Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive927

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Beyond My Ken reverting maintenance edits without explanation[edit]

Ever since I made a routine maintenance edit to Spats (footwear), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has been very combative and unwilling to collaborate. He reverted me twice on that article ([1], [2]), yet never provided any justification as to why his preferred way is any better. Instead, he voiced in his edit summaries how I was damaging the [his?] article. Conversely, I not only justified my reasoning in the summary of my original edit, I did so in two reverts of his reverts ([3], [4]). I further tried to explain my first revert on his talk page. Yet given another opportunity to make his case, he instead deleted my comments, reverted me that second time, and accused me of edit warring. At that point in time, I had reverted once and he twice. So if anybody was edit warring, it wasn't me.

I then replied, trying again to encourage him to make his case. After an hour and a half, he had not replied but was still actively editing elsewhere. I took that to mean that he did not have a rebuttal to my points, and reverted that second time. Shortly afterwards, he punitively accused me of refactoring, templated me (a regular) for edit warring (even though we each had two reverts), and "banned" me from his talk page and from pinging him.

I'm concerned about Beyond My Ken's disruptive editing. He is intent on blocking changes to Spats (footwear) (and likely other pages on his watchlist). On the specific issue of moving the {{Refimprove}} tag to the top of the article (to increase visibility—the article only has a single reference) for instance, it turns out that I'm not the only one whose attempt he reverted ([5], [6], [7], [8]). After making my case and attempting to get him to do the same, he has yet to even attempt to collaborate with me. He can't even be bothered to write an explanatory edit summary. Frankly, I'm stunned that such an experienced editor seems to have no interest in collaboration. The hostility also concerns me greatly. I've been around for awhile so I can tolerate a few insults, but his confrontational nature could easily scare away new editors. My talk page is awash with his attacks, and I have exhausted all avenues for a meaningful dialog. I believe intervention to be necessary and that brings me here. Thanks. – voidxor 03:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If Beyond My Ken does not want you to post on his talk page, then you really ought to respect that (I realize that exceptions have to be made in some cases, such as notifying him about ANI threads concerning him). To my knowledge, editors have no right to forbid other editors from pinging them, but then again, if he has asked you not to, it is only polite to respect that as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: How am I in trouble here?! I think you misunderstand the timeline. I didn't post to Beyond My Ken's talk page after he asked me not to (except the manditory ANI notification, of course). Also, I think you're missing the bigger picture. I'm not here simply because another editor asked me not to post on his talk page; I'm here because I'm (arguably along with other editors) being bullied away from performing routine cleanup. – voidxor 05:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say you were in trouble - where did you get that idea? I simply noted that editors requesting other editors not to contact them on their talk pages is not by itself unreasonable behavior, and that nothing is accomplished by complaining about it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Right. Sorry. I thought you were drawing conclusions on the incident as a whole. Yes, in and of itself there's nothing wrong with such a request, but I don't believe that means that I should have omitted that detail here (and you probably aren't suggesting that I should have). – voidxor 05:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware of the history of this template. There was a previous incident with BMK repeatedly reverting editors who moved this template to the top of articles culminating in a RfC back in September. The overwhelming consensus was to put it at the top and the decision was added to the template documentation afterwards. So the community consensus is to have this at the top of the page and any attempt to move it to the bottom is against that consensus. --Majora (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Question is, what do you do when an editor is constantly editing against consensus, and has no desire to collaborate (i.e. "my way or the highway")? – voidxor 05:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
If they have been here considerably longer than you, the answer is "not a damned thing, because if we try to stop them, some loud faction will bitch incessantly to reinstate them, and they will be thus reinstated". It is not how it should be, but it is how it is. --Jayron32 05:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No comment on the substance (haven't examined it yet) but Jayron32: long-time editors get PBANned, TBANned and IBANned on ANI (not just ArbCom) all the time. When a newbie (i.e., not voidxor) asks for sanctions against a regular, the result is almost always a boomerang, but that is beside the point. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
A spat about spats? C'mon, I can't be the only one who thinks that's funny.... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Lugnuts...Little things make life on Wikipedia bearable. Someone added a fella named Malarkey to a notable persons list the other day so I literally reverted malarkey. Good times....John from Idegon (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Correction to OP: The first pointy edit was this where Voidxor's edit summary read "Reverted 1 edit by Beyond My Ken: Revert unhelpful edit with ownership edit summary. Please read the linked policies before reverting maintenance edits: WP:IMGSIZE, WP:V, WP:BURDEN, etc.". The issue now seems to be that a drive-by editor (Voidxor) wants to put a tag at the top of the article and have it stay there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Johnuniq: Who said that I'm a drive-by editor? The page is on my watchlist, and I've already made several other edits to it. Even the edit where I moved the {{Refimprove}} tag had other fixes as well. With all due respect, I don't think I deserve to be written off as a drive-by editor, not that there's anything wrong with editors who bring unverified articles to the attention of other editors. – voidxor 19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    The article (Spats (footwear)) was created on 25 June 2005. The first edit to the article by Voidxor was on 21 June 2016. The last edit on the article talk page was in August 2012, and Voidxor has never edited that page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    And actually, the first pointy edit was Beyond My Ken's revert of a good-faith edit with a patronizing edit summary of "better before". That flip statement, coupled with the article's edit history, demonstrated a clear pattern of ownership—hence my edit summary. – voidxor 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Did you see the evidence that Voidxor gave, namely that BYK also reverted other people for moving the maintenance template at the top? MOS:ORDER supports having the template at top, and I don't see consensus to override the MOS. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
More specifically, the template was already in the article; the location of it is the part being warred over; MOS does not support BYK's BMK's position. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
BMK. ―Mandruss  08:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
MOS is a guideline and is subject to being overruled by local consensus (unlike policies). Likewise the RFC at the templates talk page linked to by Majora above is not actually binding on anyone's use of the template. While I think BMK is being a bit pointy with this, MOS *is* only a best practice guide. It is not how things must be done. If people at an article thinks the appearance looks better with it one way, then it can be done that way. Personally I dont particularly like the maintenence templates being plastered all over the top of articles - being the first thing people see - but I also dont care enough about it to go against the MOS. Some people obviously do. Either way, it needs to be resolved on the relevant article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the underlying issue. Deciding whether the article in question needs a template at the top regarding references is not a matter for ANI. The last edit at Talk:Spats (footwear) was in August 2012. There is no rule at Wikipedia that a guideline must be enforced (apart from BLP/legal). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, but absent local consensus, a guideline should be followed; in this specific case, according to the edit history, more editors prefer the template atop (i.e. against BMK's stance). In addition, if there is WP:OWN issues, it should be addressed; absent the WP:OWN issues, this slow war of reverting the location of a maintenance template is approaching WP:LAME territory. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
BMK wasn't just opposing the template move. His edits at the article reverted all of the appropriate changes that were made. --AussieLegend () 08:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed as to process. Guideline is a default that can overridden by local consensus. ―Mandruss  08:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Haha, that's funny - have you ever tried to argue with the people who inhabit the MOS pages? You will do what they decide - they are the law. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Hafff you come to witnesssss judgement??? Muffled Pocketed 10:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
To the point about MOS not being set in stone, that is true. It is merely a guideline (and I understand that) meant to provide guidance. The same is true of template instructions. I don't have a problem overriding the MOS where there is justification to do so, but Beyond My Ken is the only one holding that position, and has zero interest in writing a supporting argument. In other words, while the MOS is weak, ownership alone is not a reason to disregard it. – voidxor 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to close. There were a couple of reverts, a couple of user talkpage templates, a flare or two of temper, and now the article is stably back to where voidxor had it. Unless there is another revert of the refimprove tag placement (in which case the proper venue would be WP:ANEW, not ANI), this ANI thread seems like a non-starter. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe, but then an experienced user shouldn't require an ANI thread to do the right things. That puts an undue burden on their opposition, giving the opposition two choices: (1) spend several stressful hours of their lives putting together the ANI case and then defending it, only to have the offender cease offending before any action is taken, which they should have done in the first place, or (2) surrender. If there's a pattern, it needs to be addressed rather than repeatedly closing the complaint because yet another disruption has passed. ―Mandruss  11:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    I can reiterate that I feel that there is a pattern here. My own experience, when I got into a dispute with Beyond My Ken here, was that they reverted one of my edits, accused me of bad faith for making it, and then refused to discuss it any further. While in retrospect I don't think the quote is such a big problem, their behavior there (to immediately accuse me of bad faith, bluntly refuse any attempts at further discussion, and demand that I reach consensus for my edit while refusing to discuss it with me) was suboptimal, to say the least. The D in WP:BRD is important; when you revert someone, you're supposed to at least attempt to engage them. --Aquillion (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There may be a pattern here, but the initial problem was resolved before this ANI was opened. If someone wants to open a noticeboard thread or ArbCom case request about BMK's putative repeated accusations of bad faith and/or refusal to discuss, that would be one thing. But the OP's problem was resolved long before this thread was opened, no matter how he was treated in the process. Moreover, the OP should not have gone to BMK's talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage), and definitely should not have then replaced that ill-considered user-talk post which BMK had removed. So we're pretty much at a place where the wrongheadedness is pretty much even, if not more on the OP's side. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I went to his talk page to advise him on how his edit summaries (or lack thereof) when reverting give the appearance of ownership. That behavior spans multiple articles, so the correct place to discuss it would indeed be the user's talk page. I did not go there to discuss the article specifically. Under discussion was his resistance to changes to that and other articles, not the MOS stuff itself (as I explained that in my original edit summaries). After citing Help:Reverting and Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary, I restored my original edit to the article on the pretense that Beyond My Ken had not explained the reason he reverted me.
Also, I'm surprised that you think I'm more at fault here. I've been the one explaining my reasoning and trying to get Beyond My Ken to do the same. I am not the one labeling good-faith edits as making an article worse. And I am not accusing others of failing to discuss when I myself am failing to discuss. I restored my comment on his talk page to disprove his accusation. I planned to link to it from my reply on my talk page. Perhaps I should have linked to the diff instead, but to compare my faux pas on his talk page with his bullying is just apples and oranges. – voidxor 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"the OP should not have gone to (a user's) talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage)" - Is this a policy? Can you point me to where it explicitly states you should not discuss something on the user's talkpage? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Its not. It is general practice however - content is discussed on article talk pages, user edits/behaviour is discussed on user talk pages. Talk page guidelines is most relevant "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." In this case largely irrelevant as the OP saw this as a user-issue rather than a content issue, so raised it at the userpage rather than the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
If that's a thing, it's very frequently violated (for lack of a better word) - so frequently that the OP could reasonably be completely forgiven for doing so. ―Mandruss  12:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
If anyone thinks this was a civil and neutral way to resolve the issue, then I disagree, especially after indulging in this non-neutral edit summary. I think BMK was right to remove that condescending and accusatory post on his talk page, and voidxor was very much in the wrong to restore it. BMK instructed him about BRD and asked him to discuss on article talk, but voidxor gave him a run-around [9]. This could have all been avoided but the OP seemed to want to prolong the fight and then took it here to ANI even though the problem was solved. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this is where I bow out - where the defendant's behavior is excused because the plaintiff's behavior had issues too. Thereby giving me license to misbehave with any editor who is also misbehaving. Just more Wikinsanity. ―Mandruss  13:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Speaking of giving the run-around, I ask you again - "the OP should not have gone to (a user's) talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage)" - Is this a policy? Can you point me to where it explicitly states you should not discuss something on the user's talkpage? I'm referring this in all cases, not just this incident. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "something" but if you mean general discussions about an article content then WP:TPG more or less says that. "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." and "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." It's sometimes useful to use an editors talk page when your discussion is primarily content related, particularly with new editors, but as with all things on wikipedia it should be done with care.

Notably, if do it and an editor tells you to take it to the talk page or to stop posting on their talk page, you should just take it to a talk page and not get in to a huff about it. Notably as with most things on wikipedia, insisting on seeing the precise written policy isn't generally helpful if someone tells you to keep it on the article talk page. It's also worth remembering there are good reasons why the article talk page is a better bet. It (generally) increases the chance interested editors will see it, and in particular makes them feel welcome to participate. It adds to the chance that decisions made will have consensus.

On that point, if you hold a discussion on an editors talk page, don't be surprised if even an editor who is aware of that discussion either does not or stops participating but still legitimately feels like any decisions you made there are irrelevant to them and not justification for changes to the article. Likewise, plenty of people including me take it as bad sign when there is no comment on the article talk page and someone comes here or AN to complain about an editor refusing to discuss some content dispute no matter what was done on an editors talk page. (When it isn't a behavioural issue or something else where discussion should be held on the editor's talk page, I intentionally don't look at editors talk page except to check for notification. I only check the article talk page and rarely consider the case has any merit if the complaining editor hasn't said anything either no matter who did what first.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The problem wasn't solved. My talk page was being plastered with hate, I was being made to fear making any further changes to the article (fully expecting that he'd revert me again at any minute), and bullies (in my experience) do not start acting more respectfully on their own. If by "the problem" you mean the spat over my first edit to the article, then in hindsight, you can see that it died down when I started typing my report here. But that's not the problem; it's Beyond My Ken's global behavior. That's what brings me here—seeking help. If reporting an incident makes one guilty of prolonging the fight, then what's the purpose of ANI in the first place? – voidxor 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it "died down" when you made your third second revert without going to the talk page, and then made two super-pedantic hardline-MOS edits, and I decided there was really no point in further engaging with you, so I took the article off of my watchlist, and went about my business of improving the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I only reverted twice—same as you. Secondly, I replied on my talk page, which is where you had brought the discussion. Even after providing you with numerous occasions to explain your reasoning, you clearly weren't interested in doing so, so I went about editing. "Super pedantic" editors like myself help keep this encyclopedia consistent, accessible, and verifiable. Just because you don't see the value in that doesn't mean there isn't any. Lastly, I'm sorry to hear that you can't stand to have others edit pages on your watchlist. – voidxor 00:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


@Voidxor: you have a point here. WP:IMGSIZE is actually pretty clear not to mess with the size of an image using a "px" value without a good reason. I don't see any good reason to do so here. Then there are these other details like the talk "ban" and ping "ban" and especially the templating that I dislike. (though actually I dislike templating non-regular users much more than regular users, because that does more damage; I've actually suggested deleting these templates altogether before and probably should again) And there's this slow motion edit war over where to put the tag. But someone would have to look much deeper into his editing history on other articles to see what the trend is before anyone is going to move for a sanction, I think. Nor are you totally in the right - you really should have gone straight to the article talk page, not BMK's talk page. I hate it when there's an edit war going on on an article and you don't even see talk about what it's about. Edit summaries aren't really a good place for trading those kinds of arguments; they better used for pointing people to the talk page and mentioning a MAIN point about the article (i.e. IMGSIZE), and really it's not right, however tempting, to use them to make behavioral complaints about editors like "ownership" there. It would also have been more productive to look for references than to bicker over where to put a tag ... I do rather hate it when editors put a lot of effort into keeping a tag on an article without directing some of that energy toward fixing the problem! (But, that goes for him too) Wnt (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wnt: I appreciate the feedback. However, you've got to put yourself in my shoes: I had no idea why I was being reverted! The pattern of textbook ownership coupled with the lack of an explanation when reverting (everybody—not just me) led me to see this as a user issue, not an article issue. I addressed it accordingly. To Softlavender's point, since when is dropping a note about a policy or guideline that a user might be overlooking the wrong thing to do? I thought that was best practice. To say that I should have argued my case on the article talk page (as many of you are suggesting) is moot if I don't know what specific aspect of my initial edit was being contended. I made several changes within the same edit. To date, we still don't know which one Beyond My Ken took issue with. Our only clue is his contempt toward all editors following the MOS. While you (Wnt) are focusing on WP:IMGSIZE (presumably because it is the strongest), this discussion largely focused on the placement of the {{Refimprove}} tag after Majora spotted a trend. Until then (when arguably this discussion got sidetracked), nobody was "bickering" over the placement of a tag.
And while it's not you, I also resent the drive-by remarks. I did not place the tag; I moved it. Whenever I place a tag, I try to watch that article (as my time allows). Furthermore, I track all of the articles I've tagged on my userpage (although admittedly, I haven't done a good job of following up in recent months). @Johnuniq: Just because somebody starts getting involved with an article the very day they tag it does not make them a drive-by editor, not that there's anything wrong with bringing unverified articles to the attention of other editors who are in a better position to help (e.g. more time to do so, more knowledge about that subject matter, or more experience citing sources). – voidxor 19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Rather than go into this further I put "king george V" "spats" into Google and added two of the references from around page 2 of the results. Would suggest others do the same - I try not to argue about improvement tags unless I genuinely believe the proposed change would be bad. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Wnt is correct, but it is worth understanding that tagging is not universally welcomed, and it should be done only when helpful. WP:DRIVEBY provides the closest available official definition of "drive-by". The history of Spats (footwear)) shows that BMK has edited the article 35 times from August 2011 to before the recent fuss, whereas Voidxor had not edited it prior to some adjustments on 21 June 2016. The take-home message is that differences of opinion about an edit to an article should be discussed on the article talk page. That applies even when convinced you are right—suppose you are right: it is incumbent on you to briefly explain the situation on the article talk page so others can be educated. That is not feasible or even desirable when dealing with vandals and their friends, but a glance at BMK's work shows that a discussion at the article talk page would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: You're still focusing on only one small aspect of my initial edit. So again, I would like to remind everybody that I made more than one change. Specifically, I didn't know which one was in dispute. Furthermore, you're really not letting up on the drive-by crap. So I'll say again, I didn't tag the article. Even if I had, WP:DRIVEBY clearly states that tagging for obvious flaws (like a sizable article with only one reference) is helpful and doesn't require explanation (as the reason is obvious). It also states that there's no requirement to pay dues prior to tagging. So what your fascination is with dates and edit counts, I don't know. Eleven of Beyond My Ken's 35 edits you so proudly post on the refrigerator are unexplained reverts or partial reverts of good-faith edits. If I should have gone to the article talk page before reverting, then the same could be said of him. He reverted first (and with a dismissive edit summary). I was clearly dealing with an owner. What would you have me do at that point? Go to the article talk page, reiterate my edit summary (again, he performed a wholesale revert—not a partial revert—and I didn't know what he specifically felt was "better before", nor why it was supposedly "better before"), and formally request his permission to edit his article? Do you truly believe he would have agreed to that?! Look at his history! – voidxor 00:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused over Johnuniq's focus on driveby tagging as well, because it is of no relevance here. Voidxor didn't tag the article at all. He just, as part of several distinct changes he made, moved an existing tag to where it should have been in the first place. --AussieLegend () 01:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The situation is simple: there was a difference of opinion about an edit (or edits) at an article, but instead of a discussion on the article talk page there was a series of reverts and pointy talk page messages, culminating in this time sink at ANI. I know the first edit was to move a tag (hence my wording like "at the top of the article" and "needs a template at the top"), and there is bound to be a guideline about where the tag must go, but the article talk page is still the first place to explain the issue. If someone doesn't know which edit was in dispute, they should politely ask on the article talk page. There are occasionally clashes between editors who monitor particular articles and wikignomes who move between articles, and onlookers generally divide into two camps with some thinking that the correct placement of a "will someone else please fix the references" tag is vitally important, and some thinking that it is not worth a battle. I reported the facts about the history of edits at the article to explain my use of "drive-by", but that's a very minor point that I did not intend as an insult—sorry if it's come across that way. I was just pointing out that this dispute is typical of those between an editor who monitors a particular article and an editor who moves between articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with clearing out G13 nominations[edit]

(non-admin closure) Apologies for the close, but I believe everything which needed to be discussed in relation to the original matter has been, and the user in question has apparently committed suicide Update: account compromised. I have contacted the WMF emergency team. Thank you -- samtar talk or stalk 11:31, 27 June 2016 (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 desperately, desperately need help clearing out G13 nominations, which you can see at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions. Right now we have over 500 nominations and counting due to a well meaning editor that is continually nominating pages. I think I'm the only admin actively working on the pages and by the time I blow through 100 deletions there seems to be 150 that get nominated. I'm also arguing for a cap on G13 nominations here. This might be a bot they made, in which case I'm also going to argue that we not have any user-made bots to nominate pages (unless they can have a cap put on them to restrict the amount of nominations each hour) because we end up with situations like this, where the backlog becomes so large that it's really, really hard to handle. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • As an example as to how quickly this is being nominated, I think I must have done about 200 G13s in the last hour or two, as I was working on clearing out an entire page of candidates at the G13 category page (each page has 200 listed articles). I purged the page and the amount was barely dented. Since the editor in question is still nominating pages, I have to name him (Puffin) here in the hopes that this will make him stop so we can catch up. This is actually becoming mildly disruptive since there's no reason to bulk nominate pages at this rate. G13 isn't like a copyright violation or attack page, so there's no need to bulk nominate articles like this. I can't keep up with this and at the time of this writing there are 505 pages for speedy deletion. When I wrote my first comment it was 520 pages - and I've been steadily deleting stuff as quickly as I can. This is just excessive. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest blocking Puffin. Pretty clear they're running an unauthorised bot and refusing to respond to talk page messages and pings about their actions. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not running a bot, all the best - Puffin Let's talk! 11:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Puffin That actually makes it worse. I'm ONE person. ONE. The rate with which you're nominating pages is unrealistic and frankly, disruptive. I'm exhausted. I can't spend hours trying to delete pages that you nominate like they're confetti. Admins have to do these deletions by hand and this should take time since we have to verify that the page qualifies for the speedy criteria (and check to see that it doesn't violate any others). Expecting us to keep up with 100s of G13 nominations each hour, sometimes when we appear to be the only ones doing the deletions for said category, is just unrealistic and maybe even disruptive since doing this reduces the amount of time that we can actually do any QCing or monitor other speedy candidates that actually warrant quicker responses. And as of right now there are 534 nominations. This means that you has nominated about 30 pages in the last 10 minutes, which is pretty excessive considering that this is on top of 500 active G13 nominations and 638 overall nominations. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
RHaworth and Sphilbrick have also recently asked Puffin to slow down. Seems to be falling on deaf ears. — JJMC89(T·C) 11:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The bottom line here Puffin is that if you see that the pages are in the multiple hundreds and don't seem to be getting deleted, that should be a sign to STOP. What you're doing isn't helpful and to be honest, it's asking a lot of admins. I became an admin to do mop and bucket work, but this is just excessive. There are usually only about 4-5 of us monitoring the speedy board at any given point of time, tops. Sometimes there is only one of us and some admins do not do specific types of deletions. You need to take into account that we need time to catch up with things and at some level what you're doing stops being helpful and starts becoming disruptive and can even be seen as a bit of an abuse of the system. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, I shall now undo all of my tagging to reduce your backlog back to 13 articles, the number it was at when I started. All the best, - Puffin Let's talk! 11:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Puffin See, now that's just petty. We asked you to slow down or stop for a while, not to untag items. Now you're just being deliberately unhelpful. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Bottom line is that we shouldn't have to repeatedly ask you to stop or turn a request for help into a true ANI issue. Nor should you, upon it becoming as such, turn petulant about it getting made into a more serious issue. What you need to do from here on out is take your time with nominations and stop when asked. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I mean, would it have killed you to just say something like "Sorry guys, didn't realize it was so overwhelming, I'll try to slow down"? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, apologies. I shall do some other work whilst you catch up. All the best. Puffin Let's talk! 11:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • So after saying this he undid three of them, than tagged a few dozen others and now appears to have stopped(?). Odd. Jenks24 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, AGF(ish), he heard what Tokyogirl said about untagging being petty, so stopped, but forgot to stop something else (which AGF would not allow me to assume was a bot, because he said it wasn't). Yeah, odd. Begoontalk 15:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The pace of editing seems consistent with a human editor doing it. The edit summaries identify the ACH script as being used, which would allow a human editor to make nominations that quickly. There is also sufficient variability in the pace of nomination that I don't think there is evidence for a bot being involved. Its the classic case of a human making bot-like edits, and whether that is a problem depends on the specifics of the edits... Monty845 15:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
You could be right. We're still left with the user's right hand inexplicably undoing what the user's left hand was doing (until it was stopped). But meh, it's not a desirable edit anyway, so side-discussion, and moot. Begoontalk 15:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for Puffin[edit]

I have taken a look at several of these proposed speedies, all of which have been declined. One was a lengthy but poorly sourced piece for an accredited business school, one was a bad stub for a Ghanian national holiday, and one was a biography of a 19th Century inventor (Draft:Nelson Gavit), footnoted out. None of these were worthy of speedies under the normal rules of the road. It is clear that the "Abandoned Draft" flagging mechanism is being used as a pretext to unilaterally blow up the Articles for Creation process. Whatever the merits of that are (and I would favor making AfC go away, don't get me wrong), this seems an out of process and disruptive path to that end. I propose a topic ban for Puffin for use of the G13 designation against any draft for a period of three months. Carrite (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - as proposer. Carrite (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note - I would like to elucidate that WP:G13 states This applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits), and so the accusation of improper tagging due to notability is not accurate, as the policy states that the tags have been applied correctly. I have postponed many of these articles, yet this is only suggested and not policy. All the best. Puffin Let's talk! 11:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Something I need to point out is that before I had to focus solely on G13 criteria, I noticed that there were a lot of G13 nominations that had copyright and advertising issues. If you're nominating 100+ pages an hour you can't really be checking to ensure that the articles shouldn't be deleted under other criteria. I know that as an admin I can't really look at these as in depth as I'd like otherwise. The problem with this is that people ask for articles to be restored via REFUND and we've had issues where copyvio has been restored. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment There is actually no good reason for any human editor to do G13 tagging at all. User:HasteurBot handles the job in a systematic way at a well regulated pace, it's been doing it for ages without problems. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • +1 - this is a task much best left to the bot, which intelligently limits its output to avoid swamping CAT:CSD. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This was previously explained to Puffin: User_talk:Puffin/Archive_8#G13_nominations. Begoontalk 14:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This is either someone using an unauthorised bot, or it's someone nominating pages for deletion without bothering to read them. (If it's not a bot, then that implies a severe WP:CIR issue, since there's no way you could be reading even the shortest drafts in less than a minute.) In either case, it's not helpful, and this is not exactly a high-priority task which needs all hands to the pump. ‑ Iridescent 11:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: according to WP:G13, all articles that have not been edited for six months qualify to be nominated and so reading is no required. However, despite this, I have infact read them. This is supported by the fact that I have not actively edited since June 2015 as I was compiling a list of articles to review, postpone and nominate upon completion. Puffin Let's talk! 11:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Puffin, you can safely assume that myself and Tokyogirl79 are aware of what the speedy deletion criteria say (or did you think that all the pages you tag for deletion are cleared away by the Deletion Fairy?). Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and when you have every single person who's commented telling you that you're being disruptive and unhelpful, it would probably make sense to listen. ‑ Iridescent 12:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This volume of nominations is overwhelming and is seriously swamping admins' ability to review much more important nominations. I say leave it to the bot, which is throttled so as not to overwhelm. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
if some CSD categories are more important to review quickly than others, then why doesn't the CSD page use that as a sort key? 2607:FB90:2E09:EEB7:6DF7:8DD9:B27:EFA0 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I made a couple of comments above, but forgot to register a proper "support". Yes, the bot does the job fine, these seemingly semi-automated noms are putting unnecessary pressure on admins who are working hard in this area, and the user has been asked not to do this for at least 2 years. Begoontalk 15:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I don't really see how this is harmful. How is it more helpful to have a largely invisible backlog of AFC/Draft content due for deletion but not yet tagged due to the bot throttle, as opposed to having it tagged, and sitting in the G13 Speedy queue? Its always problematic when editors don't listen to those asking them to stop, but I think this issue could be solved just as well by providing better guidance with regard to G13 nominations. If we don't want additional nominations beyond what the bot does, why not make that clear in the criterion... Monty845 15:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
My solution? Well I have two. If we care passionately about the resources taken up by old drafts then automate their deletion entirely. If we don't, then ignore it. These are discussions for another place. Until we decide on one of those approaches, auto-burdening admins is unfair, especially when one has been asked not to do that. I do agree that, in the interim, making it clear in the criteria that this kind of mass nomination is undesirable would be a good idea.Begoontalk 15:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The burden is already on admins to delete the pages, if there's a backlog that shouldn't mean that there needs to be a rush to clear it out. CSD articles are already separated by category so that when there's a backlog that does not need immediate attention it can be ignored. If there was a backlog for attack pages I'd be worried by inaction but for stale drafts is it really a problem for the draft to just sit there with the CSD tag for a while (days/weeks) and when an admin gets to it, they get to it and delete the draft? If it is then feel free to inform me of it. The way I saw the page that TokyoGirl linked (which I presume is where all the various CSD articles sit) it seemed harmless to have the backlog. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be agreeing with me. Thanks for that. Begoontalk 16:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for similar reasons to Monty, does it make a difference whether the backlog is obviously visible or hidden? Puffin should have stopped when asked, I agree, and if a similar incident happened again I would be more likely to agree action but to impose a three month topic ban over the inconvenience is a bit much. The incident has already been rectified anyway. I noted that a few people mentioned that G13 should only be tagged by the bot currently on duty for that, if it's necessary then clarify it on the WP:CSD and be done with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
So making hundreds of edits against consensus after being asked to stop is ok? Begoontalk 16:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
No? I didn't say it was, please don't put words into my mouth I don't appreciate it. The only thing that I am saying is that the incident does not warrant the response, it has been rectified and now would be best to move on. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
So it's not ok? Sorry. I'm confused now. I'm a simple soul. If you don't like answering straightforward questions, play a different game. Begoontalk 16:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with Puffins actions, and, I disagree with the response (3 month topic ban) to his actions. I have no problem answering questions, I have a problem when the question is posed in such a way as to make an assertion. As an example "So making hundreds of edits against consensus after being asked to stop is ok?" you're insinuating I have no problem with this behaviour when I clearly said I did. However, it's not a pattern of disruption only a single incident so I find no reason to impose a topic ban. I hope that makes my position clearer. Lastly, I am not playing a game. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Here's a thought. If we don't do the "knee-jerk" reaction stuff, we may never end up here at all. Begoontalk 16:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to Puffin or TokyoGirl?, I'm not sure what you mean by that. It occurs to me after the fact, that you may be referring to me. If so, please elaborate. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose the formal restriction on the basis that Puffin can hopefully see why their actions were disruptive from the above kerfuffle, with a personal recommendation that Puffin stays well clear from G13 nominations for the next couple of months, and instead gets stuck into another of the project's backlogs. I realise Puffin continued after being asked to stop initially, but I am still hopeful a resolution can be found without the use of topic bans (for now) - (edit conflict × 1) -- samtar talk or stalk 16:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - It's great they wanna help but they've repeatedly been told to stop and have continued regardless, As they were told before to stop and carried on I fail to see how asking them to stop this time will make a blind bit of difference? .... They had the chance to stop mass-CSD'ing and as I said they've carried on regardless. –Davey2010Talk 18:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support They have been asked to stop a number of times because it was overwhelming the admins who need to do due diligence when processing the speedy deletes, including G13. Their behavior seems to disregard the work load placed on others who are volunteers using their valuable time and applying their high standards for the benefit of this project. Also, I cannot see how it is possible that this person was able to review every page for other more pressing CSD violations at the rate they have been doing deletions. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Ignoring talk page requests and continuing to plow ahead as this user did is unacceptable. Also, these drafts should be automatically deleted by a bot without them needing to be nominated.- MrX 23:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • MrX, the problem with your "also" statement is that sometimes one encounters good drafts when reviewing G13 tags: some of them are good ones that never got nominated, while others got improved and never re-submitted, and in both cases, they're ready to move into mainspace. I found one such page (don't remember which one it was) when deleting some of Puffin's taggings earlier today. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. In fact given the wholesale failure of G13, I've propsed that it be removed entirely and people just ignore these pages. There is quite literally no reason to delete any of these drafts ever. WikiCreativeJuicer (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not to be rude, but, what an unusual vote and comment when your contributions suggest your account has existed for a grand total of 20 minutes and your only contributions so far are about CSD and MfD? Are you perhaps a long time editor and short time registered editor or what? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Please see User talk:Puffin. Assuming this to be true, it must give us all cause to ask ourselves (myself especially!): should we try to be more gentle with editors? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think closing this thread would be the right thing to do now - assuming this to be true, I agree with you entirely. Deeply saddening -- samtar talk or stalk 11:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
True or not, it is very sad. How rare that the parents of a teenage girl who committed suicide hours before would make posting such a message on their daughter's Wikipedia talk page their priority.- MrX 11:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not know how even to begin to respond, true or otherwise. I'll leave it at, the family has my condolences. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@RHaworth, MrX, and Mr rnddude: Appears now to be an account compromise. Updating the closing reason -- samtar talk or stalk 11:57, 27 June 2016 (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.

Crank IP Editor Repeatedly Spamming Talk:Norse cosmology[edit]

Insufficient ravenings to drop the hammer on immediate protection but an admin has stated they will watchlist the article, and no doubt will let us know if Ragnarok ensues.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2016 (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.

Hey folks. Over at Talk:Norse cosmology we've long had an IP editor posting a crank essay on the talk page (a recent example: [10]). Their IP regularly changes. Is there something we can do about this? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In extreme cases, a talk page can be semi-protected due to abuse by unregistered editors. I don't know whether that is appropriate here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
We can protect it and set up a subpage for IPs to use. But I'd still advise deleting the crank stuff regularly. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I see it's been going on for a long time with many IPs, but only two IPs have been involved recently, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and nobody has warned either of them on their talkpage. If you'd please do that, Bloodofox, they can be blocked by an admin if they persist. I'd rather avoid semi for that page, but it remains an option. I'll watchlist it, as soon as I get over my disappointment that it's not in fact about Norse cosmetology, which I read it as at first. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC).
I wonder if this is related to ThorLives who went on for a bit about Neopaganism till they got blocked. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2016 (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:The Wordsmith and an apparent attempt to do an end run around WP:INVOLVED on Gamergate Controversy and related pages[edit]

There appears to be consensus that The Wordsmith is not involved. With respect to the OP, Drmies, a sitting arbitrator (unless he's gone for a jog) has advised that no uninvolved admin will topic ban. Accordingly, those seeking such may heed his advice, or not, as they please, but there's nothing more to be done here unless you care to argue with him about that, and that's probably better directed to his talk page. None of this should be taken as an expression of views regarding Gamergate, as I have not studied the matter as its seriousness deserves. I merely provide a summary of the discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2016 (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.

Recently the issue of whether User:The Wordsmith would count as WP:INVOLVED in Gamergate Controversy and related pages and related pages has been raised by a couple of users:

  • USER:Jorm raised the issues of his posting at the Gamergate subreddit KotakuInAction and his apparent agreement with them on some matters, such as the existence of a "anti-Gamergate" faction whihc must be countered. Wordsmith has confirmed his posting at KotakuInAction and belief in anti-Gamergate but does not believe is unusual admin behavior or a potential COI. [11]
  • USER:Aquillion has argued that The Wordsmith's advocacy for the use of Breitbart News on the subjects of Milo Yiannopoulos and the alt-right constitute involvedness.

More concerning to me is this comment from The Wordsmith to User:Masem, in which he refers to the article "a steaming pile of excrement" [12]. He then goes on to suggest "There's no way I can both enforce and write, and you have a track record as an excellent content creator. If I can help keep the area free of disruptive influence from all the factions, would you be willing to take point on revamping things? " - this seems like a pretty blatant attempt to do an end run around WP:INFLUENCE.

Wordsmith has given a desire for neutral article improvement as a reason for this, and cites Masem's improvemet of video games related articles to GA or Featured status as a reason for picking him. However in the article at hand Masem's talk page contributions are almost entirely regarding his minority position on POV issues.

In the subsequent conversation Masem describes getting pushback on his attempts at "neutral" writing on the talk page [13]. Again, this is about POV, not article quality. It seems the "disruptive influence" that is in Masem's way are other editors who disagree with him on POV and WEIGHT.

Even outside of the admin and editor involved, a proposal of this kind is spectacularly ill judged: an admin simply cannot be picking a favored editor and offering them admin cover for their edits so they can ride roughshod over the consensus of other editors, that would represent a huge breach in trust.

Fortunately Masem does not seem to have taken them up on this offer, at least in terms of as we'd undoubtedly be having a desysop conversation if he had and Wordsmith had responded in kind. Even so, this sort of "team up" proposal is not acceptable and I would appreciate admins stepping in to make sure it does not happen again, possibly some variation on an interaction ban. In addition Wordsmith is insistent that he will continue to "patrol" these articles without change in behavior, I would appreciate it if it were made clear to him that WP:INVOLVED applies to him and breaching it is not acceptable. Artw (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the issue of involvement emerged after The Wordsmith redacted a response of mine to Masem calling it a "personal attack". If that was all there was to it my initial response would still stand and that would be it. [14] However, since all this has come out I consider the matter important enough that I'm compelled to raise it here even if it looks like sour grapes against a well respected and long standing editor. I'm sure you're all bored as hell of hearing anything about Gamergate as well. However there are enough red flags here that it needs addressing no matter how it reflects on me. Artw (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I had some doubts about what was reported and reading through some of the context, my suspicions are well founded. The Wordsmith has acted without violating WP:INVOLVED. Being a non-admin I cannot see the revdel'd content so will leave admins to comment on that. The Wordsmith should be commended on their patrol work in the cesspit of anything related to GG. When viewed objectively, Wordsmith's request to Masem is reasonable. An admin who is performing enforcement actions cannot be directly editing or discussing the content (obvious WP:INVOLVED), bar the few comments I found in the GG archives where Wordsmith discusses the adherence of sources to various policies, like BLP. Masem, rather than the skewed POV stated above, is not, not taking "them up on this offer", but rather recommending an alternative and that they would rather not be involved in said cesspit. In short, I see no merit in this complaint. Blackmane (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I comprehensively agree. Simply because The Wordsmith has developed an opinion on the matter as a monitoring admin does not mean that his opinion is compromised. Upon looking through the lengthy histories on both the Gamergate Controversy pages, as well as The Wordsmith's pages, the only serious issue I can see is an acute case of bad faith on Artw's part, with hounding questions unfit for a court room. Considering that this whole issue saw resurgence over a discussion about how the lead should read, I'd say the stick should be dropped, as the it only seems to be a battleground tactic. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 00:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with both of the statements by Blackmane and DarthBotto. I don't see any violations, and considering that there has been an ArbCom case on the article, calling it a "steaming pile of excrement" doesn't seem out of line. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, you have not notified The Wordsmith, so I will do so. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Another Gamergate SPA doesn't get their way and decides to come complain about it. The Wordsmith should be commended for their admin actions in this topic. Recommend a close and maybe a visit from the boomerang. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As there seems to be a consensus, can someone close this? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Wordsmith is not INVOLVED. Boomerang topic ban for 30 days so this doesn't keep repeating ad nauseum. If history is a guide, this will be part of a Poisoning the well campaign with the shear number of discussions being used as argument. --DHeyward (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Support, seemed like a case of he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and now wants to blame the admin that caught him. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This looks to be a bullshit Battlegroundy complaint against an admin who is willing to step into the cesspit of Gamergate enforcement. The issues were raised and addressed on The Wordsmith's talk page. If the above Boomerang ban is an actual rather than rhetorical proposal I support it because Gamergate drama needs to be quashed whenever and wherever it shows its ugly little head no mater the "side" propagating the drama.

    (I would support a 30 day automatic CIR topic ban for anyone following a Gamergate related edit to allow the editor to reflect that there is actually shit in the world that matters and Gamergate is not it. Yeah... I know... but I can dream can't I Face-smile.svg) JbhTalk 01:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll say +1 for commending The Wordsmith for stepping up to clean up the Gamergate cesspool. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, can we start a Gamergate Noticeboard so these people can post their complaints there (and nowhere else) and they can all read them and agree with each other while the rest of us build an encyclopedia? BMK (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe I'm missing some of the context here, but: if there's factionalism on a page, contacting a polarizing editor to encourage them to make bold changes is an excellent way to exacerbate it. Masem is a good editor with a good track record, but he's pretty strongly associated with a "side", and no one with a passing familiarity with that topic area could possibly think he would have been a consensus pick to make changes. Even though I don't think it's actionable, it is not a great look for an admin working on an incredibly contentious issue. I share the concerns raised by multiple editors on Wordsmith's talk page, and the level of dismissiveness toward those problems is disconcerting. Nblund (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not associated with either side (if anything I would be slightly in the anti-GG side in terms of the philosophies, but have no participation on the situation at large), but editors have asserted that I am, showing no sign of good faith. This is the problem with long-term behavior on that page extending from the larger GG problem beyond WP - it's a "you're either with us or against us" attitudes that both sides frequently use. While at the start of the GG article in 2014, we had issues with SPAs and IPs attacking anyone that wouldn't take their side, thus leading to 500/30 protection on the talk page. But since then and the ArbCom case, there have been other editors that have a clear strong resentment of anything GG, and labeling editors like myself that disagree with that opinion in terms of writing the article as "pro-GG". I've suffered a year+ of personal attacks and claims of aspirations because I'm trying to work out how to write an encyclopedic-neutral stance given what the sources say on a topic that has nearly no neutral coverage in the sources (It is not a simple task, and requires consensus and cooperation, which doesn't happen when personal attacks and the like are thrown around). So I take issue with stating I "strongly associated with a side", since I have no feelings either way of which side of the GG situation is right or not. That said I respect the concern that having only one editor (even one perfectly neutral) control a topic like this as one might take Wordsmith's offer, that's never a good idea, but its clearly not the intent of what Wordsmith offered, nor something I would want to have, as I do know I can be wrong, misforgetting/misreading things, and have crap first-time writing that needs copyedits particularly on a topic like this. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I find the lack of good faith unnecessary. An AGF reading of Wordsmith's request is that they recognise Masem's good work and asked them to drop in a try to help out on the article content. The only thing that should be disconcerting is the inability of GG editors to see an admin trying their best to maintain an objective perspective in the cesspit. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
MASEM: I should have phrased that differently. I don't mean to suggest that you're pro-GG or anti-GG, or that you're motivated by personal beliefs or biased in any way. What I mean to say is that you are someone who has taken positions on several of the key editorial debates on this topic. Those are real, legitimate, good faith differences of opinion, but they are differences of opinion. I also don't think Wordsmith intended to influence the debate.
Blackmane (talk you say "drop in", but, as Wordsmith noted in that message, Masem is already very visibly active on the GG talk page, he just doesn't make frequent edits to the GG entry. I think this is because he is still working to build consensus for many of the changes he wants to make. To me, that lack of editing is a commendable show of restraint and patience in an area that desperately needs it. I found it worrisome because it almost seemed like an administrator was discouraging someone from exercising discretion. Nblund (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang discussion[edit]

It would appear as though we have consensus on the subject of whether or not there should be consequences for The Wordsmith. As the boomerang component regarding Artw has been mentioned several times, I think it is appropriate to discuss that. Should there be a topic ban for thirty days? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • No boomerang The diff on Masem's talk page could reasonably be interpreted as meaning that Wordsmith agreed with Masem's take and thus would cover Masem's back administratively. Let me make it very clear that Wordsmith is a good admin and I don't think that's at all what Wordsmith meant, only that it's possible for a reasonable person to read it that way. I have by choice remained blissfully ignorant of the whole Gamergate "pile of excrement" (as Wordsmith so aptly described it) so there may be some backstory amongst these editors that would argue in favor of a boomerang. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No boomerang per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris unless something more nefarious appears. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Boomerang This was already extensively discussed on user talk page and article talk. Artw was told to take it to ARCA. This was a pit stop to build up history of discussion. A topic ban stops this type of forum shopping. There is no doubt that any admin action Wordsmith takes will be immediately challenged (this meritless complaint of INVOLVED didn't even point to an admin action, it's pre-emptively Poisoning the well against future admin action). It needs to stop. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Boomerang - I'm of the same mind that this behavior needs to stop and a topic ban is needed. GamerPro64 03:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I also don't see enough evidence for the charge of INVOLVEDNESS to stick though, of course, someone being on Reddit is always a bad sign. Or am I thinking of Tumblr? The one is funny and has jokes, the other is where people make fun of other people in that mean internetty way, right? As for the boomerang, if y'all want this user topic-banned or whatever, I urge you to make a more comprehensive case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement; no uninvolved (!) admin is going to place such a ban based on this thread alone. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2016 (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.

Independence Day: Resurgence[edit]

This could have been resolved by discussion. User:Omeganian, some editors do have poor spelling and grammar, but unless their edits are of very low quality they may still contribute. The sentence ended up reading very well after your edit, so I'd chalk that up as a successful collaboration. Please be kinder in your edit summaries as suggested in WP:CIVIL [added: even under provocation]. User:NeoBatFreak, you may have been put out by that edit summary but reverting the grammatical improvements was not the correct response. Someone taking the time to improve your writing should be welcomed [added: and them bring upset with such a revert is understandable]. Fences&Windows 19:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Additions thanks to a comment by Mr rnddude at my talk. Fences&Windows 19:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Omeganian just made a personal attack on me of my contributions to the article Independence Day: Resurgence. I admit that I am not proficient with grammar and is something I struggles since I was a kid, but he shouldn't made a personal attack per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. He needs to be dealt with.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide a diff of the remark you found offensive. BMK (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Wait, are you talking about where Omeganian said "If you don't know English, then why are you editing the English Wikipedia?" [15] He or she is exactly correct. I don't edit the Ukrainian Wikipedia or the Danish Wikipedia because I don't speak or write those languages. If you cannot write English sufficiently to write at an encyclopedic level, then you either should not be editing here, or you should restrict your edits to those which don't require the correct use of English, of which there are many. Or, of course, you could always edit the Wikipedia of your native language.
English may be the closest thing we have right now to a universal language, but that doesn't mean that everyone is qualified to edit English Wikipedia, and from what I have seen of your edits, you are not one of those people. BMK (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Clearly the user does know English, not English grammar and punctuation, but the language is well within their grasp. There is no personal attack in the comment provided by BMK and unless there is a different comment at issue here then I don't see what you'd want administrators to do. I took a look at the actual content change in the diff, it was cleared up by a copy-edit, I am more concerned by the lack of sources on the article (for both the OPs and others contributions). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The edit comment here may not strictly be a personal attack, but it is needlessly rude and uncivil. There are always better ways of explaining a revert. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You need to notify the person against whom you are making a report at AN/I, I will do that for you now. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Though not the most civil comment, it was not a personal attack. You can talk out your problem on your guys' talk pages. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 09:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for my phrasing being improper, but the message stands. Omeganian (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The message is as poor as the wording. Unless there is an unreasonable level of incomprehensibility I see no reason why the editor should not contribute to the English Wikipedia. A simple copy-edit clears up any grammar and punctuation issues. If it's unreadable then we have a genuine problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I corrected the grammar. He undid the correction. While being aware he has grammar problems. Omeganian (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I see, I think this is worth taking into consideration. The edit in question is [16]. @NeoBatfreak: is there any particular reason you thought it was appropriate to revert the edit made by Omeganian fixing your grammar. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to trim the plot'S length within 700 words.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2016 (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.

91Osama (talk · contribs)[edit]

Deleted article and gave a custom final warning to editor. --NeilN talk to me 16:07, 26 June 2016 (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.

Continuously removes speedy deletion template on Mujeeb Chandio even after being told not to. --MarioProtIV (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN deleted that article, and warned this user too. - INVISIBLE-Talk! 16:01, 26 June 2016 (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.

Questionable category edits[edit]

User: has been making some questionable category edits and ignoring warnings posted to his talk page. For example, in this edit[17] he changed Category:Welsh films to Category:British films on Thicker than Water (1993 film), a film set in Wales, filmed in Wales, and with a Welsh director. The result was a page that had two Category:British films cats. The rest of the edits appear to be equally dodgy and to be pushing some sort of nationalist POV. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There's enough warnings (including one from me) to block the IP next it happens. It strikes me as pretty likely an experienced editor going stealth, not a newbie - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
yeah, they started again after two warnings. I just blocked for 72 hours and am now cleaning up the damage, will keep an eye out - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Orly Taitz herself & sock or meat editing own article[edit]

Could use some eyes. See article history.--TMCk (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And insisting.--TMCk (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Carlstak threats[edit]

Carlstak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been a consistent problem on the page Independent Institute. For years he has worked to vandalize the page with poorly sourced, irrelevant, and biased material and resisted all attempts to fill out the page with neutral new material. Much of the history of this is detailed on the Talk Page. His latest action has truly crossed the line however, having posted a personal attack against me on the talk page, threatening to report me to the police in an attempt to intimidate me. I kindly request that he be blocked from any further edits on the Independent Institute page. Vidmastb (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Note the authorities to which Carlstak was alluding to was most likely COIN and not the police.

Should have read the entire thread, not the first two paragraphs. Accusations of drug dealing are severe to say the least. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed a comment from that talk page for being very much inappropriate for an article talk page or any other part of Wikipedia. It is early for me so I will leave this to more awake minds to decide how to best deal with Carlstak. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 13:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have forgotten to notify User:Carlstak. Now done for you.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I have threatened no one, and accused no one of drug dealing. I am the one who feels threatened by having received a personal email through Wikipedia's servers from this person who used a handle that has the last name (an unusual one) and an abbreviated first name that corresponds to a fictional drug lord, one that I just discovered last night uses enforcers to carry out contract killings. I feel even more threatened by the fact that minutes after I made the post to the Independent Institute's talk page, I received a phone call from a restricted number but heard nothing when I picked up, and then was disconnected.
I should say also that when I responded to Vidmast's email I used a gmail account that is signed with my actual name, rather than my WP pen name, and that with that name and a cursory look at the articles I have recently edited, anyone could easily deduce where I might live, and Googling it, quickly discover my personal phone number, which I also use for online business purposes. As I say, I am the one who has reason to feel threatened here. Carlstak (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: If I'm not mistaken, the original handle used by this person included the full name of that fictional drug dealer, and appears to have been shortened since. I imagine the proof is still cached on Google's servers. Saying that someone used such a handle (of which I have proof of the shortened version) is not the same as accusing them of drug dealing, a fact that should be obvious. Anyone can look at my contributions and see that I am not in the habit of issuing threats. Given this history, and then receiving this mysterious phone call, who wouldn't feel threatened themselves?
I must say also that after discovering what methods the fictional drug lord uses to deal with his enemies, I was in somewhat of an emotional state, and hardly in a condition to consider what the proper WP procedures are to respond to such a perceived threat.
Also note that I did not say I was going to call the "authorities" (I did not use the word "police"), I said I was going to find out if this is a matter that should be reported to the authorities. Do I really need to point out that this is not the same thing as saying I'm going to call the police? Carlstak (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not wise to allow yourself to be e-mailed via Wikipedia. And it's very unwise to respond to a suspicious-sounding e-mail. And if he actually called you, then you've kind of painted yourself into a corner. Let this be a lesson in internet caution. And by the way, it sounds like the OP here needs to be put on ice permanently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering that there was a contentious history between the two of us, one has to wonder why he would use such a disreputable handle to communicate personally with me for the first time. It wasn't necessary, and he could have chosen any other to use. Obviously (one would think) I didn't assume he was that entity, but it's not unreasonable to assume that under the circumstances most people wouldn't use one that could be interpreted as intimidating, e.g. as if I had responded to his email using the handle "Bloodthirsty Killer". I certainly wouldn't.
You used the comment "It is early for me so I will leave this to more awake minds" to justify your response, so similarly, I might say that I was sleep-deprived, under stress, and a bit groggy from a sleep aid, and perhaps not in my best form. Carlstak (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: HighInBC removed the comment I was responding to while I was editing this page. Carlstak (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The OP has only edited 3 times since February. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. I've said many times on the Independent Institute article's talk page that this person calling himself Vidmastb seems to be on WP for a single purpose. He keeps adding material sourced from the Independent Institute to the article, which already relies excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, as the tag says. The majority of his relatively few edits to Wikipedia are concerning the Institute, which at least suggests that he might be associated with it and possibly have a conflict of interest. He's made only a paltry number of edits, and the overwhelming majority of them are to the II page or its talk page.
He effectively has claimed (notice I say "effectively") ownership of the article, and for whatever reason, the two editors who diligently police it for other infractions let his edits slide. Carlstak (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I know nothing about any phone call made to Carlstak. Second, what's wrong with making edits infrequently? Some editors are more active than others. For the record I've edited 8 different pages (not 3) from Feb 1 through two days ago.
I had zero intention of doing anything threatening to Carlstak. Back in January I sent him a friendly message via the Special:EmailUser feature in an attempt to reach out and start some kind of dialog outside the Talk page about our conflicting edits. In case he wanted to send me a response, I provided a throwaway email address I created many years earlier (before I even became a Wikipedia editor) for spam and other purposes which used a fake name because I preferred not to give out my personal information. The throwaway email account used the name Avon Barksdale, a character on the show The Wire. I used that name because when I made the account years ago I was watching that show and it was honestly the first name that popped into my head. In hindsight, I should have thought twice before using an account with that name to communicate with others. Assuming that Carlstak’s reaction was genuine and not some sort of attempt to play the victim to have my account sanctioned because he disagrees with my edits, hopefully we can all just chalk this up to a misunderstanding and move on. Vidmastb (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly possible that Vidmastb had no connection with the hang-up call, but it did seem rather too coincidental, and given my experience dealing with him, I'm not inclined to take anything he says at face value. He came here asking that I be topic-banned from editing the II article, which I last edited February 1, and making obviously untrue accusations against me. I am willing to let bygones be bygones regarding this matter, but I still maintain that someone should look into his possible conflict of interest in editing this particular article, which is the only one he's shown much interest in editing. Carlstak (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
What set off this whole thing was that I made a minor edit to a budget number on the II page, the first edit anyone has made to the page since February. 18 hours later, Carlstak inappropriately used the talk page to post a complaint about me, making threats to report me to the "authorities". It looked fake to me because 5 months ago he responded to my private message saying "I'm talking to an internet handle called either 'Vidmastb' or Avon Barksdale, a fictional drug dealer. What a laugh." So, apparently he thought the name was funny 5 months ago, yet two days ago he was in some sort of emotional state fearing for his safety? It looked like ridiculously obvious fake drama to me.
This is not the first time he has inappropriately used the II talk page to attack or try to intimidate me. He has repeatedly used the page to make unsubstantiated allegations against my affiliations. Despite being warned on multiple occasions that doing so is a violation of WP:PA and WP:COI, he continues to do it.
Carlstak is being deceptive when he says I have claimed ownership of the article. If anything, he has claimed ownership. Yes, the page has not had many edits recently, but all past attempts by various editors to try to improve the page have resulted in attempts by Carlstak to hijack the process. Edits made by anyone to remove from the page poorly sourced material critical of II or edits that add new neutral material are always immediately reverted by Carlstak and are only allowed to stand if multiple editors outnumber him. His arguments backing up his edits are completely inconsistent. For example, primary sources or sources that don't adequately substantiate a claim are fine with him if the material makes II look bad. At the same time, new neutral text is unacceptable to him, even when backed up with secondary sources. Here are a few cases that demonstrate his bias:
In a Nov 21 2013 edit on the II Talk page, he called II president David Theroux a "pig".
On July 19, 2014 Carlstak engaged in an edit war with Srich32977 (talk · contribs) and Limit-theorem (talk · contribs). In violation of WP:UNDUE and despite the consensus opinion of at least three other editors, Carlstak insisted that the "Funding" section of the page focus on a single $5,000 donation from Philip Morris to II 19 years earlier. The other editors agreed that this was irrelevant in the context of an organization that raises and spends more than $2 million per year.
In a July 3, 2013 edit Carlstak attempted to use the II page as a vehicle to post anti-tobacco propaganda in violation of WP:COATRACK. For example, he wrote about funding sent from R.J. Reynolds to Atlas Economic Research Foundation, however neither organization has any apparent relationship to II.
In a July 2, 2013 edit, Carlstak added a Tobacco issue section to the II article. It used out of context quotes to make II's positions look unreasonable. The only references were links to two articles on II's websites. The fact that he used primary sources for this edit contradicts his argument used in other edits that sources should all be non-primary. I guess in his view primary sources are fine if they support material that makes II look bad.
On October 28, 2014, apparent POV warrior Emcarrclass (talk · contribs) added a section on "Climate Change" to the page with extremely biased wording and minimal references. This user made similar changes to several other free market think-tank pages around the same time and has made zero edits since. Rather than delete this material as he has deleted other new material people have tried to add to the page, Carlstak expanded this new section and added references, most of which did not support the claims of the text. For example, the two sources Carlstak added in this version to supposedly link Patrick Michaels to II actually say nothing about any relationship between him and II.
In a January 22 2016 edit, I added sections on issues including Healthcare and Civil Liberties to the page. 80% of the nearly 50 sources backing up the new material were secondary. Previously, the only issue section on the page was "Climate Change" which was rather odd for an organization that apparently does work on a variety of issues. What was Carlstak's reaction? Did he seek to expand or edit the new material or add references? No. He immediately deleted it all. Even though the new material was backed up with secondary sources, he argued on the talk page that the new material "should be counterbalanced with material that treats the same topics more critically." However, he lamented that there is a "lack of verifiable [critical] material" so therefore none of the new text could be allowed. In other words, he was fine with unsubstantiated material that made II look bad, but material that makes II look good or neutral (even when backed up with secondary sources) was unacceptable because he couldn't find enough negative material to contradict it. He also argued that all new material be backed up with sources that are "peer reviewed", an unattainable standard Wikipedia has never used.
On Feb 1, 2016, the new single purpose account Atomicperspective (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) posted clearly irrelevant off-topic information to the page about John Goodman being dismissed from a different organization for "sexual misconduct". I deleted this text. Of course, Carlstak restored it, obviously because he likes having anything on the page that might cast II in a negative light. It was only after Srich32977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) re-did the deletion that the info was removed for good. Whenever someone adds positive or neutral info to the page Carlstak deletes it arguing that "consensus" must first be reached on the talk page, but he has no such standards when it comes to negative information. Vidmastb (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Once again, Vidmastb misdirects the conversation by misrepresenting what I wrote, as he has customarily done throughout this whole ridiculous affair, and continues doing, as anyone can plainly see if they read what I wrote. I repeat, I did not "threaten to call the authorities", and I did not say he "has claimed ownership of the article". I said he has effectively claimed ownership of the article, which is not the same thing, and even emphasized that point, because I anticipated that he would do this, and he does it anyway. He seems to be incapable of understanding the difference, or pretends to be. Can he use a dictionary to look up the meaning of "effectively", or should I explain it to him?
He also neglects to mention that in the comment I originally made on the article's talk page, which was the cause of his complaint here and has been removed, I said: "I thought it was so tawdry at the time that I didn't bother reading the WP article about this disgusting character [Avon Barksdale]. I just did [on June 24], and discovered that this fictional drug dealer uses enforcers to carry out contract killings", which explains why I didn't take it seriously at the time of our original email correspondence, and didn't mention the fact then. This is completely typical of him. He came here with his complaint in response to a comment I made two days ago on that talk page, and the last edits I made to the article in question were made months ago. He seems awfully invested in this one article for someone who claims to have no connection with its subject. Carlstak (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I don't consider an email from a stranger signed with the name of a fictional drug dealer who uses enforcers to carry out the killings of his enemies "a friendly message". Carlstak (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The content of the message was perfectly friendly. And, it was not signed with the name of the drug dealer. It was signed with my Wikipedia account name and an email address that contained an abbreviated form of the drug dealers' name. If you can't handle people using pseudonyms on the internet, I imagine every time you go online you must have a panic attack. If someone uses a "Cruella de Vil" email address, would you fear they're going to kidnap and skin your dog? If someone uses a "Darth Vader" email address, would you fear that they're planning to blow up your planet with a Death Star? If someone uses a "Dracula" email address, would you fear they are planning to drink your blood, turn into a bat and fly away?
Here are Carlstak's exact words. If this is not a threat to contact the authorities, I don't know what is: "I am going to find out if this is a matter that should be reported to the authorities. It certainly appears that way to me."
Whether or not I re-quoted the word "effectively" in my last comment is completely irrelevant. Carlstak knows this and as usual has fixated on an irrelevant detail as a distraction. He apparently has no explanation for his many biased edits or the inconsistent arguments he's made to justify those edits, or to the numerous Wikipedia policies he has violated that I've detailed.
This discussion is not about when Carlstak or anyone else last made an edit to the article. It was triggered by his overblown threat two days ago, which is only the latest in a series of unhinged behavior from him, of which I've tried to provide some background and context. The article has been in a state of stability for about five months with very few edits, but Carlstak's record shows that if anyone tried to make a substantive addition to the article today, he would intervene to fight to defend critical changes in the article (no matter how irrelevant or incorrect) and remove neutral or positive changes. Vidmastb (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Funny how Vidmast's tone has changed since I said that someone should look into his possible conflict of interest, and if my aversion to his using the handle of a murderous thug is so silly that he mocks it now, why did he write, "In hindsight, I should have thought twice before using an account with that name to communicate with others."? The poor fellow can't keep track of his own thoughts or keep his own arguments straight; perhaps he needs a long vacation?
Vidmastb has a habit of referring to reverts of his edits by me or others as "vandalism" in his edit summaries, and he's certainly done his share of edit-warring, both of which are violations of WP policies. A bit hypocritical, I'd say. Now he's in the business of predicting my future behavior, and wants a sanction months after the fact of my last reversion. I'm done arguing with this intransigent person who uses his account mostly for a single purpose, i.e., to add information to one article on which he has a particular focus, most of which is sourced to the Independent Institute's website or sources published by them, as he did here with 20,841 bytes' worth. The article is already overburdened with information derived from those sources, which tilts the article with undue weight in favor of the II, creating an imbalance of bias toward the Independent Institute. Carlstak (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 going around blanking articles[edit]

User:Spacecowboy420 has taken on board that blanking articles, or large parts of articles, can be disruptive and should not be the first option. I don't believe there is any consensus for admin action at this point, but further ill-considered blanking, edit warring over blanking, or incivil edit summaries might warrant another discussion. Please avoid using insults and derogatory terms in edit summaries, even when not directly aimed at another editor. I suggest re-reading WP:CIVIL carefully, including "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")". Fences&Windows 17:13, 27 June 2016 (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.

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) has been going around blanking articles. And not just huge chunks of articles...but entire articles. This is against the WP:Preserve policy and other rules that are in place for dealing with unsourced material. Furthermore, we do not blank entire articles unless it's a serious WP:BLP or WP:Copyvio issue. If the article really needs deleting, we take the matter to WP:AfD; we do not simply blank the article and then go about our merrily way. I first warned Spacecowboy420 about inappropriate removals when he removed easily verifiable content from Child grooming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) solely because it was unsourced and incorrectly cited the material as possible WP:Original research. He did not do a check to see if the material was original research; he simply removed it based on a guess. This sparked a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 64#Preserving a burden), and the most current discussion going on there. It also led to the current debating going on at Wikipedia talk: Editing policy. While some might be able to excuse his behavior in the Child grooming case, I do not see how this, this and this type of blanking is acceptable. Neither did Piotrus and Materialscientist, who reverted him at two of the articles. And in this case, he failed to do his WP:Before job before proposing that the article be deleted. As seen here and here, Arxiloxos came in to save the day in that case. As seen with this edit, Spacecowboy420 is also mistaken about WP:Primary sources, assuming that they are inherently bad.

I took the matter to S Marshall's talk page since he was as alarmed as I was about Spacecowboy420's behavior in the Child grooming case and his nonchalant, dimissive attitude regarding removing material. While S Marshall declined to get involved on his talk page, Piotrus stated, "I concur that blanking is not a good approach. There are deletion processes for that. Spacecowboy420, those three diffs above are basically stealthy deletion, and that is not far from the v-word. Please do not blank articles in such fashion. If you want them gone, Template:Prod is not difficult to use." Spacecowboy420's response was, "I'm merely deleting unsourced content. If someone wants to add content to an article, they should provide sources. If they are too lazy to provide sources, it gets removed. I guess I dislike poorly sourced content, unsourced content and lazy editors, as much as some others dislike content being removed. If an article ends up blank because none of it was sourced, the blame lies with the lazy editor who didn't provide a source. I would like to add, that if the content is notable and someone restores it, with suitable sources, I would not go back and remove it again." He soon made edits like this and this.

Some intervention is needed here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing this, this, this, and maybe particularly this are some of the edits being questioned here? John Carter (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
As noted above, that's part of it. When it comes to blanking the entire article, or essentially the entire article, this, this and this is also a part of it. Spacecowboy420 has been clear that he believes this type of blanking is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I honestly cannot see how anyone can believe that blanking of an entire article put together by others is "fine". Opening deletion discussion, maybe, but not blanking an entire article. If his beliefs do permit that, then it is definitely time for him to be advised to the contrary. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes. Surely the way to go about dealing with completely unsourced articles with no notability is to stub them down to the basics, and then PROD them. Stuff like this is basically vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Laura Jamieson, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the hacking and blanking if the articles were "completely unsourced articles with no notability"; I mean, I would still think the matter should be handled like you stated, but Spacecowboy420 is often removing easily verifiable content, paying WP:Preserve no mind. He's not checking for verifiability or notability; that's why I pointed to the Child grooming case and cases like this one, where he prodded the article for deletion and another editor had to come in and fix the mess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I expect this type of edit to stop until Spacecowboy420 comes here and engages in discussion. [18] --NeilN talk to me 23:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I got tagged to this conversation, and will weigh in that I don't think the content being removed from Cebu Pacific falls so obviously short of sourcing requirements as to justify these removals. Specifically, while I share much of his objections to the use of primary sources, material sourced to primary sources is sufficiently acceptable as to require discussion. For Dasmariñas Village, though, the problem is more that he doesn't delete cleanly: replacing it with a redirect to Makati City would have been quite justifiable. Leaving the article as it was, after being tagged as unsourced for seven years, would have been completely irresponsible. It's an example of exactly how useless the "citation needed" tags are.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that at least some of the material removed from the Cebu Pacific article, particularly including its having merged with other airlines, probably merits inclusion, and, I assume, could probably have sources found if in fact the editor who removed it were more interested in improving the article than in, basically, unilaterally removing everything with sometimes questionably phrased edit summaries. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I see the behavior of Spacecowboy420 as very concerning. This editor does not understand sourcing guidelines or policy at all. We all know that material needs to be "challenged" and may be removed, but the mere existence of a refimprove or noref tag is not, per se, a challenge of contentious material. Absent a BLP violation or blatent copyvio, the standard procedure is to initiate discussion. My take:
  1. WP:PRIMARY is widely misunderstood; it does not prohibit use of primary sources, it simply explains where they are and are not appropriate. In the case of the Cebu Pacific article, it was filled with a lot of cruft, but some of the material removed was fine, and taking out something apt to be verified simply due to a cn tag is a lack of due diligence.
  2. this was just inappropriate content removal without discussion.
  3. this was a completely inappropriate edit summary
  4. this had no justification for blanking. and properly reverted. Unsourced, yes, but blanking was overkill$.
  5. prodding and deleting content of an article in this fashion was completely inappropriate.
  6. this was at least in response to a discussion, so OK in style, I make no coment as to the validity of the content or arguments advanced.
  7. completely inappropriate edit summary. Also inappropriate blanking.
  • That's all for now from me. I'd say a restriction may be in order that in the future Spacecowboy420 cannot blank or prod tag any article, if he has issues, he can either file a proper AfD, or if there is a prod concern, ask someone else to do it for him. Spacecowboy420 should be required to make blanking requests via either the BLP noticeboard or Copyvio noticeboards. If he chooses not to respond here, I'd suggest a one-week block might get his attention. Montanabw(talk) 01:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a prod restriction, but I do support a restriction on blanking articles, per mine and other arguments above and elsewhere. Ha, I'll even ping User:Kvng with whom I am having a disagreement on some prods - see, there are people who go far, far further then me... Perhaps instead of deprodding my prods you could see if there are improperly blanked Spacecowboy's articles out there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I will take aboard the constructive criticism and advice given here and accept that when I removed unsourced content on some articles, it might have been a good idea to consider 1. checking that I didn't remove valid content. 2. contacting the editors who inserted the content in the first place and asking them to provide sources. 3. redirects instead of virtually empty topics. If I feel the need to remove content from an article (due to lack of sources/primary sources/etc) I will take more care and consider if removal actually benefits the article, or if there is a better way to deal with it. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. This might just have been a case of an editor with a previous negative interaction with me, getting a little too overzealous with ANI reports. I'd rather say "yeah, ok, I'll be careful" than get involved in another prolonged dramafest, over a really simple issue. C'est la vie. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, as made clear before and then again, we both know that I've had many previous negative interactions with you, not just the Child grooming case. But, as is clear by others expressing the same concerns about your editing, that is not why I reported you here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, like you I love lyric poetry more than drama, but this was not a dramafest over a simple issue. I mean, it was a simple issue, but repeated frequently and zealously. Few people like trimming articles more than I do, but wholesale blanking is quite another, and as such this is a matter for ANI. Had you not responded, and continued with the simple issue, there is little doubt you would have been blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Drmies My reaction was probably more to do with the source of the complaint, than the content. Rather than insult the source of the complaint, or comment on their motivation, it would be more constructive of me to pay attention to you, as you've always spoken total sense. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, if I could get that last bit in an affidavit, I'd be mighty grateful. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420: I find it curious that you "banned" Flyer22 Reborn and Montanabw from your talk page over this. Are you trying to make it harder for them to resolve issues with you in the future? Rebbing 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Rebb - No, I'm trying to get a little peace and quiet in my editing life. A quick "ping" gets my attention to any post, if required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────In that case, I must comment that Spacecowboy420 needs to be explicitly warned that blanking material simply for being uncited or for having an old {{cn}} tag is an improper response per WP:PRESERVE. If an article is overly promotional or COI in tone, appropriate tags should be placed and the editors in question be properly informed. Most of all, it is completely inappropriate to use language in edit summaries such as these (all in his last 500 edits) no matter what the provocation—or even accuracy of the sentiment:

  1. "buying planes and having routes is not fucking notable"
  2. "shit article. POV/OR/NO sources."
  3. "Do I want an ignorant template on my pretty talk page? Nope. It can fuck off." (in response to a warning, no less)
  4. "fuck this article sucks...."
  5. "not a collection of fucking pictures"
  6. "This article sucks. ..."
  7. "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?"
  8. "promotional crap..."
  9. "Promotional crap."
  10. "more crap removed"
  11. "lots of crap removed, for numerous awesome reasons..."
  • Spacecowboy420 appears to be an erudite individual and perfectly capable of using a thesaurus to find synonyms for these assorted four-letter expletives. (I did not note uses where the individual used said words to describe his own actions, which is acceptable as it is either self-deprecating humor or commentary on one's own actions) My suggestion is that any further behavior such as these examples above result in an immediate 24-48 hour block for each occurrence. Inappropriate blanking or inappropriate prod-tagging may need to be addressed on a case by case basis, but Spacecowboy420 needs to be strongly admonished that this is not appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 17:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Let's not spend time on trying to figure out what kind of individual Spacecowboy420 is and focus on addressing the behavior. I think the whole matter of blanking material has been settled, and I expect not to see it come up again. Spacecowboy420, the swearing in edit summaries is needlessly provocative and adds no value to the work you are doing, so please drop it. This summary is not an acceptable way to talk to other editors. There are other ways to explain the removal of material you think is problematic. I JethroBT drop me a line 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • The thing is that a literal reading of WP:BURDEN does support Spacecowboy420's behaviour. As written, editors can remove content if they don't like the sourcing, and there aren't any limits or qualifiers on that power. WP:PRESERVE suggests otherwise but we have a number of editors who are seriously arguing that BURDEN trumps PRESERVE. It's not proportionate or reasonable to warn editors for doing what our policies specifically say they can do. In my view the correct response to this isn't to impose sanctions on Spacecowboy420. It's to clarify WP:BURDEN by explaining how far it goes.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Another option might be to either place the removed material on the article talk page, allowing people to still have access to it for the purposes of finding sources for what it says, or alternately adding a wikilink of the edit history of the article showing the material removed. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, I would prefer not to visit your talk page. Indeed, my visiting that talk page has been a rare occasion. I prefer not to visit the talk pages of those I have a tempestuous history with. But Wikipedia requires that I notify you of a WP:ANI report I've started on you, regardless of already having pinged you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd first like to thank S Marshall for presenting the devil's advocate position, above, since he's firmly in the opposite camp; it was a very classy thing to do. I'm one of the people who are arguing, as he says, "BURDEN trumps PRESERVE". However, even those of us who believe that make a couple of possible exceptions to the removal rights given by BURDEN. First, most of us concede that it is likely a sanctionable practice to make a regular or habitual practice of removing material merely because it is unsourced without making a good faith effort to find a source for the material, especially if it appears that doing so is pursuant to a topical agenda or POV (it being somewhat unclear whether or not it is sanctionable without that factor being present; most cases which have come here to ANI without it that I've seen or been involved in — which may be simply luck of the draw — have ended with considerable criticism of the practice, but no sanctions). Second, and much less certain, is the idea that even a single removal of a large amount — blanking — of material from a single article may be sanctionable. (And, of course, even if neither of those exceptions is present, edit warring over a removal is not permitted.) I have not looked and do not know whether Spacecowboy420 has engaged in either of those practices, but I do find the edit comments quoted by the good Montanabw, above, to be disturbing, especially if it is combined with one of those practices, and I wanted to add this additional information for what it's worth. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────What's interesting here is that both WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN redirect to policies, and both state pretty clearly that editors should "consider" fixing problems rather than just blanking things. Use of the {{cn}} tag is encouraged. My own position is that tagging is superior to blanking, as it gives the article editors an opportunity to fix problems. At the very least, going around and declaring that articles "suck" or are "shit" is WP:BITEY at its worst, highly incivil and does not contribute to the good of the encyclopedia. It's one thing to become irate at a well-established editor or a true vandal, but where we have these low-quality-but-good-faith articles, it is more appropriate to use tags or at least a more educational edit summary. The idea of moving large swaths of blanked material to the talk page is also a good one. Montanabw(talk) 23:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting on the totality of the editors blanking career, but just looking at his edits to Child grooming in particular, since that's part of my long-term area of watching. Edits such as this and this... twice removing the blue-sky statement Child grooming is an activity done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being... is an action that makes me quite nervous about that editor. I'm not saying that this proves anything, but it would be consistent with a highly problematic editor. It's a red flag to me. However, based on the above, it seems highly likely that this editor just likes to delete material generally for some unclear reason, and happened to pick that passage more or less at random. I guess. It's still not something I like to see. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"...just likes to delete unsourced material" would have expressed the apparent situation as it stands rather more precisely, I think. Muffled Pocketed 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That paragraph was unsourced but extremely easy to source. When I got tagged on the talk page I was able to find a source within minutes of seeing it. For the reasons Herostratus gives, it's the single most problematic one of Spacecowboy420's recent edits and it spawned a colossal discussion on WT:V and WT:EP. WP:BURDEN does allow editors to remove paragraphs in this way, and in my view the problem is with the policy rather than with the editor ---- barring a little salty language in the edit summaries. (The edit summary part of this AN/I is clearly going nowhere except for a mild warning. This is a first offence and we don't need long AN/I discussions to deal with a little bad language. The difficult part of this AN/I is about policy.)—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I do offline things at the weekend, so I wasn't aware of the drama unfolding here, until I got back online.
Seeing the amount of time people have put into discusing things here, I guess it would be polite of me to comment on a few points.
1. Burden vs Preserve. I've had this discussion with some of the editors here, in the past, on other discussion pages, and I still stand by my comments that WP:BURDEN does allow us to remove content that is lacking a source. To me this is so important, because it encourages editors to add sources, rather than just add content and rely on other editors to find the sources. If it becomes standard that editors are reported for removing unsourced content, then we might as well remove the need for sources on anything other than BLP related content. The editor that adds content should provide a source. The editor that restores unsourced content should provide a source. The editor removing the content, may choose to be kind and provide a source, but that's their option, removing the content should be just as valid an option.
2. I was willing to accept some of the valid points made that criticized me, because it helps to be open minded, and I just want to get on with editing articles. I could have spend days debating burden VS preserve, but to be honest, I wasted enough time the last time it was discussed and we got nowhere, so I chose the easy option and stated that I would look at other options, that certainly does not mean that I accept unsourced content should not be removed. Removal is one valid option, my error was that I didn't consider the other options enough.
3. I used profanity in my edit summaries. I have major issues with this complaint for a number of reasons...
Firstly, I was being reporting for removal of content/blanking - an editor who I have had previous issues with, Montanabw, decided to get involved, hoping (or to be more accurate, requesting) that I should receive a block and/or be subject to editing restrictions. When I decided to be tactful and open minded about the criticism, accepting that I could have performed my edits in a number of different ways, rather than jumping into a big fight in ANI, it seemed as if this would all be resolved without any sanctions against me. So, seeing this situation not resulting in sanctions, Montana decided she had better find something else to complain about, in an attempt to get my account blocked for something...anything... This is not what ANI is about, this is just vindictive. ANI is not here to gain revenge on editors that you have had an edit related conflict with. Actually, this is not what Wikipedia is for, not just ANI>
Secondly, I swear. I swear in real life. I am aware of civility rules in Wikipedia, and specifically in regards to edit summaries. I would never use profanity or anything else offensive to attack an editor. Telling someone to fuck off, or telling someone that they are a dumbass are personal attacks. Something that (AFAIK) has never been in my edit summaries. Using words like nigger, fag or whore are offensive towards a group of people, without the need to actually direct them at anyone - I have never used that sort of language in my edit summaries, or on wikipedia (AFAIK). I am sorry if someone doesn't like my colorful language, but the intent is not to offend. The same as someone might be offended with my views on homosexuality, race, religion, etc - my use of profanity is something that I guess people should learn to either accept or ignore, because we can't all have the same moral feelings on everything.
Finally, when I initially saw the report about my profanity, I actually stopped and thought for a moment. Maybe Montana actually had a point? Maybe, if I ignore the fact that we had a dispute in the past, perhaps she has different standards to me, and is genuinely offended by my profanity in my edit summaries?
Then I saw the following in her edit summaries:
unsourced bullshit, stop adding it back in.
I would sugg