Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees (again)[edit]

In January I opened an ANI thread (archived here), concerning Carliertwo and their editing of articles related to the music group Siouxsie and the Banshees. My intention had been for the community to examine the whole approach of this user, but unfortunately the thread was closed after focusing on one specific incident (Carliertwo not respecting the result of an RfC). My concern is that this user is not interested in Wikipedia being a neutral and balanced source of information, rather they are using Wikipedia as a platform for echoing their own views as a Siouxsie Sioux fan. I write this as someone who owns several records by the group, so I am not a hater of the band seeking to attack them (quite the contrary); I am simply attempting to ensure Wikipedia's coverage of them is neutral. Currently this is not possible, because Carliertwo has a stranglehold over all articles connected with Siouxsie Sioux, and removes all content that does not chime with their own enthusiasm for the band. Comments made about this user at that first thread include the following: "it looks to me like ownership doesn't even begin to describe the contribution count: it is literally all for the band, like some sort of dedicate social media account to ensure that this group is always portrayed in a positive light" (TomStar81), "Carliertwo is not respecting the consensus outcome of the RfC and they are edit warring. The comment on your talk page does have the tone of ownership" (MrX), and "It is pretty damning evidence of being a SPA when all you do is edit on a specific band to achieve your specific POV" (TheGracefulSlick).

Incidents that have made me open this issue again are the following (the third example is the most revealing):

  • 1) Although there had just been an RfC (that I opened) that concluded that the phrase "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" should not be included in the Tinderbox article, Carliertwo immediately opens another RfC, this time asking whether the phrase "In 2011, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations" should be included in the article.[1]
  • 2) In the article about the album Kaleidoscope, I adjusted a review quote so that it reflected the overall tone of the review (i.e. qualified praise) [2]. Carliertwo has reverted this three times ([3] [4] [5]), each time replacing the overall summary with cherry-picked praise of 2 particular tracks.
  • 3) I found a very critical review, written by Julie Burchill in the NME, of the album The Scream. I found it remarkable that our article didn't have this review in the 'Critical reception' section, though it did contain long positive comments about the album made by other NME journalists, just not the actual official NME review. So I added a quote from the review [6]. Carliertwo reverted this, stating that I must have found the review on a fansite, and hence I couldn't "advance the veracity" of Burchill's article [7]. So, I added a link to a scan of the review in a copy of NME Originals [8]. Carliertwo reverted this and replaced it with an attack on Burchill's review that is almost hysterical in tone [9], at the same time denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review.

I am very concerned about the actions of this editor and think that, while they continue to treat Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for reflecting their own views, it will be impossible for any Wikipedia article about Siouxsie Sioux (and related subjects) to achieve any kind of neutrality. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Defense: reply of Carliertwo: Introduction

  • Definition and difference between a SPA and a Stewardship. A "wp:Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter. The editor might also be an expert on the subject matter, or otherwise very knowledgeable of the topic, and able to provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. "
  • 1) For your information, I almost entirely wrote a wp:GA for Join Hands. I have made a huge research to create section about legacy, finding the right quotes. All the legacy sections on these SATB related articles have been written by me, I let you measure the good work at Siouxsie Sioux article. [10]]. If you want to get rid of a good contributor who has historical content, you have to have this in mind.
  • 2) A 2nd RFC on Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) for including a different sentence while using the same source was discussed a few months ago: my version was accepted with a wp:consensus [[11]]. Palecloudedwhite didn't mention I have a consensus, he wants a revenge apparently.
  • 3) For The Scream (album) article, I have added secondary sources as Julie Burchill's review was seen as controversial by many critics. These secondary sources are by legendary John Peel DJ, biographer Brian Jones and I can add another one from Paul Morley who also highly criticized Burchill's review two months later in the NME. Julie Burchill is a journalist known for writing with venom about all the punk and post-punk bands, secondary sources are perfectly valid in this case. So, where is the wp:OR ? Comment about Pale, Pale had initially used a reference from a fansite where he took the title of the review "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said.", which meant he hadn't checked back then the veracity of the review and didn't own the original (mistakes of sources are common on fansite). Yesterday, he found a reproduction of the article on a NME reissue which doesn't mention the title of the review anymore "well, what would Edvard Munch have said. So that's why he withdrew the title "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said" ffrom the source. I was right but Pale forgot to present you this important fact. Now, it is still said in the article, that in the same paper, Julie Burchill published a scathing review, later judged as this by her peers as I have explained it with sources in the article.
  • 4) For Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album), I included a source with quote from the Melody Maker, Pale wanted to change it, I don't consider this idea better. Regarding The Scream (album) and Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)', there are talks to discuss.
  • 5) PaleCloudedWhite is not far to be a group hater, I invite you to read the hysterical tone he used here [12] : on 1 February 2017 he wrote: "Boy George writes in his autobiography about meeting Siouxsie Sioux when he was youn of me and the bandger, and says, {{She was haughty, irritated by those attempting to brush with greatness. The new punk stars were every bit as puffed up as the seventies rock dinosaurs they despised", then presumably it's absolutely OK to add this, plus any other quotes I find in primary sources, to the Siouxsie Sioux article}}? ". It is his frame of mind.
  • 6) Concerning the review, Pale also wanted to include this pure bashing "the sound of suet pudding" out of the blue which shows Pale's agenda. We never included pure hatred from critics inside quotes for wp:neutrality. Carliertwo (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well I'm thrilled to see nothing has changed. I'm thinking editing restrictions (like topic banned, broadly construed, from anything remotely related to the band). Who be with me? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TomStar81 You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support TomStar81's proposal - I faintly remember this discussion in January and share Star's "thrill" that nothing has changed. Readers deserve the full story about the band (and their albums/singles) so it is terribly unfair to censor reviews just because they are contrary to one editor's personal preferences.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TheGracefulSlick You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. The NME thing is blatant evidence they are incapable of editing neutrally in this area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
See below. the review is still mentioned. for Only in death. You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet before your ban. Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I didnt vote support because the review is/is not in the article, I voted support because you thought this edit was an appropriate response to someone criticising your pet band. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just had to revert (most of) this editor's large changes to Mogwai, as well. Nothing ridiculous, but they'd merged sections in the article into one without any reason whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - As someone who also listens to this group, I can say without a doubt that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and most (if not all) claims should be backed with reliable sources. The same goes for all articles. However, what I can also say is that editing a specific set of articles does not automatically make the user an SPA. Most editors stick to articles about their interests to begin with. DarkKnight2149 23:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So by not replying by an oppose, you let them ban me, and let these peoplewho are not aware of the agenda of this group hater, and don't care at all of all the massive work with sources that I have made on wikipedia, win de facto. Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me put it this way - If they're goal is to make the group look bad, they should not be editing Siouxsie articles. At the same time, if your goal is promote them, neither should you.
Also, sources are absolutely necessary, but it is possible to use them and not be neutral. I'm not going to "pick a side" (for lack of a better term) here since I don't have a history with anyone involved and don't know what is characteristic of their or your behaviour. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I have added secondary sources from John Peel and a biographer but apparently you haven't seen them at The Scream (album). Do you mind clicking on this link or is it too much to ask [13] ? He doesn't have anything to prove that I am not neutral whereas I have one against him as he included the non neutrality quote "The sound of a suet pudding". Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Editor is wasting all of our time here with this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
As Tarage has never contributed to any historical content on wikipedia apart discussing banning on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and writing on talks, their voice is more than measured. Carliertwo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Adorable. I'll look forward to seeing your block log then. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is rich, you wrote that my contributions are nonsense whereas I wrote a GA and the valuable content/good sources of these articles were written by me. Judging people without knowing their work is a speciality from you. Thanks for confirming that your pleasure is seeing good contributors being banned. Carliertwo (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You can stop the personal attacks and digging your hole any time now buddy. --Tarage (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Important CommentSurprisingly, three users had already given a ban without even reading the defense, without even seeing I have added secondary sources and the Julie Burchill's NME review is still mentioned in article. Carliertwo (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • as this ANI is canvassed, could well known users of the SATB articles write their point of view about my work and the umerous volume I have added on wikipedia ? Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, SilkTork, If you want to get rid of a good contributor because of a witch hunt begun by a group hater who is against my person and refuses to swallow that he lost a 2nd rfc against me by a consensus, it is your choice. Carliertwo (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Carliertwo this ANI was not canvassed. He was quoting us so it is appropriate to ping us when our edits are mentioned. You, on the other hand, did just canvass a group of editors. You also keep called PaleWhite a "group hater" just because he added a review from a somewhat controversial, but notable, critic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you explain us why people who know all my good work, could not write here whereas Pale's first RFC was cancelled by a 2nd rfc with a consensus for my version which means that his first ANI was retrospectively abusive and was just a witch hunt. He thought to include bashing from Boy George about this group (see the quote in green above) and now in the article about The Scream, he wants to include bashing such as "the sound of a suet pudding" where is the neutrality? Have you read my secondary sources from legendary John Peel and biographer of the group? No you didn't obviously. All the Burchill's quote he added was a manoeuvre to include this derogatory term about the album "the sound of a suet pudding", no neutrality. TheGracefulSlick --- Carliertwo (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick failed to address anything about the following points: the fact that there are secondary sources for Burchill's review and the fact that Burchill's review is still mentioned in the article. Carliertwo (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Carlietwo I'd be happy to as soon as you address the multiple non-neutral ANI notices you sent to friendly users calling PaleWhite a "hater". Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
TheGraceFulSlick doesn't even know what a wp:stewardship means. I note the refusal to discuss'and reply about why the reason of banning is justified whereas Burchill's review is still included in the article and widely commented by secondary sources with experts such as John Peel. TheGraceFulSlick also supports the idea of including a bashing of Boy George towards this group by Pale, which is trivial content and she also supports the inclusion of a non neutral quote by Burchill such as "the sound of suet pudding". Carliertwo (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Carliertwo please do not put words in my mouth or question my competence. I have edited much more music articles than I can count so I think I know a thing or two. I said I'd be happy to discuss when you address why you think it is okay to canvass editors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You accused me to be a SPA and you don't even know that the rfc for which the previous ANI was created against me, was later cancelled by a new consensus. Are you sure you are of good faith ? without mentioning that you hadn't even waited to get my defense before voting for a ban. Read my wp:GA about Join Hands, and read the first comment of Darkknight2149 above and ponder. Then when you'll have thought about this, I will be happy to discuss. TheGracefulSlick. don't worry people have a brain and the users that post on SATB related articles will not take for granted my subjective comment. They will judge facts and the content of articlesCarliertwo (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have got a lot of difficulties to believe that contacting you, an user who accused me of being a SPA in an ANI opened for a RFC which has been cancelled, is not canvassing. Knowing that you don't know anything of my edits of the SATB related articles. But you said, that contacting people who do contribute on articles about music and who didn't take part to the previous ANI concerning me, is canvassing. This is rich. TheGracefullSlick. Carliertwo (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I really enjoy when an editor accuses me of competency issues, lack of good faith, and insinuates I do not have a brain: all without a single diff! I'm just going to wait for other editors to jump in (hopefully some you didn't canvas) because this is no longer very productive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No I said that the people I contacted on their page won't take for granted that I consider Pale close to be a band hater and wanting to take a revenge for losing a 2nd rfc against me. People will take a look at the edits, they are users of music related articles. However you can't denied accusing me being a SPA, the quote is above, and you can't denied voting for my ban far before I posted someting here today. Whatever I post, you don't mind. All the things I have said are wrong according to you apparently. I was just asking which point of my defense reply you agree with and which one you disagree.Carliertwo (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick I have just read what canvassing was really about, and withdrew all my edits at the talks of people who edit at music related articles and replaced the message by another short neutral notice. I'm new at ANI. Anyway, you're gonna win and could feast your victory with a cup of champagne in a few days. Congratulations. Thanks for your kind messages and at least admitting well accepting to admit a bit that Burchill's review was "controversial". I guess it is a satisfaction for me. I presume you're gonna let Pale erase all this part and let him doing what did he say earlier "denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review", well in this case "denying readers the possibility of even reading from Burchill's" peers who were skeptical of her work. Carliertwo (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me. You are mistaken, I'm not here to "win" anything. You're continued attitude at article talk pages [14] and your sarcasm with me suggests why you need a topic ban. By the way, your comment in the diff I provided mischaracterized PaleWhite for no reason whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"Which diff you provided" are you talking about ? I disagree with your attitude. If banning a good contributor without any warning is normal, I don't think this is measured. Carliertwo (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Ugh...the diff in my last comment. And here is what I was pointing to specifically: "Pale's will to include a derogatory term such as 'The Sound of suet pudding' shows how his frame of mind. Be ready to see him post plenty of negative, things on SATB articles shortly and in the forthcoming years". I guess I also need to ask you to stop "thanking" me for my edits which you know pings me like an actual ping.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ban+block NPOV, edit warring, bludgeon, and attacking other editors for their lack of brainpower. This editor clearly has a boen to pick with others over anything. That attack on Tarage was pretty poor. A few weeks perhaps? L3X1 (distant write) 03:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Ban from what, do you want me to never edit again on SATB related articles knowing that I have been adding all the good quotes, content and sources from 10 years, and seeing that I entirely wrote a GA ? In a limited time or endlessly and is being a stewardship allowed ? When there is war editing on an article The steps are usually, request demand for a third opinion, discussion, rfc and then if a rfc is not respected an ANI. Canvassing is when you contact people to get support. Pale contacted people from the previous ANI to support him, so I asked neutral people to write their point of view. Another question, will the secondary sources be erased whereas they are comments from John Peel who is the number specialist of music in England ? for L3X1. And have you read all my defense reply above the comments Carliertwo (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note The canvassing continues. Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • note I just read what is canvassing, I thought it was contacting people. I am a newbie at ANI, never been interested by banning attack judging, people. So I'm gonna erase the messages at pages of people I contact to only post a neutral note. Carliertwo (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • After reading through the examples given, and Carliertwo's general editing, I can see the reason for concern. Sadly, Carliertwo's story is fairly common - we are urged to look out for paid editing, but I find our main weakness is unpaid editing by subject enthusiasts who seek to praise their subject a little too much. Yet the bulk of Wikipedia is built by such enthusiasts. The majority of articles on certain popular subjects, be it video games or pop music, have a positive bias. Putting in the neutral balance is the job of neutral editors who come along after the fans have created the article and provided the bulk of the material. And it is the responsibility of all experienced editors to explain to the fans what is happening and why we need to do this. Mostly this is accepted. In Carliertwo's case it seems it is not. Fighting to put back in a trivial, non-encyclopaedic and undue sentence that Brett Anderson liked Tinderbox is not the sort of behaviour we wish to see. On the other hand, the edit warring in Kaleidoscope is two sided. Carliertwo did not completely revert the adjust - the phrasing "Paulo Hewitt gave the album qualified praise" was left intact. During the edit conflict PaleCloudedWhite did not attempt to discuss the matter on the article talkpage or Carliertwo's talkpage, but continued to edit war. I don't think topic banning Carliertwo is an appropriate solution, because I'm not seeing sufficient reason for that. I do think though that it needs to be stressed to Carliertwo that we are not a fan website, and that what we are trying to do is write neutral, balanced and informative articles on Siouxsie and the Banshees for all readers, which means including the negative and the positive in appropriate amounts; which means that we don't cherry pick reviews for the bits we like best, but we aim to give an accurate summary of what was written' which means that if another editor adds material or questions what you are doing, you engage in a discussion as to the best way forward. But this also applies to other editors as well. As experienced editors it is our role to reach out to and explain things to newer or less experienced or knowledgeable editors. We don't shout at them, ban them, or block them, we assist them to understand the Wikipedia way. That way everyone wins. If any editor continues to misbehave after advice has been given, that's when we come in with the heavy stuff. Looking at Carliertwo's history, he has made mistakes, and been given advice. That happens to all of us. There has been a few comments regarding ownership of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles, but not to the level of a ban or a block. I think what is needed here is to let Carliertwo be aware that the community wants cooperation from all editors, and that articles must be neutral in tone. Any concerns are to be discussed rather than fought over. If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is, and promises to be more collegiate going forward, I think this matter can be closed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur generally with what SilkTork' said and their recommendation. As an additional note, as someone who was worked on the Scream article in question, I would say that simply quoting a sourced review is sufficient. We do not need, and should not, add in an entire additional set of sources commenting on how a particular sourced review is invalid. It's irrelevant, for example, whether John Peel thinks Burchill's review was bad. That does come across like a "defense" of the band/record. If it hasn't already been edited down, it should be.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Carliertwo's bias continues to show on his talk page. He also, again, accuses PaleWhite of bad faith without any proof whatsoever in the same edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I too am getting sick of this. If the user is only going to use their talk page as a means to attack other editors, I request that it be revoked for the duration of the block. They have provided nothing of substance to the argument since getting blocked. --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The crucial sentence in SilkTork's comment above is "If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is", because at the moment I see no evidence of this. In their most recent post on their talkpage they state that they do not wish for a certain part of the above-mentioned NME review to be used because it "looks like an useless cherry on the cake used as a weapon by PaleCloudedwhite". A weapon? How is it possible to discuss additions to articles if these additions are regarded by this user as weapons? In the same post this user also advises another to "beware of Paleclouded's attitude and check his edits. I think that he has got tons of edits ready and once I'll be gone, he's going to present a pile of edits in the same vein." Oh, thanks for filling in my Wikipedia diary for me - I had been wondering what my future involved, and now I know. It seems to me that this editor regards editors who challenge them over SATB articles as enemies, and all sorts of nonsense ensues because of this. Just look at how my comment about Boy George became mangled; in the second Tinderbox RfC, I tried to illustrate the undesirable logical consequences of Carliertwo's argument by using a quote Boy George had made about Siouxsie Sioux, [15], but at the top of this thread Carliertwo throws this quote back as an example of my "frame of mind"? What? At the start of this thread I state clearly that I have records by the band and am not a hater of the band. Carliertwo's response? To canvass several editors, informing them I am a "group hater" and that "he wants to let us believe he is not a SATB hater and and doesn't have an agenda on wikipedia, waiting me to be banned and then adding negative critics and erasing good reviews". How is it possible to discuss articles - as SilkTork advises - with an editor who has such a bad-faith attitude? It would be great if blocks and bans can be avoided, but what is the alternative? Unproductive contorted stalemate situations with a user who from the outset regards people such as myself as enemies using 'weapons'? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In an ideal world we would all get on with each other, agree all the time, and meet up for cherry pie and coffee, but sometimes there are awkward incidents, awkward individuals, and disagreements - that is the nature of Wikipedia editing. I understand your frustration, though there isn't a huge history of problems with this user. There have been minor mistakes made, and advice given. Most users have made mistakes. There has been some edit warring, but generally it takes at least two users to make an edit war. I'm not seeing that we have given this user sufficient guidance regarding the concerns with their editing and behaviour, nor am I seeing that their behaviour is sufficiently damaging to warrant a ban. While I agree with you that it was inappropriate to call a second RFC so close after the first one, and while I disagree with the outcome of that RFC, this is not a banning incident as this sort of thing happens all the time. Calling the RFC was not evil, and there were enough who supported not only the premise of the RFC, but also that it was called. Having an editorial disagreement is not evil. This happens all the time. We work through it. Sometimes this is tiresome, sometimes we learn that we were wrong, and most of the time the article is strengthened. I note that through all these problems that Carliertwo has worked toward a compromise. I find that encouraging rather than cause for a ban. We tend to only ban those who consistently refuse to listen to reason, and who make little or no attempt at compromise. Carliertwo is not perfect, but none of us are, and he is working in the right direction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to implement a topic ban[edit]

Its been 24 hours since this thread was opened, and there does seem to be consensus that something more needs to be done about this problem since rattling the saber didn't work last time. Therefore, I propose that we move to adopt a measure that stating that Carliertwo is hereby topic banned from all articles on or related to Siouxsie and the Banshees, broadly construed, and that the topic ban shall be in place indefinitely with an option for Carliertwo to appeal the topic ban after a period of one year by petition for a review of the topic ban at ANI. @MrX, TheGracefulSlick, PaleCloudedWhite, Only in death, Black Kite, Darkknight2149, Tarage, L3X1, and Blackmane: You were either pinged here when this opened or have opined above that this is the best course action, so I am recalling you here to get your input on this proposal. Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, and SilkTork you were pinged here at Carliertwo's request. As it would be irresponsible of me to disregard Carliertwo's earlier insistence that you also be involved in this matter, I would like to invite you to weigh in this matter as well, in the spirit of AGF. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support Enough already, we need to end this disruptive behavior. If Carliertwo isn't going to change then this option is the next best thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I want to make it clear here that I am not advocating for anything being done while Carliertwo is blocked, that would be unethical. I am merely moving forward with a proposal here to gauge the interest in topic ban. We will of course be patient and wait to hear back from the accused, as AGF necessitates. In the mean time, though, it would be beneficial to here back on the proposal insofar as its points relate to the case. It seemed we were agreed above that a topic ban would be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if an unblock condition would be a good idea. I'm also uncertain if it would be wise to debate the merits of revoking the topic ban at ANI. These points we can discuss without needing to wait for Carliertwo, as they are simply a matter of weighing the needs of the community against the allegations here. If we all agree on the points than the proposal then if the topic ban does turn out to the favored option we will be on the same page. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've just looked and note that Carliertwo is under a 48 hour block so is unable to respond here. If Carliertwo is able to reflect on the concerns raised, and give an assurance that he will discuss concerns rather than engaging in edit wars, that he will take on board that Wikipedia by the nature of what we are includes negative comments on subjects, even Siouxsie and the Banshees, and that he will abide by consensus, then a ban is not necessary. We should wait until Carliertwo is able to respond. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur with SilkTork and would like to see Carliertwo given a chance to show they understand why their approach was wrong. If they cannot learn to be more neutral and less defensive of this band/articles, and continue to express conspiracy theories about PaleCloudedWhite's motives and editing biases, then yes, a ban is necessary. But perhaps Carliertwo can learn. Yesterday I tried at length to explain these problems to Carliertwo, perhaps it will sink in. I think, considering that this editor has in fact done much good work on the SATB articles, they should be given one more chance to learn how to be a more neutral WIki editor.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (Neutral) - Whatever the result is, I think we should wait for the user's current 48-hour block to expire before making a decision and closing the discussion. We should see what their response is. Their response and/or defense is important, even in the hypothetical situation where the user shoots themself in the foot (not to outright predict that they will). DarkKnight2149 14:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - If they can explain why their approach was incorrect, tone down the snarky retaliatory comments, and follow-up through with a more neutral mindset, then I would see no reason to implement a topic ban. Let us see what Carliertwo has to say when they are unblocked and we can decide.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm fine waiting till the block expires. Carliertwo is a 10 year veteran here, while not as prolific as other editors with the same tenure, they have nonetheless been a solid contributor and that warrants consideration. Blackmane (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
And given that one of the articles they created currently has Good Article status (in addition to what you just said), I'm inclined to agree. DarkKnight2149 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply of Carliertwo: After reading advices and explanations, I realize that I've made a mistake of judgement. I shouldn't have withdrawn this review (quote + source) and only let her name appear and a simple mention of her review. I had done this because I've read many times she's a controversial writer, and as none of her articles is available on Rock's Backpages, I took it as a sign that maybe her work was not accepted by all of her peers. With the benefit of hindsight, I recognize, I was wrong as the only criteria that matters is the reliability of the source. (Her review was supervised by an editor in chief before publishing). I understand now very well the concerns of NPOV that my revert has raised. The next times, when I disagree with an edit and when one of my edits is reverted, I will use the talk, will try to find a compromise and in the end, abide to the consensus. I will also work to be more civil when I have a criticism to make. Carliertwo (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I really hope you have learned something Carliertwo but I apologize if I'm skeptical. For all we know, you are just saying this because you were faced with a legitimate possibility of being topic banned. During the ANI, you acted terribly hostile toward others (especially with me for some reason), casted aspirations, canvassed, and made excuses for your behavior. None of these factors bring about much confidence. Please note, however, I will agree with the consensus and I expect you to as well. That's even if it's not in your favor because, you must admit, your ability to be neutral is still at question.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinging the editors who said they would comment when Carliertwo replied: Blakemane, Darkknight2149, Greg Fasolino, SilkTork, TomStar81. Anyone else of course can also respond.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Carliertwo has been advised and cautioned and has taken on board what has been said so there is no need for a ban. It may be worth stressing to Carliertwo that in situations like this, if there is a repeat of inappropriate attempts to control an article, and another ANI is called, that it is highly likely a topic ban will be the result. The best form of stewardship is seeking consensus when there are causes for concern. No editor should take it upon themselves to be the sole arbiter of what appears in an article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose I would be willing to give Carliertwo rope in the event that they apologize for all of this, and under the understanding that if it happens again, there won't be a second chance. --Tarage (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for his appology... --Tarage (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm going with AGF on this given Carliertwo's statement above. Sanctions are only to prevent ongoing disruption and not for punishment. Blackmane (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not going to vote either 'support' or 'oppose', because I brought this issue here for the wider community to assess. If Carliertwo is not topic banned but has learned that editors other than myself view their conduct as unacceptable, I am content with that, and I hope that neither myself nor any other editor has to raise this issue here again, for it is wearisome. I would add for the information of Carliertwo that I really do have records by the band - three SATB vinyl LPs, three SATB CD LPs, three SATB vinyl 45s, and two Creatures vinyl LPs - but it should not be necessary for editors to have to establish a fan status before they are 'allowed' to edit the SATB articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose - I've been neutral so far but, when a user apologises for their behaviour, I take it as a sign that they themselves realise that they did something wrong. I oppose this topic ban, as long as they don't repeat what they specifically apologised for. This does not include accusations that they did not apologise for. DarkKnight2149 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Conduct issues aside, the criticism of Burchill's review is certainly as noteworthy as the review itself. I don't disagree that the review and quote be included, but not without giving the reader a reasonable idea that the reviewer had a overt dislike of punk music, was notably controversial and disparaging in her reviews and her words attracted rebuttal from other noteworthy people, like many of her deliberately provocative reviews did. She's a somewhat 'special case' and it would disingenuous to present her opinion as representative of popular consensus on the subject of the punk movement. (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
No, the review is currently included as the sole negative perspective among a mass of overwhelmingly positive comments from other journalists, so in no way could including it be referred to as presenting her opinion as "representative of popular consensus on the subject of the punk movement". Some people don't like punk music; that doesn't make their views any less valid. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
My point is that there is notable pretext and addendum to her conclusion that ought to be included. And some people don't like curry - not sure I'd be asking them for a critique of Indian restaurants in my local area. But if I did, its probably right I know they throw up on cue at the thought of a Jalfrezi. (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as others stated above.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[edit]

User: keeps adding "Dr" to this film maker's name which kills the link. I see no mention of that film maker having a "dr." prefix, but I am not sure whether or not I am right or user: is right. CLCStudent (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

CLCStudent. You are correct. See MOS:HONORIFIC. TimothyJosephWood 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Also warned. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI, this is an inside joke from Hello Internet. Haran did receive an honorary Doctor of Letters, and whether or not it actually grants him the privilege of using the honorific, they use it (jokingly) on the podcast. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

We badly need some backlogs cleared out[edit]

Backlog pileups should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard, not here (where incidents of disruption are reported). No big deal though; we're aware and administrators will be there to assist. Just give them time :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:19, 7 April 2017 (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.

WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. I hate to push my concerns to the front of the line but the first admin who reads this needs to semi-protect Paul Joseph Watson immediately. CityOfSilver 03:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we go back to our secret admin cabal soiree now? The champagne is getting warm. --NeilN talk to me 03:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Had to go get ice. El_C 05:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you use frozen grapes. Won't dilute the champagne that way. Blackmane (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:20, 7 April 2017 (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.

This Administrator NeilN Has Continuously Abused His Rights[edit]

Non-admin closure: NeilN did not use any admin privileges with the particular edits. I recommend you bring up the concerns on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2017 (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.

[here] and also here] shows disruptive editing done by a Wikipedia Administrator, who is supposed to behave with all proper conduct. I edited this article Beyoncé and he reverted my edits stating it was unsourced, (even though he knew it was still under construction) I held my peace and re-edited the page, this time inserting two sources from the onset he still went ahead & reverted it. this time saying it was "undue" please what Wikipedia policy supports that?? "Undue" ?? so technically what he did was because he didn't like my inclusion he just reverted it because he could so. I want other Administrators to please look into this, if I am at a wrong place a re-direction to where best suites this sort of case would be appreciated. A look into the history of NeilN shows this attitude of him/her is not fit to be an Administrator. Why would a person purposely try and suppress information? I'm ready to go any length for this situation at hand Wikipedia permits me to edit and contribute to information as long as I have very good sources to backup my contributions. Wikipedia states that I should be bold. I know I'm on my right, if he NeilN can produce / show me a policy or guideline that empowers him or anyone to edit in a disruptive manner at will I'd apologize & retreat. I also am not perfect, but I would never abuse a right and privileged bestowed upon me in the manner he NeilN has. if required of me I would produce links to him & other junior editors having altercations up to the point of junior editors referring to him as very unfit to be an Administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestina007 (talkcontribs) 01:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This editor... Anyways, Talk:Beyoncé#The_Deity_Oshun (posted after my second revert) --NeilN talk to me 01:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what to say to this... I see no problem with NeilN's edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2017 (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.

Saint Joseph Preparatory High School[edit]

Moved back to original page pending outcome of the RM. (non-admin closure)O Fortuna velut luna... 11:53, 7 April 2017 (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.

An editor boldly moved the above page that has a RM ongoing. Not looking for any discipline here, just an undo of the move. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need an admin for that move. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2017 (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.

Censorship by NeilN[edit]

Is it National Shit on NeilN from a Great Height day? Sock blocked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It is National Beer Day in the US. Not quite the same fun as National Shit on NeilN Day but.... Tiderolls 14:58, 7 April 2017 (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 looked through the edit history of this talk page and found that for several days after these reports on Ms Rice started to appear in the media, User:NeilN was censoring efforts to discuss it on this talk page. How is Wikipedia supposed to work when long-time editors try to control discussions and efforts to add content? This isn't the first time I've seen or heard about this and I understand it's one of the reasons that Wikipedia's editor population has decreased so markedly over the years. By the way, after this statement was originally posted by a different editor, NeilN removed the comment and indef blocked the account. Kekinstein (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI: Anyone who has this user page and this talk page is pretty much WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN talk to me 15:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you want people to take you seriously, you should at least provide some diffs or idea of WTF you're talking about. What reports on Ms Rice? Sure we could hunt around contrib histories but when you force us to do that, many won't bother and even if we do, you've given us good reason to assume you're probably wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Susan Rice. The "censorship" was me enforcing WP:BLPTALK and removing stuff like this and this. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, further proving my point that when you come here with no diffs and a confusing random statements "several days after these reports on Ms Rice started to appear in the media" we have no real reason to take your complaint seriously. Even more so when you start to talk about censorship. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Darn it, I missed National Shit on NeilN Day again. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2017 (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.

violation of wp:agf and wp:civil by this user[edit]

Yet another sockpuppet blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2017 (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.

[[16]] ABaNDODU (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There must be an erro because the above diff is from 2002. L3X1 (distant write) 14:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
May be a bit more than that, ADaNDODU has two edits, 1 in his user page and 1 here. The page that comes up has a discusssion going on about WP:OVERLINK , but no civility violations there or in edit summaries.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that the user created an account, posted this apparently nonsensical thread, and then unredlinked themselves... seems socky. TimothyJosephWood 14:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It is most important :-

First Administrator Re-open the Afd Close : .(.which was previously closed by Bad NAC.)...

Second Administrator user:Favonian Closed the Afd immediately with out permission from first administrator. It is purely vandalism

If the first administrator is correct , user:Favonian is wrong...This user supported the article creator and saved the article

(ABaNDODU (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2017 (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.

Remarks on nonbinary people[edit]

There is clearly no feeling that there should be action taken against CT for his comment. Since everyone carrying on this conversation also seems to be having the same conversation at the RfC, we should probably consolidate things in the one area where everyone !voting on the RfC can see the relevant discussion. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 7 April 2017 (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.

Could I have some independent eyes on whether the comment made by Chris troutman here on the RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style is within our understanding of WP:Civil, and in the light of his clarifications as to what he meant, after I suggested he consider removing or rewriting his comment at User_talk:Chris_troutman#RfC.

I am not expecting any specific action, but I and probably Chris would benefit from some advice on acceptability of comments like these in a RfC process.

Thanks -- (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also like some clarification from the aggregate of admins if my comments violate WP:NPA. I think while Fæ has the best intent, I rankle at being treated in this manner. That the matter has been brought to ANI indicates to me that one of us deserves a block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Chris, you have a history of insensitive remarks on this site (this comment, in which you suggest "people with mental illness" should not be administrators, still weighs heavily on my mind for its ignorance and narrow-mindedness). Many of your remarks seem designed specifically to provoke outrage, and while I'm no great champion of the über-PC movement, I think it's time you recognized that words can hurt people who ask nothing more than a little compassion and understanding. It paints you in a negative light when you dismiss well-intentioned proposals for inclusivity as "nonsense." I don't see any administrative action required here, but why not try to tone it down a little if it saves people some grief? – Juliancolton | Talk 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
If you ask for opinions, you shouldn't be surprised if you actually get them. You may consider his opinion narrowminded and insensitive, but being openminded and sensitive are not project requirements. Being civil is, but the remarks in question arent uncivil. Kleuske (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I'm not seeing a personal attack or even incivility here. Chris words his comment somewhat on the blunt side, but not moreso than is commonly seen as acceptable around here. In fact, I often prefer having people disagree with me in a straightforward and blunt manner. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
While I may find it a tad "off" for lack of a better word, it is still civil, and trying to stifle his speech would be worse in my opinion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Certainly I'm keen to ensure all views about the proposal are welcome. I balked at the comment about the "non-conformers", which was made clearer on Chris' talk page. I am prepared to let it pass, but it does make for an RfC that will not itself feel welcoming for nonbinary people; a group who are not the intended subject of the proposal but should feel welcome to have a voice without it being an argument. Perhaps more could be said in the RfC preamble to keep the tone welcoming? -- (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • User:The Wordsmith, I see nothing civil about that comment, and the only thing that keeps me from blocking is that there is no explicit addressee for the comment, which simply disparages a whole group of editors in what can only be described as pretty revolting and demeaning language. User:Juliancolton, you were going somewhere good and then you throw in a BS comment like "über-PC movement"? Seriously, what gives? Are you being oppressed too? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, why is this RFC a subpage of RFC, and not part of a wikiproject or village pump/policy? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed in the drafting, and it was pointed out that if just a subpage of the LGBT+ WikiProject, there would be complaints that it was less visible for consultation when it is a project-wide policy change, even if only a minor one to certain phrases. The link to it remains on that WikiProject though. -- (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, so why not put it at village pump? right now, you're not getting traffic except from the LGBT project and now at ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean the policy page on the Village Pump? I'm happy to try and move it to a better location. -- (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, VPP would be the best place for this. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Also (x2), the RFC is not written neutrally. It already supposes the right way to do things. It should be closed and rewritten without pushing people to vote support. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    That would mean not actually having a proposal to look at though. It was based on the WikiProject discussion and the policy document that evolved from a Village Pump discussion on Commons, the issues raised are pretty much identical. If people have suggestions for changes, I'm sure they will highlight them, but the basic premise of keeping policies gender neutral or not, is something you either think will make Wikipedia more welcoming or, as per your view, it's "nonsense". Thanks -- (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    , no, the RFC should have been, "Based on the discussion above, should Wikipedia adapt gender neutral terms?" That is a neutral RFC. Your RFC isn't.Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know what you mean by "adapt", what is being adapted? -- (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2017 (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.

Editor changing numbers with no explanation or change in sources[edit]

I discovered Jan samel (talk · contribs) at Ethiopia[17] changing a population figure and the date (to 2017 despite the source being 2015). He's done this at a number of articles today. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No doubt about it, there has been roughly a high volume of disruptive editing, and I do indeed think that Jan samel (talk · contribs) seems to be on the WP:NOTHERE side. SportsLair (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
All his contributions involve tweaking of numbers, none with any references. I will go through his edits, but the problem is compounded by the fact that most data was already unreferenced. -- P 1 9 9   17:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Jan samel is not logging in anymore, see contributions by Also check contributions by -- P 1 9 9   19:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Re: Discussions in User talk: and Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Steve Munro has expressed very strong personal opinions against a certain source (Steve Munro) used in articles, and seeks to discredit that source by modifying articles mentioning his name.

Two editors recommend that I ask an administrator to block; see the last remarks in Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Steve Munro. Thanks.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

IP advances an argument: "deliberate attempt to promote Munro as an authority on transit"—what's there to be worthy an ANI report, to mention an AIV one? El_C 02:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The IP has a whole two edits to its name—but the holder of the account still deserves to be informed of this ANI report (I have gone ahead and done this), as the directions at the top of the page instruct. I would be concerned with WP:BITE on the part of the three of you. El_C 03:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have also noticed problems with the user attempting to erase Steve Munro's name. He is reputable, notable enough to have his own article, and co-led a campaign to retain streetcars in Toronto. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Strangely, does not object to my relying on commentary in a Steve Munro article, but that I am attributing Munro's commentary (including his opinion and analysis) to Munro. insists that the info in the Wikipedia article (including some based on Munro's opinion/analysis) all be attributed to the TTC leaving the reader with the false impression that it comes from some official TTC announcement, which it does not. apparently monitors the Wikipedia article and backs out mods not to's liking. Thus, in order to correct the attribution again, I need a resolution of this issue. I do NOT want to engage in an editing war. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Treat by User:Nubailo[edit]

Revision deleted; user indefinitely blocked. WMF notified. (non-admin closure) DarkKnight2149 01:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC) So where is the treat? Is it tasty, is it good? El_C 12:07, 9 April 2017 (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.

See here.....--Moxy (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

WMF emailed. --NeilN talk to me 01:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
...and Neil beat me to the revdel. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (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.

String of bad edits by User:Mohsenaghaloo[edit]

Deemed WP:NOTHERE; indefinitely blocked. (non-admin closure) DarkKnight2149 04:08, 8 April 2017 (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.

Basically deleted the article of Germi, added unsourced puffery content at Chalak, Ardabil diff, and racked up a load of warnings for COI, personal analysis, and disruptive editing. He either needs to get his act together and make edits which show an understanding of WP, or be blocked for NOTHERE. I believe this editor could be an asset to Wikipedia of they stop the bad editing. L3X1 (distant write) 02:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Notified. I wasn't sure if this was a cut and dried AIV case, so I brought it here. L3X1 (distant write) 02:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
not complaining, but there is a AIV backlog, a racist edit that needs revdelled, and it looks like all the Admins are offline. L3X1 (distant write) 03:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2017 (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.

Winged Blades of Godric[edit]

No admin action needed. FWIW, it does make it much easier for closing admins/editors when an RfC is formatted so that Oppose, Support, Comments etc. are bolded. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2017 (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.

Winged Blades of Godric makes edits to a Rfc that change its structure, refactor my comments against my express wishes, and as a result gives my proposal less chance by splitting it into two parts and moving one part to a subsection he created. He is also edit warring about it. I warned him on his talkpage about all this.[18] Please stop him and revert to the version before he came along. WP:ANI warning in place.[19] I admit to taking offense to this especially since that Rfc was opened after a protracted edit war and the issue is important to me. I worked hard on my counterproposal at the Rfc, and this editor is practically ruining any chances of it succeeding. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Can somebody close this as no admin action required? I've already commented on this. What is occuring on Talk:Jewish diaspora is not (yet) an edit-war; and you should have stayed on the talk page and discussed the formatting of the current RfC under question, instead of losing one's cool over it, instead of threatening ANI as an afterthought. Now User:Winged Blades of Godric could also have handled this better; but this thread is wholy unnecessary at this juncture, IMHO. — O Fortuna velut luna 17:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No body is giving your proposal less chance.It's more about the clarity and ease of RFC to participants.Also, I hardly refactored/changed your comments rather than segregating a part of it into some seperate subsection.Anyway who I am to stroke your feathers(as you said in my talk). Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 17:49, 8 April 2017 (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.

Vandalism report, since AIV is currently locked[edit]

Users blocked, ANI unprotected. (non-admin closure) RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:33, 9 April 2017 (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.

 Non-admin comment I can post it to AIV for you, if you'd like. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you, Boomer Vial. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, Coffee should be aware of this issue since he indef semi-protected WP:AIV. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Uh, wut??! That undiscussed indef protection of a key page should be undone immediately or changed to a sane expiry date. --NeilN talk to me 00:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Coffee has done this before at AIV (recently, I think). He says something about e-mailing him. I have no clue what's going on. What's a "sane" expiration date? One that hasn't been institutionalized? Face-smile.svg --Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, all. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a good idea why he did it and we're not having a debate to indef via private email. --NeilN talk to me 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
NA Com, ECx3Before I judge, how easy is it to hit the big red buttons? Does it automatically select indef? Or would an admin have to press and click a bunch of buttons in order to indef soemthing, either in PP or block? L3X1 (distant write) 00:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Can't this conversation be taken else where? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
This seems like the perfect place, given the discussion my request inadvertently triggered. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BEANS I can't discuss this on-wiki too much, suffice it to say I'm working with several admins on IRC to resolve this ASAP. I am fully aware of the issue this presents, but I'm also fully aware of the current disruption level which needs to be mitigated. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
What BEANS? Anyone can see the history and figured out why you protected. You know that admins are split on this issue and there was no need for emergency protection. --NeilN talk to me 00:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Um, Boomer, thanks for helping out, but I can't see for the life of me why you've closed this discussion twice. It's clearly not finished. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand why Coffee did what they did. I don't think it's the best way to handle the situation but what is done is done. --NeilN talk to me 01:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I get that something really serious happened, so if you tell me to drop it I will, but I check the latest 500 edits to AIV, back into yesterday afternoon, and except for a 55 entry backlog, I didn't see anything coming that look like disruption, not from IPs nor non-confirmed accounts. If I'm just really clueless you can revdel this too. L3X1 (distant write) 01:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Many editors and admins (not all) consider the huge amount of entries the IP regularly posts all at once to be disruptive. The IP is supposedly also a sock. --NeilN talk to me 01:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
First, I'm disappointed that the subject of my report was deemed inactionable; the edit history is transparent. More importantly, if AIV is locked indefinitely, my assumption is that there's no longer an appropriate venue at which I may report vandalism, so long as I prefer to edit as an IP. Is that correct? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The protection will be short. --NeilN talk to me 01:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, NeilN. Not that I'm planning on going on any 'recent changes' binges soon. At least not for the next twenty minutes. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Not that short :) You could turn your eagle eye to Category:All articles with peacock terms... --NeilN talk to me 02:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Can we all say backlog over. El_C 02:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh good lord, NeilN. I didn't know such a category existed, and now I can never unknow it. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the semi-protection seems to have been repealed by Coffee. Hopefully all goes well. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 03:39, 6 April 2017 (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.

Gurbaksh Chahal[edit]

Apologies if this is the wrong venue, but this article's situation is quite messy and I'm not sure where this belongs. Chisme (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been reverting back and forth on this article. Both users are past 3RR, but I believe that Chisme is acting in good faith whereas the IP is pursuing an agenda of whitewashing negative content. The IP has repeatedly made grandiose accusations of trolling and vandalism and has threatened to report Chisme. Interestingly, Jkmarold55 (talk · contribs) has made a similar threat and I suspect this user is the same person as the IP. So, to sum up, the IP appears to be socking and failing to abide by NPOV as well as edit-warring. Lepricavark (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

In April of 2016, Gurbaksh Chahal was sentenced to three years of probation and 25 hours of community service for domestic violence. User, who joined Wikipedia yesterday and has only edited the Gurbaksh Chahal article, has tried to downplay or remove all references to Chahal's domestic violence. My edits are in good faith. Chahal has a history of domestic violence dating to a 2013 incident when he was charged with 47 counts of domestic violence. This information belongs in the article. I disagree with Lepricavark about Jkmarold55 (talk · contribs) -- I think he/she is acting in good faith. I am a long-time contributor to Wikipedia. I regret getting drawn into an editing war with, but it's clear to me he/she has an agenda, and frankly, domestic violence has been swept under the rug for far too long in our society. I don't think it should be swept under the rug in this Wikipedia article. Chisme (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Haha guys I'm not the IP. My IP address is I can prove it to you any way you like. Chisme posts a fatal flaw "domestic violence has been swept under the rug for far too long in our society. I don't think it should be swept under the rug in this Wikipedia article.". This shows personal bias and an agenda of his own. I do NOT want to whitewash Gurbaksh's actions but I also do not want it being blown out of proportion by Chisme, who has repeatedly deleted my talk page comments and replaced them just because I said something against him. I have screenshots in case CHisme tries to delete his previous comment. I was merely suggesting ways to reword blunt terms like "domestic violence abuser" and remove them from the top of the article where they do not belong. They belong in the context of it. Domestic violence is NOT an occupation, which is what the first sentence is for. Jkmarold55 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
IP addresses can change... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Whoa! Jkmarold55, you have me confused with someone else. You wrote, "Chisme, who has repeatedly deleted my talk page comments and replaced them just because I said something against him." Look at your Talk page history. I have made two comments there, both postings, not deletions. I would never delete anything on someone else's Talk page. Furthermore, in my post above I wrote, "I disagree with Lepricavark about Jkmarold55 (talk · contribs) -- I think he/she is acting in good faith." I said I think your posts are in good faith. As for me having an agenda, really? In the Gurbaksh Chahal article you learn of all his accolades, but little about his criminal history. That isn't a matter of agenda. That's a matter of covering all the facts, good and bad.Chisme (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have screenshots and history proof. Do you really want me to prove this? Sure, you are covering the facts, good and bad but you are NOT doing them correctly. You do it in a way that puts for th an agenda of anti-domestic violence. You even proved it in your own sentence. You do NOT put "domestic violence abuser" in the first sentence. I tried to fix that issue, but when ever a fellow wikipedian changes something, you revert it back. Warring is not permitted on Wiki pages. Jkmarold55 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do want you to post your proof. Or, to state it more bluntly, put up or shut up. Lepricavark (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Whilst we're talking about providing proof. I'd also like you to post proof of me supposedly forcing you into an edit war, as you claimed here. ([[20]])
I tend to agree that the domestic violence conviction probably shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the lede. Perhaps I was mistaken in identifying you as the IP, but your aggressive threat/warning to Chisme, which you posted on the IP's page, sounded similar to what the IP was saying in some of his edit summaries. Also, you expressed agreement with the IP's absurd accusations that Chisme was guilty of trolling and vandalism. This page needs some serious cleanup and the first step is probably to block the IP and heavily scrutinize everything it added to the page. Also, please substantiate or withdraw your claim that Chisme has deleted your talk page edits. Lepricavark (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The lede should state what the person (or thing in the case of an article about a thing) is most known for. Chahal is known for two things -- being a successful entrepreneur and being a domestic violence abuser. A Google search of his name gets, in this order: his website, the Wikipedia article, his Twitter, and three articles about his domestic violence. A Google News search gets articles about his domestic violence. Clearly his domestic violence is one of the things he is chiefly known for, so it should appear in the lede. Chisme (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I was drawn to the article when it kept popping up in Huggle. At first I thought it was two users arguing about whose version of the page should be shown. I then checked the sources that Chisme put in and saw that they had a good amount of sources to back them up. In my honest opinion, I believe that Chisme was reverting in good faith (and is possibly exempt from 3RR sanctions under WP:3RRNO). I also find Jkmarold55's accusations of trolling to be way off the mark, and something that should be struck. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that 2600:387:2:805:0:0:0:75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to have joined in with the exact very similar attacks on Chisme. I'm starting to hear quacking here... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • NA Com Guys, we don't need screenshots n proof. This is wikipedia. Everything done here is logged. Can't move a muscle without it being logged, except for your extraocular muscles(meaning what articles you view are not logged). Unless something was revdel'd, its still there. And even if it is revdel'd, admins can view it, or un delete it. L3X1 (distant write) 15:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Let me clarify in case there are newer users reading this: completed actions are logged. If you click the edit button, but then close the window, that stuff isn't logged. L3X1 (distant write) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yay! No more hunting around for diffs then :P --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I'm surprised no one has commented on it before, but the OP JKmarold55 complains about an "anti-domestic violence agenda." That's like complaining about an "anti-murder agenda", or an "anti-pedophilia agenda" or an "anti-rape agenda". None of those are bad things, Wikipedia should never espouse murder, pedophilia, rape or domestic violence. That's not what WP:NPOV is meant to be about.

In this particular instance, I agree with the comment that the domestic violence information should be in the lede, although not necessarily in the first sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

BMK you are so right. Perhaps NPOV should be amended, or get a footnote? L3X1 (distant write) 01:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:I'm the OP and I didn't make such a comment. Were you referring to Chisme? Lepricavark (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
JKmarold55 said it twice L3X1 (distant write) 21:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Template:Ping:Lepricavark My sincere apology, it was indeed JKmarold55 I was referring to. I have corrected my comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: re-pinging Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI Investigation[edit]

I have opened up an SPI investigation request. I believe that the similar attacks on Chisme, as well as the removal of the same information from the article are all coming from the same person. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Persistent disregard for capitalization guidelines after many requests[edit]

DrillWarrior268 (talk · contribs) for several weeks has persisted in changing capitalization of headers from sentence case to title case, including after repeated requests by several editors with explanation of and links to relevant guidelines. Recent examples: [21], [22], [23]. There has also been a problem with adding unsourced information. Based on his/her edits, it seems to be a willful disregard of the guidelines rather than a competence issue. I hope this report can help this editor change this behavior. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's currently true that editing only to replace with capitals is not the way to go. It just may seem that it's a WP:NOTHERE violation to the guidelines. SportsLair (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I see he's been sent many templated warnings. Anyone wantto try with an actual explanation in ordinary language? DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have given it a go. Other than the ping that my note will generate and email if they have it turned on, I don't know how to draw the user's attention to my note, but if they continue then blocking will be an option. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Not excusing the note, but when a user continues bad behavior, and is not blocked, there is little to do but to keep dropping UW. As 15 4ims in a row make us look weak, uw3 is the best one to warning bomb with. L3X1 (distant write) 20:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
"there is little to do but to keep dropping UW" is utter rubbish! Have you never considered explaining things in a friendly manner? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Starting with uw3 is inappropriate, and so is template-bombing. We have a carefully-worded series of escalating templates for these purposes, and they're meant to be used in order (4im is meant only for very serious cases, you don't follow level 4 with a level 4im). If the user's not getting the point from the proper series of warnings, your next step is to report to administrators, not make up your own nasty notes and keep dropping more templates. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments here about the note I made and will certainly try to keep them in mind in similar situations in the future. My apologies for any difficulties I created. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Y'all misunderstand me. Of course you start with UW1 and then UW2, 3, 4. But when a rweport has been filed, and in the interim the vandal is a vandaling, (sic) waring continue to get placed depending on what patrol software you use. I have heard differing accounts for use of UW around 'Pedia, I even asked int he Teahouse once. 4im is meant only for very serious cases, you don't follow level 4 with a level 4im) If the user has nto commited a 4im worthy deed, you stick with UW4. If the first edit they do is 4im worthy (racism, extremely offensive, and probably revdel-able, then 4im and AIV. your next step is to report to administrators see my statement: "but when a user continues bad behavior, and is not blocked" indicates an AIV report has been filed. L3X1 (distant write) 02:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
If you are unable to communicate in your own words without twinkle spam and false accusations of vandalism, please don't do it. It's mentioned as such in WP:BITE. And WP:HNST Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is HNST not mandatory reading for CVU, PCR, and NPP? It should be. L3X1 (distant write) 19:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Because it's one editor's opinion and its use of hyperbole makes it less useful than it could be? --NeilN talk to me 13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't even my own idea - I ripped it straight off a Microsoft user interface design book; the (real) message box on the left said "Cannot write file, make sure the disk is in the drive and it is not in use" (or something like that), the (fake) message box on the right said, "Ding! Thanks for playing!" with a single button "I am not worthy". I've never managed to find a copy of said screenshot online. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I am gilding the lily here (note use of sentence case)[edit]

Excerpt from the super-secret Parents and Teachers Playbook.
What adult thinks What adult says What child hears
You've done that wrong. Let me show you the right way. You've done that wrong. Let me show you the right way. You are a bad person.
You've done that wrong. Let me show you the right way. That's good, but there's a better way. That's good, but there's a better way.

Even more super-secret: this works just as well with adults.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What the teenager does, "Eye roll, puts headphones back on, continues to do whatever they've been doing". {joking... mostly) --NeilN talk to me 03:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
And if what the kid did actually was wrong, you're essentially lying to them so as not to hurt their feelings, and given them permission to ignore your "better way" if they decide they don't like it, since their way is -- according to you -- "Good". Don't lie, don't sugar coat it, tell the truth, but be polite about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
He's got no non-mainspace edits, so I think a "stop and read this" block may be warranted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what book that belongs to. The first time there might be room for a bit of a softly, softly approach but after repeatedly doing the same thing, then it's high time to deliver "stop what you're doing now, or else". This is almost the equivalent of giving them a participation award. We're here to build an encyclopedia not coddle people. Blackmane (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the account indefinitely, not for capitalization issues, but for refusal-to-talk issues. I see in the last few minutes they restarted these same edits, and have never responded to anyone. Looks like a few people have their talk page on their watchlists, so I think this thread can be closed and people can discuss there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User potentially attempting to game confirmed/extended confirmed[edit]

While doing RC patrol, I observed User:Do it quick making hundreds of rapid null-edits to their own sandbox, as can be observed on their contributions page. This behavior would seem consistent with some sort of attempt to game the user rights system. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And yup, it's a sock of User:Catcreekcitycouncil - see this edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention this edit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Sooo, why exactly do edits to userspace count for extended-confirmed status? That seems like a rather gaping loophole in the system. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Good point, though not sure how you'd code them out. As a statement of the obvious the intent of extended confirmed protection is that an editor has some actual experience with the en-WP editing environment, and a reviewable edit history available for review, before wading into (say) Palestine-Israel articles. 500 trivial sandbox edits don't meet this intent, and there's precedent for removing extended autoconfirmed from accounts that obtained it solely through these means. Doesn't apply in this case as this editor is merely a vandal - just noting that in practice, sandbox editing isn't an especially viable way to get around ECP. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
True, and as per WP:BEANS, they'd probably just find some other, somewhat-harder but less-obvious, way of gaming it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
A couple of cases at WP:AE have rejected attempts to game the 500/30 rule. In one case, the editor was indefinitely topic banned from their target. One recent case is archived here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, I actually indeffed a user in 2016 for obvious, and I may say triumphant and aggravated, gaming of the 500/30 rule with edits to their own page. I won't mention the name, as I eventually unblocked them after several e-mail appeals. I'm not sorry, though. If there's no doubt about the bad faith, it shows they're WP:NOTHERE, IMO. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC).

─────────────────────────I would imagine that this is going to be a pretty rare occurrence. Most trolls don't have the patience to sit on an account for such a long period of time, and this one was caught and blocked fairly quickly. Although I tend to agree that at the very least sandbox edits should not count towards EC, that is not policy at this time and before we talk about technical means to change it the policy itself would need to be changed. Beeblebrox (talk)

I don't see why XC farming would be a goal, so few articles have that protection, and any request for perms or somethinf along that like would bring scrutiny into the editor's history. I know above I said that all Trump-related articles should get 30/500, but those articles are being sctrunized by various groups, so again, the deception would fall apart L3X1 (distant write) 23:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── In this vein, kindly note [24]. I'll try to put an ANI notice on the user talk page, but under the circumstances I expect to be edit-conflicted out for a while... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And done, between edits 252 and 253. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the notification. I'm currently running some automated tests. Thanks! 1 million dollars please (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe that. Plus they got blocked by Acroterion. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I just reported to AIV, but it looks like somebody got him already... RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Well before my computer crashed after an edit conflict x6, I was going to write that they appear to be testing a DisruptoBot5thousand. Perhaps they plan to be back with a sock vandal bot army? L3X1 (distant write) 01:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SimonTrew posting BLP violations at RfD[edit]

This may (just) rise to the level of WP:TROUTs all round, but probably not even that. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 9 April 2017 (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.

SimonTrew (talk · contribs) I believe that the user in question has been told off here many times for making inappropriate comments at RfD, I know him as a contributor at RfD, he has quoted phrases demeaning to a BLP here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_6#Texas_Gov., which contribute nothing to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The Texas Governor is not a biography of a living person, that is exactly the point we're arguing at RfD. We're arguing about whether Texas Gov. is a reasonable redirect, and not about whether particular people are, or are not, or should be, or shouldn't, the current incumbent and so on. The names I mentioned just happen to be the current incumbents. Or if you are talking about my somewhat blue reply to a joke with another joke, I really fail to see how that could not be taken as a joke, and was there to make a point: that the Governor of Texas is not any particular person but the role. I think you're being rather silly about it. I'm not sure why this is at ANI when I am not an admin, but never mind. I'm carrying on through the nominator's User:Champion/Eubot_list_17, and listing things from there at RfD. I think a little message on my talk page saying "that remark was inappropriate" would maybe have been better than starting an ANI, but so be it. I disagree that the occasional joke does not contribute to the discussion; the joke was between regulars at RfD of which Champ, myself and Tavix are three. I don't see how it could be taken otherwise. If it was not that joke, I have no idea what you are talking about. Merely referencing people that are linked from the various redirects is not any kind of BLP violation. It may be derogatory of the living person, but it was a joke, goddammit, and if that can't be seen that way, I think there are better things to worry about. It is of no relevance that I actually lived in Texas when he was the State Governor, and I can give you much worse jokes than that about him. That is par for the course with someone in the public spotlight. Dubya itself is disparaging of a living person, disparaged his accent and so on: we still have it; would you like me to propose it is retarget to W?
I have not been "told off here many times for making inappropriate comments at RfD", at least, you don't come with any evidence that I have. I don't know if "here" means at RfD or at ANI. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, Champ. Si Trew (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The conversation was thus, in one line each from User:Tavix and myself:
(User:Tavix): Comment: is the website for the government of Texas (.gov suffix being short for "government"). I find it humorous that the website for the governor of Texas is The prefix and suffix are both "gov", with the "gov" meaning different things. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
(User:SimonTrew) Hehehe, yeah. And why did people write "Fuck Dubya" on toilet walls? Because they couldn't be bothered to write "Fuck the Governer of the Government of the State of Texas".
Now, when Tavix has said he "finds it humourous", is that disparaging or in contempt of the State of Texas or the current incumbent? If you can't see that when Tavix said "I find it humourous" and I reply with a bit of my own humour, you may not like the joke, but I don't see anything disparaging about it. I didn't express my views of the former incumbent of the governorship of the State of Texas, it was merely a joke. It was a joke with a point, because nobody ever says "Governor of the Government of the State of Texas", so it was relevant to the discussion. If anything, it is disparaging graffiti artists. It was a one-liner joke. Get over it. Si Trew (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I found a website amusing, and it was related to the discussion at hand because we're discussing the ambiguity of "Texas Gov." It's an 'in the wild' example that plays off of the multiple uses of "gov" in this context. That's in no way disparaging to a living person, unlike your "joke" that's only marginally related. -- Tavix (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Please read WP:HUMOR, Humor tends to be very subjective. One should remain aware that what one finds hilarious, another may be offended by. The use of humor does not override such core policies as Civility and No Personal Attacks., and that presumably include BLP, it was relevant to the discussion ,yes, but I still don't agree that it contributes anything useful to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that what Simon Trew. said is close to crossing the line, but not quite there. I do advise Simon, although, to try and get further away from that line, as it is a very dangerous line to cross. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Update: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_7#Dubya, c.f. my comments in that discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (