Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959

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

Noticeboard archives


Esszet's repeated accusations of article ownership toward me[edit]

Esszet has made repeated accusations against me regarding Too Much Too Soon (album):

  • On one occasion at ANI by filing a complaint against me in April
  • Here in the aforementioned article talk page in April
  • In an ensuing RfC at said talk page shortly after
  • Back again at ANI filing a complaint against me in July, which was found to be "over the top" by the closer Basalisk.
  • And again today here at the article talk page.

There's no assumption of good faith, NEVER HAS BEEN, all over some of the pettiest textual and stylistic minor changes to article space, considering the effort they've exuded. And I request admin intervention in case the user should revert again; there's a competency issue here when the user fails to understand the BRD process involves redirecting their efforts toward a discussion at the talk page and giving the other party a chance to respond, rather than using it as an excuse to restore their preferred revision again. Because I find it difficult to communicate further when every thing from this guy is accompanied by offensive ownership accusations. Dan56 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. It looks a lot like you have reverted basically anything the editor has attempted to do on the article, down to very highly subjective and pretty much meaningless word choice, often without so much as leaving an edit summary.
  2. The most conspicuous thing missing from this conversation is you.
  3. Which is pretty much the issue from the last ANI you link to... lack of communication and a closer giving you advice about ownership.
  4. So... basically stop acting like you own the article and people will stop accusing you of owning the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Wow! Literally everything you just said can be also be said of Esszet. But thanks! (for nothing:-) Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You should probably consider yourself lucky if nothing is what you get instead of a WP:BOOMERANG, considering you've reverted dozens of times and barely acknowledged that the talk page exists. When you did it seems to have gone something like this:
  • You really wanna overcomplicate an image caption just to appease someone who started an edit war? I'll say this for the last time: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ANY BAND; THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IS TOO MUCH TOO SOON; THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS THE NEW YORK DOLLS. I repeat THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE NEW YORK DOLLS
  • why are you here? Go away.
  • He's also accusing me of article ownership. He's also being a hound, and a dick
  • How's the view from your high horse, Esszet?
Besides that, I count... I dunno, a half dozen warnings on your talk page just in the last 50 edits ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and that's not counting the close from the prior ANI.
So I suppose I can try to spell it out more clearly: Welcome to Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia. Discussion is not an option, the talk page is not a suggestion, and ANI is not an alternative. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll certainly give your attempt at researching me an "A" for an effort, guy. Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You're a prolific content creator, and I don't think anyone would detract from the valuable contributions you've made. I'll be the first to admit that it's easy to be lulled into an isolated comfort when you find yourself churning away in a corner of the project that no one else is on, but I would suggest that you immediately watchlist something like The Teahouse, and force yourself to respond as helpfully as you can to a few honest questions a week from clueless good faith editors, to give yourself some perspective on how interconnected this whole thing is, and how we're expected to be cordial to one another, even when the edit seems silly, or the answer seems obvious. You pretty obviously need to get out of that isolated comfort zone, because when someone touches one of your babies, it seems pretty glaringly obvious that you've been in it for far too long. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
NOPE! Totally not lulled into an "isolated comfort" @Timothyjosephwood:, but rather entirely unresponsive or civil to those who have never to begin with assumed good faith and won't drop it in any messages my way since. Dan56 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Then you're going to have to do better than a comment in April, because it looks an awful lot like this has been mostly dead for months, until the user dared to post a comment on the talk page of your article yesterday, and a (totally exasperating I'm sure) discussion that lasted exactly three edits (during which you also managed to cut their comment in half with your reply) taxed your patience to the point that you needed an ANI thread. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
And round two! I suggest a ban of you two reverting each other. Second, I suggest that this article be fully protected for three days so we can sort this out. Third, I suggest that this ANI be closed as this will not help anything. And fourth, I think that it would be best if you two were not allowed to edit that article for a period of 6 months. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I concur with RileyBugz completely.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Basalisk See what I mean? Esszet (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
And I hope his lack of civility here is also taken into account. Esszet (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, really the reason for it is so that you will stop, honestly, wasting everybody's time, including your own. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
^?? Are you trying to get yourself in trouble? Esszet (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Trouble only for anyone who slights Esszet in any way, I guess (*roll eyes till stuck in back of skull*) Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant both you and Dan56, if that wasn't clear. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Christ almighty. So... Someone jog my memory, what is the civility restriction thing? It's been a few months since I've seen it, but whatever that is I propose that on Dan for at least six months as a boomerang. TimothyJosephWood 22:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Civility restrictions were once used frequently, but seem to have fallen out of fashion in recent years, probably because of the inherent difficulty in defining what is and isn't "civil". It's much easier, in my opinion, to make a judgment about what is or isn't a personal attack than it is to determine civility, mainly because what's "civil" is rather in the eye of the beholder and has a significant social and cultural aspect to it. Some editors also object to the "school ma'rm-ish" nature of civility blocks and restrictions, seeing the policing of language and attitude as not being the rightful business of admins. Whichever way you slice it, the entire civility issue is a can of worms, and I suspect that contributed to the fall off (to the point of practical disappearance) in the use of civility restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • They fell out of use because when any admin tried to enforce them against persistently uncivil editors, the editor in question would just get one of their pet admins to reverse it. There is also the problem that due to the Super Mario effect, persistently uncivil Admins could not be prevented in any reasonable way except by an arbcom case. So with the two pronged response of a)seeing favoured editors get away with it, b)seeing fellow admins get away with it, its not surprising no one much bothers with it. And why longterm uncivil editors end up wasting so much time - as the only way these days any action is taken is by raising enough noticeboard complaints that people end up tired of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OID: That's one interpretation of a possible cause, but I don't believe I subscribe to it, since my experience is that the number of admins who are frequently uncivil is extremely low, and therefore is unlikely to have been a factor. No, I'll stick by my own evaluation that the difficulty of enforcing them with any consistency, and general pushback against incivility policing are the primary factors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
A lot of this seems to be unequivocal sneering (I'd be shocked if you could find a group of people, in any time and place, who don't think "Thanks for nothing" is rude and offensive), so I don't think there'd be much of an issue in this case, but it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to get him sanctioned for personal attacks instead. Esszet (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, you'll forgive me if I don't want to block someone with more GAs than I have article creations. You know, because encyclopedia. Maybe an indefinite 1RR that can be appealed in six months? TimothyJosephWood 23:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe not six months, but how about two weeks to start, and then we'll take it from there? Esszet (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
And keep in mind that people unaware of the 1RR wouldn't know to report him for effectively violating it by undoing their edits without using the undo feature (as he almost certainly would). Esszet (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Your only interactions with me have been regarding minor caption changes and your uncompromising stance favoring sentence fragments rather than complete sentences at Too Much Too Soon (album), which you have been so stubborn as to make a series of edit wars, an RfC, and ANI complaints resulting in no action in your favor. Please at least don't insult us with insincere concerns about my snarky remarks toward other editors or anything else. Your WP:OWN accusations have been desensitizing enough, seriously. Dan56 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have watchlisted the page. Any edit warring on that article from now on will result in immediate blocks for editors involved. @Dan56: you might get fewer accusations of ownership if you didn't act like you own articles. I tried to explain this nicely when I closed the last ANI and now I'm telling you straight - you don't own any of the articles on Wikipedia. Constantly reverting other editors' contributions without explanation or discussion is disruptive and doesn't help anyone. You've received lots of very helpful advice on your talk page; it's time to adhere to it. If you can't do that then I suggest you take Too Much Too Soon off your watchlist and find another image caption to work on. Basalisk inspect damageberate 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
What a crock. An image caption to work on? "Constantly reverting other editors' contributions without explanation"?? What do you call this? And this attempt to reach out to the guy and this before it? As opposed to this unexplained revision to begin with? Don't be insincere. Yes, your "advice" sounds very persuasive and intimidating, but it's inaccurate too. Just telling you straight. Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are any other admins seeing WP:IDHT behaviour from Dan56? Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't mouthing off to an admin enough to get you blocked? Esszet (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Well admins shouldn't be held on a pedestal and Dan56 hasn't said anything worse than what I see on a weekly basis here. Continuing to WP:OWN articles would be more concerning than a few snarky comments. Honestly, the fact that this is all over a few petty edits is just absolutely ridiculous to me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
1) Admins do deserve more respect than ordinary users 2) It isn't just me (if he's here on a weekly basis, you know what I mean) 3) If he keeps saying and saying stuff like this, shouldn't he be blocked anyway? Esszet (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, admins shouldn't get more respect than everybody else. Second, as mentioned, Dan56 is a prolific content creator, so he shouldn't be blocked, he should just be banned from editing that article (and you probably should too, as you are also occasionally reverting him). Otherwise, we would have a lot less good articles about music. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable in what I'm trying to do to that article, and in any event, something has to be done, and it has to be pretty severe. If it turns out that he has to be blocked for a while, I guess we'll just have to do without him. Esszet (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Why does it have to be "pretty severe"? I don't think that this has extended to any other articles, so a ban on both of you editing the article (and interacting, to prevent any more future problems) should work. And remember, according to WP:NOPUNISH, we shouldn't be using blocks as punishment. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
If TimothyJosephWood is right, there were 6 warnings on his talk page in 50 edits, and if his conduct here is anything to go by, more moderate sanctions simply won't work. I didn't know that blocks weren't supposed to be used as punishments, but as I said, it doesn't have to be a block, just something. Esszet (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Then would my solution be adequate? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I doubt it, let's ask BMK and MShabazz what they think. Esszet (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe getting blocked for those comments alone would be excessive, but he should still be blocked anyway. Esszet (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Esszet who are you to be giving orders on what should be done? The way you are calling for a block of a severe nature is incredibly punitive and that is not how things are handled around here. Dan56 is a prolific content creator; I see no legitimate reason to get rid of his expertise just to appease you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Did I say it was just about me? Esszet (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
All editors should be treated with respect, admins and non-admins alike. Paul August 20:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
"mouthing off to an admin enough to get you blocked"? God, I hope not. It gives me chills just to think of being part of a community where questioning or speaking disrespectfully to the upper class gets you punished. Wikipedia doesn't have an upper class, by the way. Administrators are just a subset of editors who are trusted enough to have certain powers to use in enforcing consensus that others don't have. Sarcastically saying, "thanks for nothing" to an administrator should have exactly the same effect as saying it to a non-administrator. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said, that probably is too harsh, but you can be sanctioned for saying that to anyone, right? Esszet (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And by the way, TimothyJosephWood isn't an admin, and Dan's done a lot more than just that here. Esszet (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
One more thing: there are lots of communities like that in today's world: they're called businesses. Esszet (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and we all hate them. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but they've managed to stick around for a while… Esszet (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Mouthing off at admins will not get you blocked. Mouthing off in such a way to be personally attacking any editor or admin will get you blocked. One or two mild attacks will get you a warning, repeatedly attacking someone is when the blocking starts. Unless, of course, the attack is so severe as to warrant an immediate block (threats of death/violence, racism, etc). Nothing Dan56 said above is remotely sanctionable. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────── It isn't uncivil enough? Esszet (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, isn't saying "trouble only for anyone who slights Esszet in any way" pretty much the same thing as saying "you're an arrogant, hypersensitive [insert expletive here]"? Esszet (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. It is only a snarky remark. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Really? That's the implication and that's why it's nasty. Esszet (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
(non-admin comment} From what I can tell, Dan56 worked on the article to bring it to Featured Article status... and I understand watching out to ensure that the articles keep that status. However, no one owns an article at Wikipedia... and there has been uncivil, ownership type behavior that is not called for. Although the behavior does not seem to be as extreme, there are some snippy comments by Esszet that are not helpful. Even so, I think this is a potential Boomerang issue and WP:IDHT].–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── There's a thin line between article stewardship and ownership, and I think Dan56 needs to learn the difference. I also think the administrator squad need to grow some spines and stop making excuses for editors who are prolific creators of good content and are major-league assholes. At a certain point, you (collective you) will either need to rein in Dan56 or you will start to drive away editors who have the potential to become equally prolific creators of good content without being assholes. Dan56 isn't the first such editor, and I'm sure he won't be the last, but the complete inability of Wikipedia to deal with such personalities is a serious problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. TimothyJosephWood 19:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
When Dan56 didn't like what I wrote about his ownership of an article, as evidenced by edit-warring over a caption to an image, he went to a pair of articles I had recently edited and vandalized captions to their images.[7][8] After he had done the same thing to another editor who incurred his wrath.[9] He should have been indeffed at the time, but—as I wrote—the admins are spineless. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And you replied in both instances with edit summaries that needed to be redacted. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
My edit summary in both instances was "rv asshole". You'd have to ask the admin involved why that warranted RevDel when racist and antisemitic edit summaries and content typically don't get RevDeled, and why calling out an asshole's behavior was worse than Dan56 acting like an asshole in the first place. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You know how things work around here: let he who is without incivility cast the first ANI thread. And while I highly doubt that anyone is going to sanction either user for a dispute that for all intents and purposes died down months ago, they may likely take a good hard look at you for continued personal attacks. So I'd probably recommend just cooling off a bit, and let this thread die quietly like it should probably have done a week ago, for everyone's sake. TimothyJosephWood 21:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, you seem to be more than a little confused. I didn't start this thread, Dan56 did, and it was less than a week ago. I was summoned here -- yesterday. I don't need to "cool off" because I don't interact with Dan56. I have better things to do than edit war with assholes over periods at the end of captions, such as banging my head against a cement wall. If anybody needs to cool off, it's the inveterate edit warrior who started this thread. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't think he deserves to be sanctioned anymore? Esszet (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think they're going to get it now, given that this thread is almost a week old and there's been no pronounced continuing disruption, but I have a strong suspicion that they're going to get them sooner or later if they continue, which I suspect they will. If you take anything away from this, it should probably be that you should conduct yourself immaculately, even and especially in heated debates, because when things end up here, and everyone involved has a bit of blood on their hands, things usually end up in a stalemate. TimothyJosephWood 22:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I could start pinging other people he's has issues with – all I'd have to do is go through the history of his talk page. Esszet (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I know. I've gone through it thoroughly, twice now, as well as their editing history and yours. This thread could be used in a future report to establish a clear pattern of disruptive behavior, and Dan56 should be aware that they're treading on thin ice, but while there was a clear overreaction, there is not a clear current imminent disruption that would be prevented by sanctions, and that's what sanctions are designed to do. Such is the burden of balancing building an encyclopedia with all the nasty bits involved in doing so. TimothyJosephWood 01:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I suppose I'll clarify my intent here since it could obviously seem to conflict with my comment below. What I mean is that current imminent disruption sanctions are easy peasy, and we hand them out all the time. The alternative is a long-term-pattern type community sanction, which is often difficult to impossible to get a clear consensus on, and often just not worth trying until the immediate disruption starts up again. But if folks wanna go for it, then go for it. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I realise that this has become a bit of a mess. But given the long-running consistent nature of his conduct, I would be concerned if nothing was remedied at least partly due to admin exhaustion, as has happened several times before with Dan56: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Conduct_of_Dan56 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive326#User:Dan56_reported_by_User:Binksternet_.28Result:_.29. As a further, separate example of Dan56's recent behaviour: he has been repeatedly making this edit: [10] to The Life of Pablo, which has been reverted by five editors: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] before I tried to discuss the edit with him in the talk page, which went nowhere, with Dan56 claiming that there had not been ongoing reversions of his edit from multiple editors and that I was lying: [16]. Realising the futility of trying to discuss an edit with Dan56, I opened a Request for Comment, and when the first person who responded disagreed with Dan56's edit: [17], Dan56 began badgering them, aggressively calling them "buddy" and "pal": [18] [19] before accusing them of being "in cahoots" with me before signing off with: "thanks for your opinion, as wrongheaded as it may beeee!1!1!1": [20]. While I understand that Dan56 has contributed to GAs, there must be a limit to how much that can let you get away with. When Dan56 is right, it's great, but when he's wrong, there's very little individual editors can do to remedy it and it makes working on articles he works on an unpleasant, frustrating experience. Dan56 has been criticised for not using the talk pages, but it's arguably worse when he does. This is a social WP:COMPETENCE issue. Cjhard (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And as soon as someone says "let the issue rest", there's Cjhard to stir the pot. Cj trolls my edits, and that lead to him now trolling Dan56's edits because Dan and I agreed on a subject against Cjhard. In fact, Cj currently has another open report against me. How many experienced editors can one inexperienced editor take issue with at the same time before they realize that they are the one at fault. Kellymoat (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible solution: 1RR[edit]

  • Based on the concerns expressed by the editors above, I suggest this: Dan56 is limited to 1RR indefinitely; this includes rewriting a newly revised body of text or any other forms of editing that could be construed as gaming the 1RR. Unfortunately, this does not address Dan's behavior at talk pages but it may compel him to compromise more often with those he is suppose to collaborate with. After six months, Dan can appeal his 1RR restriction at the appropriate forum.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As proposer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Limiting Dan56 to 1RR is a generously fair way of remedying some of his negative behaviour while retaining his positive contributions. Cjhard (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree that this is a fair solution.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If you block/limit users like Dan56 and myself, the vandals win. Wikipedia loses.Kellymoat (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I am confused Kellymoat. Are you saying that Esszet is a vandal? I may not agree with all of their comments and actions, but I don't see how they rise to the level of vandalism.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not saying anyone was specifically vandalizing anything. I am saying that limiting Dan to one revert (yes, I know that there are exceptions to the 1rr limit) is going to be to the detriment of Wikipedia overall. Face it, there are more criminals than crime fighters. Limiting what the crime fighters can do simply allows the criminals to get away with more stuff.Kellymoat (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. I don't agree, but I understand your point. Thanks for the clarification.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point. Yeah... I actually don't at all. A sanction that I understand won't prevent the user from reverting vandalism is going to help the vandals win, is basically a non-argument, other than the fact that KM seems to think what we really need are wiki-vigilantes empowered to ignore things like CIVIL and 3RR because they interpret IAR to mean "I'll damn well do what I please." TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
What WP needs is fewer people willing to do damage to articles. When that happens, there will be no reason for anyone to ever revert anything, and we can all sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya. But until then, someone needs to be willing to review each and every edit that comes through their very large watchlist to prevent vandalism.
It may be off track and long winded, but here's a little tidbit of information - I went from being an "editor" to a "reverter" when I was involved with an incident that involved someone adding their name to the personnel section of music articles. This guy gave himself credit to over 500 band/album articles, with some of the entries being there for 9 years. NINE YEARS. And then, over that amount of time, you know what happens - his name gets credited on other sites because they use WP as their source. So, today, even though his name has been scrubbed from WP, it is still out there on the web and searchable via google because no one bothered to revert the errors. This means that, today, people can legitimately add his name back into WP because they have web sources saying it is true. There's even people selling his memorabilia online.
Since that incident, my watchlist has grown. And every edit that comes through gets reviewed by me - EVERY EDIT. I try my best to catch things as they come in so that nothing ever gets by for 9 years again. I watch my watchlist, and revert things that need reverted. I don't keep track of "well, today this article has already been reverted 3 times so I better let it go for 24 hours" No, I revert it when it comes in. Nine years, some nobody had his name posted to 500 articles. No one caught it. We need people willing to patrol. Obviously admins and other "trusted" editors can't be trusted. Kellymoat (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
And that's probably why you've been blocked three times for edit warring. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Which is exactly my point.Kellymoat (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the discussion. This isn't the place for it.Kellymoat (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Kellymoat, for suggesting that editors who dare to disagree with Dan56 are as bad as editors who add themselves to the personnel sections of music articles. I don't believe I've ever interacted with you before, and frankly, with an attitude like that, I'm glad to see that you're semi-retired. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot help but suspect Kellymoat is in disagreement with the terms outlined because of their block history and Cjhard, one of the editors who has reported them, has expressed his support for the proposal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
While I may have been made aware of this report through the troller, my thoughts on the matter have not been swayed. I don't play that game. And I have told the little troller as much on numerous occassions, but he is unwilling to accept it.
In fact, I voiced my opinion before adding my "oppose". I clearly did not hide how or why I arrived here. Kellymoat (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with it. I don't expect that it's going to get overwhelming support, but no objections here, and it's at least some resolution, and if violated will be fairly clear cut and won't require an ANI or ANEW thread so long that our admins start to contemplate self harm. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support So long as Dan56 is given appropriate leeway to revert obvious vandalism (because I know what the edit-warring policy says, how it is often applied in practice, and that many of Dan56's reverts are genuine vandalism-fighting), I support limiting him to a 1RR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: for the reasons I (and several other people) have explained previously. Esszet (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Fine, do it, I don't care. I waste too much time on here as it is concerning myself with self-righteous bores and misguided pests at articles no one reads, and this would encourage me in the right direction: away. So, just in case I wasn't emphatic enough before: SUPPOOOOORRRRRTTTTTTT :) Tbh, I probably won't even appeal it, if I'm even still around by that time. Dan56 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't he great, folks? Let's give him a hand. Esszet (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You should consider being civil, even when responding to someone who isn't. Kellymoat (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This should help Dan56 become the best editor he can. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - Dan has apparently retired but I think it is still in the best interest of the project to continue this discussion and implement a 1RR if there is consensus for it. I have seen many editors claim they have retired, only to return when the heat is off them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think getting Dan56 blocked from Wikipedia for six months is unfair, because he been editing for years and add a lot of articles in to good article standards. Now It look like he has quit from editing. What a shame. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @TheAmazingPeanuts: please re-read (or read it for the first time) my proposal and tell me where I stated that we should block Dan for six months.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@TheGracefulSlick: Sorry about that, I didn't read it that good in the first time. If this have nothing to do about him getting blocked, then why he retired? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: I cannot speak for Dan but my best guess is he did not want a restriction that requires him to actually compromise with other editors at an article talk page. His support vote above probably was the first indication of him retiring. Although I admire his content creation, he tends to be uncooperative with anyone who disagrees with him. I think this proposal is very lenient and addresseses his tendency to WP:OWN articles without getting rid of an excellent writer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Daniel C. Boyer[edit]

This proposal for a topic ban is a clear pass. Daniel C. Boyer is hereby topic banned from creating, editing, or attempting to delete articles about himself. Furthermore, he his banned from inserting his presence into other articles as well as banned from removing his presence from other articles. Any edit that appears to be WP:PROMOTIONAL about himself is to be considered a violation of this topic ban. Please see site ban proposal below to comment on whether this user should be banned from Wikipedia.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:31, 13 July 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.

Daniel C. Boyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I believe it's well past time for a sanction on this editor, a non-notable artist who, in blatant violations of WP:PROMOTION, inserted his name into a variety of articles, all instances of which were removed by numerous editors, and who then proceeded to attempt to reinsert his name using IPs. From 2007-2011, he also used the socketpuppet account User:Samuel O'Malley (blocked on 6 May 2011), and also apparently occasionally used the sockpuppet account User:Nothing Nobo (discarded about a month after Samuel O'Malley was blocked). The single-edit account User:Brian Mackelove may be connected as well.

This editor has been problematic for a while:

  • In 2003, a discussion was opened about him on "Problem users". [21]
  • An article about him, Daniel C. Boyer, was deleted in 2004 or 2005 [22]
    • The AfD seems to say 2004, but at the article link it says 2005; there appears to have been an earlier discussion in 2003, but it's unclear from the AfD page what the result of that was.
  • There's an RfC/U on him from 2005 [23].
  • Boyer was blocked in 2007 for this same behavior. [24],
  • He was reported for it again in 2011. [25]
  • I reported his user page at MfD earlier this year for its similarity to an article, but the result was "Keep". [26]
    • However, one editor in that discussion exclaimed: "This has been going on for 13 years?" (emphasis added)

Articles Boyer inserted himself into include:

  • Mat (picture framing) – initial insertion (29 November 2009): [55]; second insertion (new material; 1 December 2009): [56]; third insertion (new material, 19 October 2010): [57]; fourth insertion (new material, 31 October 2010): [58]; fifth insertion (new material, 12 October 2011): [59]; sixth insertion (new material, 24 October 2011): [60]; re-insertions: [61]; [62]; [63] (last: 18 June 2016)
  • Counter pen – initial insertion (17 June 2011): [64]; re-insertion: [65] (last: 22 March 2017)

The IPs Boyer has used include:

The list of IPs

User:Daniel C. Boyer appears to be a productive editor when self-promotion is not concerned, so I don't believe a long or indef block is warranted. I would suggest a topic ban on editing anything to do with himself, his life, his work or his activities, as well as a restriction to edit only while signed-in to his account, and not with IPs (which he does regularly, above and beyond his use of them to re-insert his name into articles). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question has been notified. [80]. I have not notified any of his IP socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
What a persistent wikilawyer! But not a very good one, I'm afraid. No wonder he didn't finish Harvard. EEng 03:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh wait, it's sadder than I thought: "Attended Harvard Summer School 1997, 1998, 2001". EEng 03:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Although he hasn't responded here. on his talk page, Daniel C. Boyer accuses me of having a "vendetta" against him that has reached "bizarre proportions", and questions how "practically every IP that has ever existed" could all be his sockpuppets. [81] However, all one has to do is look at the contributions of the IPs listed and compare them to Daniel C. Boyer's own contributions to see the overlap between them.
I don't make the claim that Boyer has exclusive use of these IPs, rather I would speculate that his Internet service doesn't assign static IPs, but a new one he time uses it, so that all he has to do is not sign in to Wikipedia, and he's on any of a variety of IPs, which, in the times between, could have been used by other people. However, it's quite clear that the pattern of editing indicates that the IPs which are reinserting Boeyr's name into articles are not random people, but he, himself, avoiding scrutiny of his edits by not signing in. Many of the editors who reverted those edits have done so numerous times and will recognize the pattern. I could ping all those editors, but I don't want to WP:CANVASS, I'd prefer that neutral editors look over the evidence to see if I've presented a compelling case against Boyer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If there was ever an editor we don't need, it's Boyer. Check this out [82]. EEng 04:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Long term problematic editing in a specific topic - check.
Multiple previous sanctions for the same behavior - check.
Absolutely no indication this is going to change without intervention - Bingbingbingbing. Support topic ban from anything remotely related to themselves, either directly or indirectly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from all autobiographical content, broadly construed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per OID and Cullen. I would also support a deletion of the self-promotional user page if it were taken back to MfD. I think it violates WP:UPNO, and the previous discussion had only two participants, including the nominator. --bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Only two 24 hour blocks in 13 years -- with this kind of socking? This topic ban is extremely lenient, all things considered, and I hope it is as broadly construed as possible to stop this behavior. I also support if his userpage is taken back to MfD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Difficult to meaningfully block the IPs, since they're often dynamically allocated. (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • support and thanks to the OP for this extensive and thorough legwork. Agreed that this TBAN is very lenient. Shame on you, Daniel. We all have better ways to spend our volunteer time than dealing with your abuse of Wikipedia to promote yourself. Really. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support only because no one seems to want to just ban him outright, which is where this is going anyway, sooner or later. But the moment he steps out of line again, that should be the E-N-D. It's ridiculous. Oh, and before I forget, Mr. Boyer: Harvard Summer School students are not matriculated degree candidates, and are not alumni [83]. EEng 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Surprised to learn that the above is a list of "practically every IP that has ever existed". The web is quite a lot smaller than I imagined. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Indef, please Never mind the topic ban, he's been abusing multiple accounts and editing logged out to try and evade this in a clear and blatant violation of WP:SOCK. His last 100 mainspace contributions go back to 2011, and on Talk:Thompson Street (Manhattan) I see a failure to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass so his positive contributions to the project are marginal and don't outweigh the disruption, in my opinion. He needs to be kicked out now, and then an LTA page created when (not if) he evades the block by IP socking. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support TBan at minimum:--Indef will be good too.Editor whose sole aim is to promote himself.And I believe he needs to be kicked out right now because unlike others who only look to self-promote and quickly fall in the nets, he has managed to keep these nonsense activities going for the last decade in the guise of being a good contributor otherwise.Boyer,Obliviate! Your affection for the project is deadly.Winged Blades Godric 11:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Tban I cannot remember having run into this editor or his attempts at self promotion. If the editing-while-logged-out continues, I won't oppose any block. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Tban Repeated violations of WP:PROMOTION should not be tolerated. This user has had multiple chances and has broken the trust of the community.Knox490 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support outright indef The blatant use of socks for self-promotion violates many of Wikipedia's key guidelines, and one of the pillars that being article written from a neutral point of view. A topic ban doesn't resolve this issue. Wikipedia's not to be used for promotion, period. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • RickinBaltimore If there's not sufficient consensus for an indef, would you support the suggested TBan, rather than have the editor go unsanctioned? On my part, if the community thinks that Boyer is a net negative, then an indef would be the logical choice, which I would support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
If the community chooses that option, of course I will. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333 - Same question: would you support a TBan if there's not enough support for an indef? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 13 July 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.

Just ban him, or block him, or whatever[edit]

There is obviously clear support for this, and the section started by the OP below merely seals the deal. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 13 July 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'm proposing this explicitly because 4 of 11 editors commenting above spontaneously volunteered the idea. Anyone who wants should feel free to refine this proposal to an indefinite block, or site ban, or whatever, since I can never remember the difference – just so long as he's not bothering people anymore and inserting his name into articles and burning up the servers with his endless wikilawyering.

Pinging everyone who's commented so far: Cullen328,Bonadea,TheGracefulSlick,Jytdog,Martinevans123,Ritchie333,Winged Blades of Godric,L3X1,Knox490,RickinBaltimore,Beyond My Ken.

  • Support as proposer – The socking, the self-promotion, and now he's acting crazy on my talk page. [84] He's made 60 article-space edits in 2017, and a substantial proportion are some form of self-promotion or nonsense. His useful edits aren't worth all these years of hassle. Good riddance. EEng 21:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not acting crazy on your talk page. You are bringing up a bunch completely irrelevant stuff about when the dates that certain things happened in my career, which I don't know what they have to do with anything and basing a lot of what you wrote on things you just invented. The stuff about Harvard Summer School is a bunch of hogwash. I attended Harvard Summer School for three years; so what? Can you give me the slightest information about what this has to do with anything given that it seems to be only in your head that anyone has ever said it means anything more than just this? And I have never included nonsense in any article; please provide any information to the contrary. I have only complained about the nonsense included in articles by others, including a lot by Beyond My Ken. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Your first comment here and that is what you say? I think you just put the final nail in the coffin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with attending Harvard Summer School. Inserting yourself into List of Harvard alumni based on that is, well... <sigh>. EEng 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I was mistakenly expecting the faintest touch of remorse, not counter-accusations of sockpuppetry. Irony overload. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - said it all above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • yep Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support if there is consensus to do so - My comment in the main thread about Boyer appearing to be a productive editor when self-promotion was not involved had to do with his contributions in the subject of Heraldry, which I am, frankly, not qualified to judge, but they seemed OK to me. If the community sees him as a long-term net negative, then a community site ban (which would be accomplished by way of an indef block) would make sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I was totally shocked that an indef block was not on the table after the list of IPs and accounts connected to him were offered as evidence. I'll say it again: 13 years!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as I said above. If the community chose to go the route of a t-ban, while I think that was way lenient,I would of course respect it. However, it's lenient. 13 YEARS of socking and self promotion? That's enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Enough is enough. @Beyond My Ken The heraldry edits do seem ok but not one of them appear to be sourced. Jschnur (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Many of them have been extensively sourced. Do some research. Many of my sources in my extensive edits on heraldry were removed when extensive changes were made to the Charges article, for example, removing many of my contributions. I'm not complaining about that, but what you write isn't completely accurate. Is anyone going to even remotely discuss anything I'm bringing up or just congratulate themselves on their cleverness or sarcasm? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (non admin vote)–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Unless someone can point out disruption that isn't covered by the TBAN, then this is the more restrictive of two options that covers the same issue. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Long term and repeated socking for COI reasons needs to be treated very seriously. And the retaliatory filing below is, for me, the last straw. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - on account of #Personal Attacks by EEng below. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per everyone above - He's not here to contribute - He's here only to promote and seems he'll do anything to plaster his name everywhere, The retaliatory thread below is more than enough for a block!, Get rid. –Davey2010Talk 23:17, 13 July 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.

Personal Attacks by EEng[edit]

OP indeffed by Black Kite. See above. GABgab 23:26, 13 July 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.

User:EEng has engaged in repeated personal attacks against me having nothing to do with anything. He has suggested that there is something suspicious, sad or pathetic about the mere fact that I attended Harvard Summer School and ridiculed me in a way irrelevant to anything at any opportunity before asking irrelevant questions about my career. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So you think your record at Wikipedia has been so exemplary that ridicule is out of the question? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I am clearly not arguing any such thing. What I am arguing is that it is only my exits that should be ridiculed, or things related to them. My attendance at Harvard Summer School isn't really a relevant basis for ridicule. Calling me a poseur, based on nothing, isn't really a legitimate thing in Wikipedia. Calling my opinions on heraldry or history or surrealism, gleaned from my exits on those subjects, or even saying that they show that I am an idiot, would be fair enough. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Trust me, no one would ridicule or criticize your exit in any way. In fact, it's being arranged for you even now. EEng 23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Daniel C. Boyer: You have not provided any diffs to support your allegations. Without any diffs, you are essentially making a personal attack on them. However, from skimming the section above regarding you, this seems to be in retaliation over EEng's proposal. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No, just no. We are deep into boomerang territory here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For those who are wondering, I'll supply the diff Daniel C. Boyer omitted: I labeled him a poseur (see edit summary at [85]) for inserting himself into List of Harvard alumni based on his attendance at Harvard Summer School (though even for that we'd have to take his word for it). Describing himself as a "Japanese poltician" added to the impression of a surrealist performance piece. EEng 23:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is clearly A Most Serious Matter. The only possible solution is an indef block, per WP:BOOMERANG. Partly for not noting the previous ANI thread above when you posted this, more importantly because there's already a large call foor one above, and finally - just because of the lobsters. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest this gets closed and the OP blocked indef, Retaliatory threads get no where and neither does mass-promoting yourself and socking. –Davey2010Talk 23:19, 13 July 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.

Steve Dunn (1990s first baseman) semi protection needed?[edit]

Page has been protected for a week.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

many different IPs are vandalizing Steve Dunn (1990s first baseman), I suspect socking. Tornado chaser (talk)

  •  Done one week. And yes, WP:RFPP is the preferred venue, but I won't be a slave to bureaucracy so I just did it. Dennis Brown - 01:15, 12 July 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.

Edit war[edit]

This is pretty clearly a content dispute. Consider Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, WP:3O, WP:WikiProject Film, or WP:RFC, and you are strongly encouraged to do so in that order. TimothyJosephWood 20:22, 13 July 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.

In Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, user Neptune's Trident continues to delete what's confirmed by a reliable source (insteat of go talk page and discuss it as I have offered). No reliable sources from mr. Neptune's Trident, and there is edit war going on.-- (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are proposing to change an article and another user has objected to the changes, it's your responsibility to discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page and gain consensus for the changes. It takes two to edit-war, so I suggest that you open a thread on the talk page and wait for a discussion to begin. Unless the information relates to unsourced or poorly-sourced claims about a living person, there's no urgent need to force the change to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
In fact, I started a thread on talk page before I came to administrators' noticeboard, but the response was clearly negative.-- (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This unregistered user keeps insisting that this film is a horror film and this is the supposed reliable source:

A blog on the BBC website. Yet nowhere in the link is this film listed of classified as a horror film, simply point that out area out where it says it is classified as horror on that blog listing of the BBC website. Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • David Lynch's magnificent 1992 horror movie. is what this link says. IMDb says the same, for example.-- (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Much of IMDb is user-generated content, which makes it even less suitable for Wikipedia than a BBC opinion column. Regardless, the place to have this discussion is the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
At least I have BBC on my side. Neptune's Trident has nothing but his own words. And I don't want to discuss it anymore, it's obvious that if one deletes a sourced opinion he must provide his own sources. I haven't seen any sources. So the violation is not on my side anyway.-- (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't actually have BBC on your side. The source uses doesn't mention or label that the movie is a horror movie. Go to the talk page and get a consensus or drop the stick and move on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The source provided says "The second Kermode Uncut Film Club choice is David Lynch's magnificent 1992 horror movie. Watch this introduction and let me know what you think of the film." Mark Kermode is the BBC's top film critic, and arguably one of, if not the, top film critics in the UK. If he labels something a horror film and the BBC is happy to print it as such, that would generally suffice as a reliable source that its a horror film, absent anything contradictory. (Being Lynch of course, sources from the time of release didn't really know what to make of it, subsequent analysis/reviews generally come down to noir thriller/horror, leaning one way or other depending on who is doing the reviewing.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How is this not a content dispute? If there's an edit warring problem it should reported to the appropriate board. Everything else here is just genre war BS. I suggest this be closed and routed to appropriate venues. Valeince (talk) 19:56, 13 July 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.

user Dadarson[edit]

(non-admin closure) indef. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:44, 13 July 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.

Dadarson (talk · contribs) is in a bad mood. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Just watched Fist Fight and am a big fan of Charlie Day. So long b**ches. For uncensored, unfiltered truth talk to me directly. (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Went from a new user to considering us the worst organization in the history of the world in 7 hours. Is that a new record? --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

oh and Dadarson: We don't delete accounts. you're welcome to stop using it, though. --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
It's okay, I helped him escape the evil empire. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 13 July 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.

Mass distribution of user block templates[edit]

I.P. blocked for a week.Pages created by the user in the process-nuked.Winged Blades Godric 17:08, 13 July 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 someone have a look at edits by (talk · contribs)? Always looks suspicious when a new account goes on a binge like this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 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.

Promotional Editing on Juliet Simms[edit]

Sure Templeton is more or less a single purpose account devoted to editing Juliet Simms, a BLP (the only other edit not having to do with Juliet Simms somehow is on Aspen trees). This user is continually removing sourced content from Simms' article and replacing it with promotional prose, unsourced content, and provoking other editors while insinuating that editors are attempting to degrade or attack Juliet Simms directly.

Some edits this user has made include:

"Simms was asked on to the nationally viewed singing competition The Voice on NBC where her blind audition was aired immediately following the Super Bowl. She broke 2 download records -one for her first live show performance for her recordings of "Roxanne" and the second for the second to last live show performance of "It's a Man's World" which landed her on the front cover of USA Today the next morning. She finished as the runner up of that show, which created much controversy and media disappointment and an eventual change in the following year's accounting system to include downloads in the voting totals"

"Automatic Loveletter was the brain child of Juliet Simms having wrote or co-wrote every song that the band ever recorded...with Simms' solo career and marriage to rocker Andy Black there has been no new Automatic Loveletter music since 2011"

And "While recording she began promoting her songs through Myspace and with her band, Automatic Loveletter, quickly became the top Emo band on that platform, attracting attention from several major record labels. After showcasing for music industry icons from L.A. Reid and Jimmy Iovine to Wyclef Jean and Don Ienner she finally signed with Epic Records in 2005 where she and her band recorded a full length album with Matt Squire"

In her edit reasons, this user frequently disparages other editors, stating comments such as, "the earlier editor seems to have a problem with the religion Scientology per her edit summary statement after mentioning this she came back w/ much more on it. Also using tabloid gossip to degrade Juliet. Removed positive content." "Again the last edited removed truthful statistics and positive content with reference to her download records from the show, changes in accounting for the show - shows intent to belittle her rather than allowing the facts." "again reverting to unvandalized version to include interesting and true facts and add that Juliet was the creator of A.LL instead of saying she was the "acting front woman" written as the earlier edit by Juliet haters suggested" "Users Keepingitcool & thejulietflame are Juliet "haters" vandalizing this article by repeatedly removing interesting true content & replacing w/ tabloid sensationalism. This section calls for more info not less." "The user Keepingitcool keeps placing Scientology into this article. Because she also earlier removed other positive content I suspect an intent to belittle or besmirch Juliet. She also called the religion a cult. I suspect sensationalism" "There were several historical errors concerning record labels and who she was signed with as well an clear intent to diminish her accomplishments which I suspect was written by on of her husbands female fans who wish Juliet ill."

All of the edits in question this user had been discussing in their edit reasons were well-sourced, factual, and were not written in a way to be derogatory (for example, the BLP in question involves someone who was raised in the Church of Scientology). They do not seem to realize that the removal of their "interesting and true facts" has everything to do with the fact that they are removing sourced information that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines to replace it with lengthy, unsourced promotional prose. I reverted the edit to the more well-sourced and nonpartisan edits that had existed prior. Were these edits made by this user more nonpartisan, succinct, well-sourced and non-promotional, they would do perfectly in the article -- however, I do not believe Sure Templeton is here for encyclopedic purposes. I believe they are here to promote Juliet Simms, as their edits read less like fact and more like a fanpage. I propose that Sure Templeton be banned from the Juliet Simms article, if not the subject of Juliet Simms completely. Syd Highwind (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I left a fairly blunt message on her talk page. I think that should serve as a strong warning and should suffice for now. Let's see where it goes from here. They aren't going to like what I had to say, but I felt that I shouldn't mince words and just lay it out there. Dennis Brown - 01:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I saw that, and I definitely agree that she may be associated with Juliet Simms -- the thought that she herself might be Juliet also crossed my mind very briefly. I've also read the talk page history due to the fact that it's a very problematic article and I suggested revisiting its AfD nomination on those grounds. But in the talk page she left some belligerent commentary, leveraging personal attacks toward people such as adult film actress Mary Carey, in regards to an incident that had occurred between Simms and her husband last year that Carey had witnessed. She alleged Carey was a washed up drunk attempting to cash in on Simms's fame, white knighting for Simms, and attempting to provoke people on the talk page. I think what you wrote is a good warning, but with her track record and attitude she's probably just going to retaliate somehow. If she does, I vote to ban her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syd Highwind (talkcontribs) 02:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Syd Highwind (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC) (I forgot to sign this, lol. Oh the joys of editing on mobile.)
      • We can cross that bridge if we come to it. Dennis Brown - 18:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Action at WASPI[edit]

Requesting that someone take a look at the WASPI article. Currently User:Spwalshe (talk) has created the article multiple times in the face of speedy deletions and rejected drafts. Now a new editor called User:WASPI Campaign (talk) has entered the fray. I do not really know what the article in question is about, but I believe it has political overtures. Requesting that appropriate action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Username softblocked as it reads as a shared account. Page was deleted again as G11. Amortias (T)(C) 20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 Salted -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The article was one I wanted to look at and see I could write a proper version on it before I deleted, but I never got round to it. It's now at Women Against State Pension Inequality so all is well. I don't think salting is a good idea as it seems to be a valid redirect. I've created WASPI as that; obviously this is technically abuse of admin rights to edit through a protected title, so feel free to shout or serve seafood if there is a problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Cool, though I've got to say that User talk:Spwalshe is a walking advert for WP:WIHSD :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User making threats at WP:SPI[edit]

Indefinitely blocked by Widr. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:52, 15 July 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.

Probably needs a speedy block, at the very least, per this edit and multiple reverts. Note the threat in the edit summary. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Update: Indeffed by admin User:Widr - this is a multiple sock user, suggest the sock master be banned, and the threat possibly reported appropriately. Jusdafax 08:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, obvious sock puppet. This looks to be resolved. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:52, 15 July 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.

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning[edit]

(non-admin closure) That is not a malfunction. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:44, 15 July 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.

User talk:2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:93 Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I received the above, telling me that my edit had been undone. I DID NOT MAKE SUCH AN EDIT: I have no interest in Skechers tennis shoes or whatever they are, and did not even access that page. SOMEONE APPEARS TO BE USING MY IP ADDRESS to for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:93 (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You're probably on an IP that was used by someone previously. This warning you're talking about was from June 25. To avoid this confusion, consider creating an account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:37, 15 July 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.

Unjustified threats by NeilN and DrFleischman[edit]

(non-admin closure) The consensus here is that NeilN and DrFleischman did nothing wrong. The Diaz is advised to drop the stick on Richard Spencer and libel in general. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:35, 14 July 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.

Two months ago, I was trying to change a violation of two rules on the Richard B. Spencer article calling him a white supremacist. One was a violation of WP:YESPOV and the other was WP:LIBEL. I pressed on the WP:YESPOV rule until no one could defend it. While I was doing that, I also made a separate subsection accusing the opening sentence of being libelous (while explicitly preventing any misinterpretations of my accusation as a legal threat) and pointing out that it was Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material as soon as it had been identified. I said TWO THINGS about it and suddenly NeilN offered no defense for the claim and just threatened to topic ban me. Out of anger and frustrations, I abandoned the talk page. A few days ago, I came back and noticed that many other editors were complaining about the wording as well, so I suggested to DrFleischman that another RfC be held since the last one had been four months ago and consensus can change. His response was to throw a temper tantrum and threaten to tell admins to sanction me for doing nothing wrong. My only alleged "crime" was suggesting that an article's wording violated a rule that the above editors never considered. Very different from disruptive editing. I need assurance that these editors won't ban me for addressing a previously ignored issue that has a good chance of changing the defamatory lead section. THE DIAZ talkcontribs 18:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Dr. F and I rarely agree on anything. There's no love lost between us. I say that only so that you get the weight of what I'm saying when I say that he's right. Consensus can change, but the policy here is pretty clear. Time to move on. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Diffs, please? I looked through the talk page quickly and I can't find you even editing it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The comments are at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#White Supremacist. However, there still needs to be links to whatever page it was that Dr. Fleischman threw a "temper tantrum and threaten to tell admins to sanction" you. Unless you are referring to an old discussion from 9 May? Even then he doesn't throw a tantrum or threaten you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No tantrums here, and I wouldn't ban you because I'm not an admin, so I can't. However I can report you. Indeed, your editing conduct at Talk:Richard B. Spencer has been textbook WP:IDHT disruption. Your contention that you only said "TWO THINGS" about libel before NeilN threatened you with sanctions is verifiably false. You repeated the "libel" mantra four times before then ([86], [87], [88], [89]). And that doesn't include your endless IDHT beyond the "libel" stuff. You keep bringing up the same recycled arguments over and over again, and each time they are soundly rejected by the consensus. Like I said, pressing for a new RfC on the same content dispute every time the consensus rejects a new variation on an old, already rejected argument is disruptive. Chanting "consensus can change" over and over again doesn't help your cause. When will you drop the stick and move on? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm in the same boat as Niteshift36. I've had more than my share of disagreements with DrFleischman. Yet, I too am compelled to side with DrF on this. The Diaz hasn't seemed to take WP:CONLEVEL into consideration. While there are some on the talk page that agree with TD, I do not see much in the way of cited sources offered to that effect, let alone, enough to warrant an RfC or counter the mountain of existing RS that call Spencer a white supremacist. Sorry if that is beside the point, but it needed to be said. In May, TD was warned by an admin, and told to take it up with WP-Legal if they wanted to continue that discussion [90], yet they have decided that it was wise to WP:REHASH it [91] yesterday, THEN, ask for assurances that they won't be Tbanned for it the next day (today). Seems completely backwards in my view. Lastly, DrF does not seem to be throwing a temper tantrum here, or on the RS talk page, so I'm at a loss as to how that conclusion, among others, was reached. DN (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This is coming up in a lot of articles these days, but after a point, I would just say that Richard Spencer is a big boy and there are mechanisms for him to contact WMF and legal directly if he wants to contest the material, at which point it would be more appropriate then prolonging a content dispute. Seraphim System (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Diaz: Keep on using libel as a reason to remove the label and you can be assured I will topic ban you. As I said previously, and what DN reiterated above, contact WMF Legal if you think there's a problem. They'll act accordingly as libel is a legal issue. Pretty simple, really. --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 14 July 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.

Abuse of administrator privileges by Widr[edit]

Notwithstanding Widr's unremitting campaign of vengeance against publicly-owned libraries 1% error-rate,[FBDB] his actions as reported here are clearly in line with the community's expections. In any case, it seems best- for our IP if nothing else- to close this now before enquiries into possible block evasion gain traction (non-admin closure)fortunavelut luna 13:17, 14 July 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.

This user not only deleted my fresh account without providing any reason as to why, but deleted all created pages which included some articles ready for creation, this user then blocked the IP from editing (despite neither the IP or account having made any vandalising edits), then @Widr: didn't even give the reason for the blocking of both editing and account creation (the latter being permanent as far as I know), this user admitted on his talk page that he wishes to block people from ever creating accounts on Wikimedia ever again and had a whole echo talk with another user with similar views, these WP:BADFAITH edits scare people away from Wikipedia that simply want to improve articles. I assume that I want banned for my name or something as all I did was explain that as a mobile user I dislike it when I get reverted for making edits in 2 turns that desktop users can do in one edit, apparently complaining about Wikipedia's technical limitations gets you attacked by the current bourgeoisie of this site. I request that that user puts the correct template on the talk pages, compare this to other users with similar editing privileges who usually request a name change, the same for corporate accounts this user just IMMEDIATELY bans any "ad" account, others at least allow them to change their names, Widr shows no tolerance or WP:GOODFAITH in any case and hasn't earned his privileges. -- (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Fivestarfoam was as blatant advertising+COI as it can get. If this is the worst Widr is doing, I think we should give him a barnstar with an Oak Leaf for it. And one for me too because I do the same self thing - I have zero tolerance for such deliberate abuse of Wikipedia. AGF doesn't come into it. Are you admitting to block evasion, perchance?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Although Widr's blocks seem to be okay about 99% of the time, I've not been happy with the other 1%, including blocking all of my local public library for a couple of years until I got it overturned at ANI. Unless there's some application of WP:BEANS, I don't know why Person guy is blocked - the account has no contributions, deleted or otherwise. If it's a checkuser block, it should be annotated as such. I'll AGF there's an explanation for all this, but I can't see it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
That one is ultimately no mystery: Special:Log/Thatinternettroll. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:13, 14 July 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 creating articles with no content[edit]

The user has been blocked, has engaged in discussion on his talk page regarding the issues at hand, and has been subsequently unblocked. Progress is being made on the draft article with several editors assisting and advising. (non-admin closure) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:20, 14 July 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.

User:Hatamtayy (talk) has recently (in the past few minutes) created a number of articles containing only links to off wiki documents. Most of these have been deleted via speedy-delete no-content tags, but at the time of my writing this he may be continuing. Requesting action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked, closing. Hayman30 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hayman30: @SamHolt6: Unclosing. Not so fast. RickinBaltimore has blocked indefinitely. I would argue that this is overly harsh. Hatamtayy was building a draft article at Draft:Ardalan Sameti, and was creating these "no content" article as a means to link to Sameti's publications. Clearly this was the wrong way to do this, and I had posted a note on Hatamtayy's talk page referring them to Help:Citing sources. I suspect this new user just didn't understand the process. A temporary block to bring their attention to the problem would be appropriate, but not an indefinite block. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Reping @Hayman30: @SamHolt6:. FYI, pings only go through if there is a a new comment with a new signature. They don't work when you edit a previous comment. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll switch the block to 31 hours. The issue to be was the user clearly ignored a warning to stop on their talk page and kept creating articles RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think you have a good point that rather than an indef, it might be better to give a short-term block and see if the user is able to follow Wikipedia guidelines.
Is it possible that the draft article is autobiographical? The image on Hatamtayy is the same image in Draft:Ardalan Sameti.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Block switched, and user has posted an unblock request. I of course would be willing to roll back the block, should they understand why they were blocked and what caused the issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks like the draft was deleted G11 by User:Maile66 at basically the exact moment I AfC declined, meaning I effectively recreated it. Not totally sure that it's G11, given that it's basically just a bibliography, but... feel free do discuss among yourselves. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I think WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY was probably intended for this, U5 all the way. — fortunavelut luna 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the article is autobiographical. The user started the draft on their user page before moving it to a draft article. I think the image is just a remnant of not having completely emptied their user page after starting the draft. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Odd thing, is that it isn't really deleted. My log says I deleted it, but User:Hatamtayy/sandbox still exists. Maybe we cancelled each other out. Whatever, I'm fine with it not being deleted, since this has now being questioned as a bit hasty. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If someone is editing the page when it is moved or deleted, it occasionally tells you it's gone in an edit-conflict-style notice. But more often then not it treats it as a page creation. It's happened to me twice this morning alone. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think we can be done with this thread for now. The user is temp blocked, and is no doubt on several watchlists at this point, so any further misdeeds can be managed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:21, 14 July 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.

Proposed indefinite block for Ccxtv94[edit]

Done. GABgab 00:40, 16 July 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.

Hello Wikipedians I'm imposing an indefinite block for Ccxtv94 (talk · contribs) for continued inserting spamlinks and edit warring persistently I have a question for Admins to make an possible indefinite block for spamming on Putlocker can you make an indefinite block for now -- (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think either go to WP:AIV if it is vandalism, or wait for a reply here if it isn't. —JJBers 20:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked indef for spam. Not here to build an encyclopaedia. Basalisk inspect damageberate 21:02, 15 July 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.


Reported user has been indefinitely blocked for spamming. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:07, 16 July 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.

Ariel password (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is currently adding spam links to various articles. I think they are also copyvios but I could be wrong. Since the edits aren't vandalism I brought them here to get as quick a response as possible. MarnetteD|Talk 05:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. You can report this to AIV. There are some Indonesian IP editors and a few logged in accounts who are spamming these links. If this is coming from the same Indonesian ISP, there's probably too much collateral damage for a range block. Edit filters and spam blacklists are probably the best solution if this keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep, 'active, obvious, and persistent vandals and spammers' :) — fortunavelut luna 07:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi good too know for future reference. I found this late last night (my time) and didn't think I could use AIV. My other question is, since all of the links are for films still in the theaters, are the links copyvios that should be r/d'd. MarnetteD|Talk 15:31, 13 July 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.

Loganfisc - questionable edits[edit]

Reported user has been blocked. If there's evidence of sock puppetry, an SPI should be filed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:18, 16 July 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.

Loganfisc (talk · contribs) has been creating articles about nonexistent animated TV series and today has been adding invalid TV network categories to articles about TV series. They has been warned numerous times today alone and they have neither responded nor changed their behavior. Trivialist (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. I have some doubts as to whether this person is here to contribute constructively, but I started with a short block. Let me know if it continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Possible sock? There was a now blocked user who used to do this. Can't remember the name.--