit the page in a certain way, AKA Wikipedia:Canvassing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of context, those quotes look like canvassing. In context, they emerged in longer, more neutral, discussions, to increase awareness among editors interested in a topic. One sentence at the climate change task force talk page displays HughD's unfortunate tendency toward polemic in talk pages. Collaboration is always going to be difficult on articles about political 501(c)(4) organizations (Dark money), but I don't see a pattern, or an individual diff, from any of the 3 named editors (HughD, Champaign Supernova, Dalton Castle) that crosses any line that requires administrator involvement. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
My personal interactions with Hugh are pretty limited, but I can say that between not assuming good faith and repeating the same canned, dismissive answers thinly veiled behind a facade of niceties, his behavior makes working out the content disputes we're discussing unnecessarily difficult. I do give Hugh credit for bringing in uninvolved editors to the page, however - even if I don't agree with them, their takes on the situation have been refreshing to hear from the perspective of someone not so entrenched and unwilling to have genuine discussion. Hugh is clearly a dedicated, highly motivated editor, who could probably benefit from taking a bit of a break from the topic. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD's behavior[edit]

I was "pinged" about this discussion when it was first opened, and have given some thought to responding here in the intervening days, not least of which was due to HughD's seeming targeting of those who disagree with him. While HughD's behavior is based on a content dispute, it has led to inappropriate behavior by HughD. I'll try to keep it brief; while the length and breadth of HughD's behavior makes that difficult, I'll try to summarize below.

Here are the actions which HughD has directed at me:

On 6/15 this notice. The DS notice on the talkpage was put there by HughD, not an admin. This was done so that Hugh could then post the DS warnings on the talkpages of editors who were in disagreement with him. This is a course of action I've actually never seen attempted before.

On 6/18, he posted this incorrect notice, in violation of ANI requirements. The result of that ANI discussion was no action against me.

On 6/29, he posted this (unsigned). The result of that posting was no action against me.

Not satisfied with that result, HughD then posted this notice on 6/30, which again resulted in no action against me. However, while it was still on-going, Hugh posted this notice on 7/1.

During the last week or so of June, Hugh filed the following:

  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969 repeated removal of WikiProject talk page banner
  2. a link to HughD's previous ANI report filing
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD .28Result: Page restriction applied.29
  4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Koch Industries brief, in-text description in Americans for Prosperity

In addition, he has opened numerous discussions regarding his viewpoint on the article talkpage in the last two months (a very nice recap can be found Talk:Americans for Prosperity#NPOV issue HERE on the talkpage - the response by Champaigne Supernova. Every one of which consensus has been against, e.g. over inclusion of Koch Brothers, too much detail on funding, and most specifically, NPOV. Even after consensus has been reached on the NPOV issue, he then tagged the article for an NPOV issue. After consensus. I think Hugh confuses consensus with unanimity.

His disruptive behavior goes back to at least 2012, when this occurred:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive195#User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: Final warning issued) 09/12 - where he vowed to "never edit war again"

I didn't do a search on the intervening years. But in the last 3 months, he's been involved in numerous actions, and been blocked 4 times:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:HughD reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked) April 2015

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked) May 2015 - Even here, EdJohnston wrote, "HughD doesn't come out of this dispute looking good. Articles on American politics can be extremely divisive and they have used up a lot of Arbcom's time. Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem."

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive284#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:HughD reported by User:Comatmebro (Result: Blocked 4 days)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive274#User:HughD reported by User:Champaign Supernova (Result: No action) The only reason he was not blocked was he apologized, and the admin accepted that.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Safehaven86 reported by User:HughD (Result: Referred to ANI) see the end of that thread.

I think HughD has displayed a pattern of behavior which is not conducive to the health of Wikipedia. Over the last two-three months, he has consistently failed to adhere to consensus reached on talk pages, he's been involved in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:COATRACK and WP:FORUMSHOP (I think he's up to posting on 8-9 different venues in an attempt to get someone to agree with him: Edit Warring noticeboard; ANI; NPOV board; Reliable sources; 2 project talk pages; the AfP talkpage; and the Wikiproject talkpage). This forum shopping is beginning to bear fruit, since several of the editors now active on the talk page have been recruited from those other forums. Each of those actions, in and of itself is fine. But combined they show a pattern. And it's not a pattern of consensus-building and compromise. During one of HughD's attacks on me, an admin, Monty845, suggested I might take it up at WP:AE, but that did not seem to be an appropriate forum, or at least I couldn't see how it applied, but Monty is more experienced than I am. Not sure what, if anything can be done, but this is getting tiresome at this point. I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles. Thanks for your time. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and participation, Onel5969. This supposed "content dispute" has brought up multiple issues regarding HughD's behavior. When it comes to consensus, he ignores it. He is not helpful nor friendly when it comes to understanding differences. I have only received negative comments from HughD, some of which have attacked me personally as a user. There are ways to discuss content in a friendly manner -- and honestly I am not sure if HughD is capable of this at this point in time. I would have to agree with everything the above user has stated, as well as the statement "I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles." Cheers. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
All of the evidence and discussion in this thread indicates a content dispute between involved parties who have been editing in this area. There is no good evidence supporting a topic ban of any kind, at least one that would impact HughD's editing. When asked to provide a single diff supporting their contention, not a single editor can do so. Instead, we are subject to long, off-topic screeds by editors who have been involved on the other side of the content dispute, links to ancient disputes, requests to prove negatives and other fallacious arguments. In conclusion, no diffs supporting a topic ban, just mud flinging. On the other hand, I would certainly support a topic ban on the editors listed above who have been repeatedly caught whitewashing and violating NPOV in the Koch-related area, and who have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy into railroading one of their few critics who has pointed to their problematic edits. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
He seems to refuse to accept consensus and uses boards and relentless RfC's and tags to assert his views. The current dispute centers on building a COATRACK into . The AE request against Arthur Ruben appears retaliatory and forum shopping. AR doesn't appear to have contributed here but one forum wasn't enough. We how have a dubious assertion about the TeaParty case at AE (which is only plausible if that article becomes a COATRACK). And the 4th version of an attempt to add material that has been rejected multiple times. When new edits are rejected, we call the articles version "consensus" and HughD appears to ignore this. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait, are you suggesting that the Americans for Prosperity article is not within the scope of the Tea Party case? That's clearly incorrect, as anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at reliable sources on the subject can clearly see. I can cite a lot of high-quality evidence to back that up, but it might be simpler and easier if we just agree to call a spade a spade here. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice: On Arbitration Enforcement board as well[edit]

A filing by HughD against Arthur Rubin on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard is running in parallel with this discussion. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur Rubin.
This does somewhat complicate ANI responses but admins and editors should feel free to review or participate in both. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see much participation here by Arthur Rubin. The material that HughD argues should be included is outlined extensively here and in the other forum and an RfC on the talk page (4th time to be discussed). Three fora seeking help with a minority viewpoint seems a bit much. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an issue here (it's NPOV, not HughD)[edit]

Cross-posting my analysis of the situation from AE:

I know we're supposed to be focusing on conduct rather than content here, but I think it's very important to note that the preponderance of reliable sources very clearly support Hugh's "side" in the content dispute that prompted both this post and the one at AE.

The dispute is over the extent to which the article should discuss the financial and other connections between the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity (AFP), and, to a lesser extent, the extent to which AFP should be portrayed as a "Tea Party" group. (DHeyward, for example, has denied that this connection can be made at all, and would be COATRACK:[44][45]). To illustrate that the sources are clearly and unquestionably on HughD's side here, take a look at the version of the page that Arthur Rubin appears to have been happy with (ie, that he removed the NPOV tag on:[46]) Note that the name "Koch" appears in the article text exactly once - simply to note that David Koch chairs the AFP Foundation - but appears twenty-five times just in the titles of the references. Compare that to how the preponderance of reliable sources listed by Aquillion here place the relationship between AFP and the Koch's front-and-center in their coverage. Also compare it to how reliable, academic sources treat the subject.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (those are just some examples, I could cite a lot more if needed).

HughD has been the most vocal voice on the article's talk page asserting that the article needs to acknowledge and discuss AFP's connection to the Koch brothers in depth. He has often been outnumbered, and he has quite understandably gotten frustrated at times. Just as understandably, the people arguing with him have gotten frustrated with his persistence. There have been regretable statements made on both sides, but honestly, I don't think anyone's behavior or the article rises to the level of requiring admin or AE sanction -- although a warning to some about battleground behavior [47][48][49] and a reminder of what NPOV entails [50][51][52][53][54]) might be in order for some of those involved.

Bottom line: HughD should not be sanctioned for being a lone dissenting voice against a (claimed) local consensus which was incorrect and inconsistent with NPOV. I also hardly think Arthur deserves sanction for adding or removing a NPOV tag (after all, the NPOV of the article was, and is, in dispute). Everyone involved just needs to take a few deep breaths, relax, and refocus on what RS actually say. More generally, the article desperately needs more eyes/input to ensure that NPOV is maintained. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ Roberts, Robert North; Hammond, Scott John; Sulfaro, Valerie A. (2012). "Americans for Prosperity". Presidential Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms: The Complete Encyclopedia. Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313380938. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
    • First sentence: "Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) is an antitaxation advocacy group founded in 2004 and financed by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries of Wichita, Kansas."
  2. ^ Theda Skocpol, Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (Oxford University Press, )
    • "After the CSE breakup, Americans for Prosperity continued to enjoy direct funding and leadership through Koch Industries and the Koch brothers," p. 145.
  3. ^ Lawrence Rosenthal, Christine Tros Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party (University of California Press, 2012).
    • AFP was “funded by the brother David and Charles Koch. Multibillionaire owners of the petrochemical conglomerate Koch industries, the brothers aggressively pursue the conservative vision of their father, who was a founding member of the John Birch Society.” p. 32.
    • “Houston organizers communicated with Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch family, to recruit speakers. p. 112.
  4. ^ Allan J. Cigler, Burdett A. Loomis, Anthony J. Nownes, Tony Nownes, eds. Interest Group Politics (SAGE/CQ Press, 2016).
    • Calls AFP "David and Charles Koch’s organization Americans for Prosperity - perhaps the most influential organization in today’s conservative movement.” p 38.
    • “If the TPM has generated a host of local organizations and substantial popular support, it has also received considerable backing from elite, national organizations, some of which long predated the movement’s 2009 emergence. In particular, right-wing groups FreedomWorks and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity worked within the TPM to extend their reach into a large new audience and prospective activists.”
  5. ^ The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (OUP, 2011)
    • “Especially important are the roles played by the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks front groups in generating a significant portion of the ‘Tea Party’ and encouraging it to focus on climate change.”
  6. ^ Wendy L. Hansen, Michael S. Rocca, and Brittany Leigh Ortiz, "The Effects of Citizens United on Corporate Spending in the 2012 Presidential Election," The Journal of Politics, Vol. 77, No. 2 (April 2015), pp. 535-54
    • "the Koch brothers of the private Koch Industries created their own conservative Super PAC called Americans for Prosperity that spent $33,542,058 [in 2012]."
  7. ^ Nella Van Dyke, David S. Meyer, eds. Understanding the Tea Party Movement, (Ashgate, 2014).
    • “When faced with the charge that the Tea Party movement really represents only the interests of its generous benefactors, the Koch brothers, Tea Partiers like to cite Goerge Soros, the billionaire currency speculator who has bankrolled political efforts for civil liberties generally. The easy equivalence is deceptive; it’s hard to see how decriminalizing drugs, for example, serves Soros’s business interests in the way relaxing environmental regulations supports the Kochs’ businesses; the scope and scale of the Tea Party’s dependence on large capital may indeed be unique.” 177.
    • “Koch and his allies created libertarian institutions to try to create a free market base to the Republican Party that counters its reliance on conservative evangelicals. While the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity has accommodated the social conservatives, other institutions like the Cato Institute and Freedom Works appear less happy with conservative Christian elements powering parts of the Tea Party and promoting the anti-Muslim storyline.” 102.

Box-office bomb guy, block evasion from Cambridge, Ontario, Canada[edit]

A person from Cambridge, Ontario, was blocked for one month for persistent disruptive editing: Special:Contributions/99.236.110.158. One of the stand-out traits of this person is the labelling of films as "box-office bombs" regardless of whether they have been called that by sources. Starting in December 2014, this person kept being reverted. User:CoolRaceDude picked up the flag for a little while in February 2015. Abandoning the registered account, this guy also edited articles related to the Canadian band, Gob (band), and he was active at List of films considered the worst.

Other IPs from the same area have been doing the same stuff:

Here's an older (almost stale) IP doing the same stuff:

For instance, the article Reign Over Me is a particular target, the goal being to label the film as a bomb, a flop, a financial failure (even though it made a couple of million dollars). User:Willondon's been doing a great job of keeping down this kind of disruption:

The article Muertos Vivos shows both of these IPs being interested in a Gob album:

Can we get a similar block on the related IPs? Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

173.32.90.158 shares unrestrained film POV and an unusual recurring rounding "error"[77] with 98.213.0.205[78] and Ohad200180.[79] - SummerPhDv2.0 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked 173.32.90.158 for one month and protected the main target (Reign Over Me) for one month. (If a few people could add Reign Over Me to their watch-lists that would be awesome, the number of watchers is shockingly low.) While 99.254.160.115 and 99.236.110.158 look similar, they are not on the same range and therefore no range block, unfortunately. I don't see how 216.75.167.197 is connected, other than geographically. 98.213.0.205 geolocates to Danville, Illinois (8 hr away by car), and is likely unrelated. You might consider creating a LTA page if the problem persists. This will have to be my last post here for a while, as the page is getting to be too big to load -- Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa. I agree that 98.213.0.205 is not the same person as box-office bomb dude. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Indian actors vs Pakistani actors[edit]

:I prefer Leanne Wood myself, but this is off topic for ANI. Closing Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (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.

Fawad Khan is more beautiful than nana Patekar thumbnail|Gajnikanth

Atif Aslam is hotter than rajnikanth

thumbnail|Fawad — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKUO65 (talkcontribs) 11:49, 16 July 2015 (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:Scientus[edit]

Per the strong consensus demonstrated below, Scientus is to be blocked for one month for edit warring, disruptive editing, and incivility. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am here to discuss the behavior of Scientus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Scientus has been edit-warring in recent weeks on four articles that I'm aware of:

  • Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Since May, Scientus has been pushing the POV that the word "antisemitism" discriminates against Arabs and any other non-Jewish Semites. In its place, Scientus has been promoting the obscure term "Judeophobia" despite an overwhelming consensus against it (see both articles' Talk pages, including recent archives,[80][81] especially the failed Requested move initiated by Scientus at Talk:Islam and antisemitism).
  • Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Last week, Scientus deleted the assertion that Israel has universal suffrage. When the assertion was restored, Scientus rightly started a Talk page discussion on the subject. When every editor in the discussion disagreed with Scientus, the editor started changing the article against consensus and edit-warring to preserve her/his changes. Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction, which Scientus has (barely) respected, making reversions 24 hours apart.[82][83]
  • Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • On June 20, Scientus rewrote the lead of Libya. The changes made by Scientus were reverted by three editors (one of whom was me), each of whom asked Scientus to use the Talk page to discuss the changes. No discussion at Talk:Libya. On June 28, Scientus started making the same changes to the lead and, not surprisingly, was reverted. Scientus started a Talk page discussion. On June 30, after nobody had replied on the Talk page in 29 hours, Scientus restored her/his favored version of the lead. When that change was reverted (by an IP editor), Scientus went ahead and deleted part of the lead, saying "please find a source for this i couldnt find one".

I brought this complaint here, as opposed to WP:ANEW, because this is a broader issue than violating 1RR or 3RR. Scientus evidently has a hard time listening to others and that is becoming a growing problem. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Given the number of warnings by reputable users on the user's talk page since June 19 (some of which have been deleted by the user), I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked already. I can however understand that Malik Shabazz has refrained from doing so, as an involved admin. It seems at present the user is here to push an agenda and edit war rather than to build an encyclopedia or edit collaboratively and learn and abide by Wikipedia policies. It seems clear to me that he has had enough cumulative warnings and that the next step is probably a block, the only question being how long. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As per my experience Scientus is nice editor and he can be useful for Wikipedia, but he should learn policies of Wikipedia, I have already given my advice to him on his talk page. And Softlavender please don't use word "reputable users" here, Wikipedia is not about reputation and senior-junior like in colleges. Sometimes even IPs can act more sensible than admins. Read article WP:IPs are human too for more detail. We have to go by wikipedia policies and if Scientus is breaking the rules then we should advice him instead of playing game of senior-junior or reputation. Today's IP can be tomorrows admin if he opens account. Or every admin was once a un-confirmed user. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source for that removed sentence of Libya? If not, I do not see what the problem is. That sentence was my real issue, but I was changing other things at the same time, which apparently irritated people.
There was no debate on the basic facts regarding "universal suffrage" for Israel. If the admin Milik Shabazz insists getting me banned because there are no facts backing up his dislike of removing or clarifying the term "universal suffrage" when he clearly knows better then Wikipedia is not a website I want to contribute to. My current suggestion would be to clarify to "universal suffrage except for citizens of the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries.",or "universal suffrage within the non-disputed territories" (which isn't strictly true as is discussed at Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law), or simply removing "universal suffrage".To claim that a country where 1/3rd of the population (irrespective of age) is excluding from voting rights "universal suffrage" is preposterous.Scientus (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Scientus is not an IP, nor is he a new user, so I don't see the relevance of User:Human3015's comments. He's been editing since 2009, but seems to have become somewhat, shall we say idiosyncratic, recently. Though his primary interest is Jewish/Israeli-related content. He has also edit warred on other unrelated articles. For some reason he decided that there should be a picture by El Greco on the Angels in art article. Fine, but he chose to include a portrait of a Pope Cardinal Don Fernando Niño in which no angels are to be seen, on the basis that Robert Prisig said that it was in some metaphorical sense a portrayal of an angel. At least that had some rationale, but it was then replaced by a picture of Jesus, for no apparent reason other than the fact that Jesus has a halo [84]. He edit warred, admittedly in a minor way, to keep this image. He seems to be fascinated by a fairly obscure spelling project called Unspell, and repeatedly tried to insert it into English alphabet [85] against consensus. He has waged a war across several articles to replace the term "anti-Semitism" with "Judeophobia" because he thinks it is more accurate, despite a mass of evidence that the former is overwhelmingly the most common term per WP:NAME. The main problem with this editor is that he acts as though his pet likes and dislikes should override all relevant policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Halo painting added to Halo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(religious_iconography)&diff=669523300&oldid=668640603 .Scientus (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I put it in its own section Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. Appears I was wrong and the book did not talk about angels at all. Scientus (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly what's wrong with Scientus. He seems to like El Greco. Well, great. So do I. But we don't want to smear an article on halos that already has over thirty illustrations, with a bunch of El Grecos that don't depict halos. He's added El Greco's portrait of Cardinal Don Fernando Niño again. Cardinal Don has no halo. He's added another El Greco of the holy family, in which they have no visible halos (the light is coming from the glow of a cloth around Jesus - not a halo). See the additions at Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. This is madness. We also have some utter drivel added from Robert Prisig, an author with no expertise in religious iconography whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Especially as the editor in question never once called him a racist. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Is "anti-Semitism" racism, or is it not racism? You are going in circles. And BTW, my great-gradfather fled the Jewish programs in Ukraine/Russia. Scientus (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, I was acting as an editor, not an admin, as I have been heavily involved in Scientus' latest disputes. But yes, the attack was uncalled for and the reasoning behind some of his edits is very idiosyncratic. [86] --NeilN talk to me 23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear Scientus has gone off the rails at this point and the only question is what to do about it, since numerous cumulative warnings and even this ANI haven't gotten through to him. If no admin wants to take action quite yet without a community consensus, perhaps someone should start a proposal/poll below with a suggestion and then allow !voting. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My recommendation is that an administrator craft a carefully worded topic ban that prevents this editor from participating in editing pertaining to anti-Semitism, halos, angels, El Greco, or any other darned topic where their input has been disruptive. I support such a topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
While it's clear that Scientus's edits in particular subject areas are problematic, it's not clear to me that this actually has anything to do with the subject areas, as opposed to a general competency/noncollaborativity issue. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree with that -- there is no topic-ban wide enough to contain the issues. There needs to be a block of some sort -- it only remains to be determined how long. The blockable issues are many, recurring, and widespread. For the number of issues and their intransigency, my personal view would be a six-month block, but it could start as little as one week. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I would certainly support a 1-week block. --JBL (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────And he's back! Today Scientus once again edited Israel concerning the issue of universal suffrage (which doesn't mean what Scientus would like it to mean). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your definition of "universal suffrage"? Cause those words quite literally means everyone (universal) votes (suffrage).Scientus (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Once again, Scientus, you mistake the literal meaning of words for their meaning. See Talk:Israel#No Universal Sufferage (sic), where I addressed that question nearly two weeks ago. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────And once again, with no discussion (except the idiocy directly above), Scientus has deleted "universal suffrage" from Israel. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Of German, Spanish, French, Hebrew and Arabic only the Spanish claims "universal suffrage", and it is clearly a translation of the English article. The Arabic article is discusses how the 1948 borders impact eligibility to vote. As was said above, if the admin Mike Shabazz wants me banned in order to push the preposterous claim that Israel has "universal suffrage" without clarifying how *universal* it is then it is hard to feel welcome on Wikipedia. I asked above for clarification on what *universal suffrage* means in this context, and the discussion has dried up. Again, the discussion on the talk page there basic facts were agreed on. Since this ANI was opened I worked on the Barefruit page for example which was nominated for deletion.Scientus (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Scientus, stop arguing at this ANI filing and read the discussion in the thread on the article's talk page, where consensus must be determined. "Universal suffrage" means voting by all adult citizens. It does not mean voting by children or non-citizens. Stop this nonsense before you get yourself permanently banned from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
All adult citizens within the 1948 borders. Israel has domination over the West Bank but there is no universal suffrage there, either of the State of Palestine or Israel. One of my edits said "universal suffrage in the undisputed territories", and even this was reverted.Scientus (