Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive988

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Disruptive unblock requests[edit]

All mopped up. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (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.

Can someone revoke talk access from User talk:37.9.169.5 (a webhost); someone is filling the page with endless nonsense requests. Not notifying. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Widr beat me by a minute.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2018 (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.

Both my comments on Talk Page discussion and my RFC were removed[edit]

We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2018 (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.

After not receiving any additional outside input at Talk:Malcolm X#Assassination (for 3 weeks) outsideof the two users I was in debate with. I made an RFC on the discussion, along with leaving a separate comment to the thread saying I disagree, et al.

The RFC and my comment were both manual reverted in one go [1], with no attempt at informing me. Perhaps my RFC was indeed wrong to be included in that existing section (I did so because RFC etiquette asks that we start a discussion first, and then if no resolution start an RFC for outside input; perhaps it was my mistake to not create a separate section). But there was no reason to delete my own personal comment to the discussion thread as well, which goes against WP:TALKO.

User:EEng manual reverting my entire edit, which leaves me without notice, I feel the removal of my personal [non-Rfc] comment was completely without basis, and such excessive reverts is disruptive and against the spirit of WP:REVERT, which was an issue leading into the discussion. I hoped to resolve our disagreement because I did not want edit warring, but to then start reverting my Talk Page comment (which include no offensive behavior or errors) is uncalled for.

Was this a proper way of handling this? DA1 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • You prepended your RfC notice to a discussion thread already underway [2], making it look like other editors' comments were in response to that RfC, which they were not. If you have new comments to make in the ongoing discussion, make them; if you want to start an RfC (which I don't think is a very good idea, but knock yourself out) then do that. You added a new comment to the ongoing discussion and at the same time made a mess of the chronological sequence of others' posts, so I simply reverted you; it's not up to me to surgically salvage bits and pieces for you. EEng 19:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The RFC had a Signature and date assigned. If you thought it was still misleading, then leave a comment reminding me of pointing it out. If you were right in removing it, then that's acceptable. What's not acceptable is you removing my personal comments in violation of WP:TALKO, and making no attempt at informing me about this to avoid misunderstanding.
You did not "simply revert" me, you manually reverted me which means you could have chosen to selectively remove the RFC while leaving my personal comment untouched but instead went out of your way–via manual revert–to delete the perfectly acceptable comment (and leaving me without a notice, which a standard revert would have given me). DA1 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Could somebody explain the difference between "simply reverting" and "manually reverting"? Just open an Rfc in a new section where it is supposed to go, and all will be well. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Just open an Rfc in a new section where it is supposed to go, and all will be well – exactly, but instead, as seen below, the OP wants to press this idea that he's been wronged somehow. EEng 20:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: Manual reversions include using cursor and backspace to selectively choose text to remove (my two blocks of RFC and comment were in opposite ends of the discussion thread, so impossible to confuse). It's different from using the revert function on History Page which usually sends the original poster a notice. I received no notice, nor was there any attempt at a message/comment or ping to point out possible errors in my post. My comment was essentially censored or removed with haste. That's why it's an issue. EEng's over-eagerness to revert everything is becoming disruptive, when it should and can be worked in line with WP:COOPERATION. I specifically started the Talk discussion because I did not want an edit war on the main article (Malcom X). DA1 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thats 'nonsense'. your comment was removed because it was incompetently placed. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: Which comment? The one as part of the discussion I'm objecting about? Please point out how it was incompetently placed. The RFC and discussion comment to the thread are two different blocks of text [3], and should not be conflated. Otherwise that opens the floodgate for any of my preexisting comments to be deleted once I open an RFC even in a new section (I intend to followup on that existing thread, but apparently my posting doesn't go there?). Note, the comment was placed completely separate from the RFC. The comment was part of the discussion thread following standard discussion norms, not part of the RFC in the section opener. DA1 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────Here's a hint: Help: pages are out of date, and even that aside they were often written by not-the-brightest editors who know less than you do. Sorry to disappoint but I didn't use my evil cursor and backspace, but simply went to the last good version before you made a mess and clicked Revert to this version; as already stated you're free to reinsert your comment, and your RfC notice, in appropriate places (since you're so big on reading instructions it's strange you missed where it says WP:RFCST says Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page). You can't expect others to move your stuff around for you; your somewhat huffy attitude in the discussion to date doesn't make me want to do you any favors; and your behavior in this very thread reinforces that feeling.

As for "leaving you without a notice", if you aren't watching a page to which you just added an RfC notice, I don't know what to say. In fact, smartypants, since you're so big on notifying people I'd have expected you to know that pings added post facto to an existing post [4] won't work. EEng 20:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: As an experienced user yourself, you should have known that my comment was adding to the discussion and shouldn't have been conflating with removing the RFC. Perhaps this is all a big misunderstanding, but at that time when you see your regular comment being reverted when our discussion stems from reversions, that leaves much misunderstanding to be had. I have well early accepted the removal of my RFC, the reason I sought additional advice was because of my uncertainty, perhaps misplaced, that any comment I would make hereon would be removed (because I did not think my comment deserved to be). DA1 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
"In fact, smartypants, since you're so big on notifying people I'd have expected you to know that pings added post facto to an existing post" Let's not conflate these two issues either. Whether my ping worked or didn't (because I added it in after) isn't the same as telling a user in discussion you are removing their comments and possibly correcting them that their use of RFC formatting is incorrect. The issue is you shouldn't have removed my discussion comment to begin with, with or without a courtesy message. Although a message would have certainly avoided misunderstanding. DA1 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse revert Trying to turn a normal discussion thread into an RfC that makes it appear as if the comments in that thread were made during the RfC is deceptive. Expecting other editors to note and collate the timestamps on each individual comment during a thread when trying to read through it is ridiculous: Timestamps are only useful when looking at a very small number of comments. The edit that was reverted looks for all the world to me like an attempt to artificially weight a discussion, considering that the RfC question included a statement condemning the (perfectly acceptable) editing practices of those who disagreed with the proposed addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: This does not address the removal of my normal discussion comment. It is a conflation. For example: had a completely different user reverted my edit on another article, while cussing me out, and I brought the latter fact to admin attention. The justification of the former would not be a justification of the latter. In this case, my issue is with the reversion of my personal comment adding to the discussion. It should not have been removed by another user. DA1 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Then put the personal comment back, you twit. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I will now, now that I have certainty that this was likely a misunderstanding and not at attempt at removing me from the discussion. That provides some needed relief. You can fix your tone now. DA1 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
For the last time: there was no attempt to remove you from anything, just to undo the mess you made so that you could try again to do it right. You're wasting a lot of editor time trying to prove you've been wronged, which you have not. Have you read WP:BOOMERANG? EEng 21:17, 22 July 2018 (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:Julio Puentes[edit]

JP has been creating unreferenced articles or articles with no clear references or just imdb. They have been creating articles for 9 years, most of which (from those I've seen) are tagged as unref, refimprove or notability concerns. After 18 messages I have got nowhere. I have offered help, directed to advice, explained the policies on sourcing and communication etc. but after eight months of this I've run out of other options. Their previous block in 2016 appears to be for edit warring. Some had imdb listed as their source and removed, there have also needed to be re-writing of some of the articles because they were copyvios of imdb. I think imdb has been their only source for most of their articles, but they won't clarify.

For full details of the discussion, please see User talk:Julio Puentes#Warning. They have replied twice but neither message has been reassuring:

  • Hello, sorry for being a bit lazy, it's just that the whole bureaucracy of Wikipedia can honestly be too much of a hassle at times.
  • Excuse me, but what is it exactly that you want? I've put the necessary references and tried to include as much information as possible on the articles. I really don't know what else to do.

The second message indicated they were unsure with referencing, despite my explanations and almost a decade of creating articles, so I tried to explain further. 5 more messages later, I don't think they're reading them. Hopefully they'll engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))
(Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara   16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reopening as this was auto-archived without resolution. The articles shouldn't necessarily be prodded, many are on notable topics, and draftifying them brings other issues - many of those who work on drafts are not happy so many on notable topics are moved there. I think an indefinite block would force them to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Blocks are to prevent disruption. I don't see this as rising to that level. DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User has issues with copyright[edit]

Nuobgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of adding copyvio plot summaries to anime/manga articles, most recently here (copied from here). Other examples include edits on July 4, 2018 (copied from here), April 11, 2018 (copied from here), April 11, 2018 (copied from here), December 1, 2017 (copied from here), January 12, 2018 (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE from here), March 13, 2018 (copied from here), October 23, 2018 (copied from here), February 24, 2018 (copied from here), January 25, 2018 (copied from here), and August 15, 2017 (copied from here). This is not a comprehensive list, and other examples could be found with a bit of searching. I have warned them about this behaviour previously (see here and here), but they show no signs of stopping. They also are unresponsive to communications on their talk page (with a few exceptions) and hardly leave edit summaries. Additionally, they have a history of regularly adding unsourced information to articles (see warnings on their talk page) and sometimes remove parts of citations without explanation (I've seen them doing this in the past, so it's not an isolated incident). Given all this, it may be necessary to block them for at least a short while to get their attention. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Failure to watch own talk page or blatant disregard[edit]

(non-admin closure) Final warning issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2018 (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.

AnnaElizabethGray is having problems with one of these. At a loss on how to get thier attention abount the copyvois. It was a coin toss either here or 3RR. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Endorse blocking. Time to get them to talk or leave, I care not which. --Tarage (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Also you should have titled it "failure to communicate". --Tarage (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
:P - FlightTime (open channel) 03:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I have left them a final warning. Hopefully they will heed it, or the alternative is an indefinite block. I've also speedy deleted the obviously NFCC-violating non-free images. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:45, 23 July 2018 (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.

Unconstructive edits by anonymous IP[edit]

An anonymous IP user that goes by Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2009:548C:4733:8B35:2D89:CABE keeps making unconstructive edits on the Godzilla (1998 film) article. He/she has no talk page, so I can't send him a message to stop or anything. Armegon (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Armegon: it looks like he may have stopped, I am not sure why you think you can't leave a massage on his talk? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Just figured out how. Armegon (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe he is using 2402:8100:2009:548C::/64 which means he is using this one, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Deacon Vorbis is quick to attack editor(s) who disagree with their edits. See Talk:Potato. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

In my defense, you kind of deserved it. I don't use that kind of language here very often, so when I do, there was probably a good reason for it. But as far as I'm concerned, the argument is over, so unless there's anything else to bring up, I'd be fine with letting this drop. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine with an apology for that instance and this one also. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Any apology from me is going to be pretty insincere (which might be worse than none at all), but my willingness to let this all drop is genuine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, then maybe a block would deter you from going off on others in the future, I'll let the community decide. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Deacon Vorbis WP:TRHAT. It doesn't get much more trivial than using a hat note to point to a few sentences in an article that describe how 26 years ago a former US Vice President mis-spelled the word. Also, your edit summary definitely violates WP:ESDONTS. Nobody can force you to issue an apology, but what you did violated Wikipedia's code of conduct.— Maile (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 24 hours and made it clear that this behavior is unacceptable. I certainly hope that it does not resume. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oceanside hate vandal needs rangeblock[edit]

2600:1700:A3E1:D00:0:0:0:0/64 now blocked for another three months. (non-admin closure) -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 17:32, 24 July 2018 (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.

After seeing one instance of hateful vandalism from Special:Contributions/2600:1700:A3E1:D00:B500:9323:6DC5:6C96, I found that the entire /64 range of this IP from Oceanside, California, is filled with similar vandalism. Can we stop this guy? Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Greatly appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2018 (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.

Continuous removal of content in My Korean Jagiya article.[edit]

Inclusion/exclusion of content is a matter for the article talk page, or further dispute resolution processes, not ANI. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:16, 24 July 2018 (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:Spacecowboy420 keeps removing content from the cast section,which makes it very incomplete. He claims that not every character should be mentioned when I already argued that the cast list is already incomplete. He has not seen the show to claim who's not notable enough in the said show. He also claimed that "its a minor show" yet its a primetime show in a major broadcast network in the Philippines. Then he tagged the article for being a "fan site" and the article not being neutral - which in my opinion are both false. The article is so small and tone is neutral. I've already brought this up to Edit Warring and Third Opinion and got no response in resolving this. The first time the editor edited the said article, he removed all the supporting characters and guest cast (including the only 1 cast photo) without explanation. This user has a history of threatening me in my talk page, and I find his edits in the article very suspicious. Could anyone please step in to resolve this?Hotwiki (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: (Non-administrator comment) This is a content dispute and it's not what this noticeboard is intended for. You could try the dispute resolution noticeboard which is intended for stuff like this. Kleuske (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I've already brought it up there, asking for a third opinion and no one commented except for the said editor who keeps removing content. I'm bringing this up here,since the said editor once again have removed content from the article.Hotwiki (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Gonna have to agree that the cast list is too verbose. You are being awfully hostile as well. --Tarage (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I've tried really hard to reach a compromise on that article. Every attempt to discuss this has been met with words to the effect of "NO, the article is fine - DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!" and comments such as "you clearly didn't watch the show " " you are clearly wrong" "try researching first" "You clearly have an agenda here" "See in you content dispute page" " You have an agenda here, and given the track record of your edit history and block history, I'm not surprised. You'll be reported for this." - so I decided to attempt a compromise without the other editor's cooperation. Sorry, but I'm finding it very hard to deal with this editor and their less than friendly/cooperative attitude. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Every time I made a point about the article, your reaction is always "you are making this personal". I do think you have an agenda here, as you threatened me before regarding my edit summaries when I had zero interaction with you at the time. Also, a lot of actors/characters listed are backed up by a reference, and the entire supporting cast are official billed by the show/network. Why remove that?. If the others (guest cast) are unreferenced (which isn't even your issue), it could be resolved by citing for references instead of just deleting them. You question the characters for their notability yet you Havent even seen the show. Hotwiki (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps if people are saying your comments are too personal, then you should modify your tone and stop insulting people? It doesn't matter if they are backed up by a reference, it doesn't mean they are notable. More than anything, this is ANI - not the place for a content dispute. Just the same as the 3RR wasn't the place for a content dispute either. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, you talk about my tone in the article's talk page, and yet you do the same thing in your talk page. Your edit summaries aren't exactly polite. Also there was no attack, an opinion isnt an attack. And you have not made it clear if you are really aware of the show or not.Hotwiki (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2018 (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:HAYDEN ---NATALIE": [5][edit]

Not an issue for ANI, but I'd suggest the filter is objecting to the repeated non-alphabetic characters. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2018 (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.

Apparently someone has been trying to create this username for quite awhile now and the edit filter is continuously blocking it (probably for good reason, though). Could an admin attempt to see what's going on here? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:D0E2:ECD3:B550:48E0 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2018 (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.

WP:NOTHERE[edit]

Page deleted, salted for two years; user blocked. (non-admin closure) -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 17:22, 24 July 2018 (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.

Papahawwy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Not a single edit that's not promoting "Papahawwy". Prank or manic selfpromotion, either way they're not here to help build the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I deleted the "article", again. I wanted to block the editor but if someone wishes to make further attempts at finding some way to communicate, knock yourself out. Tiderolls 14:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems like an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. Doubt that people burning more time on them will significantly change things. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:24, 24 July 2018 (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.

Still continued disruption by Mayerroute5 / 116.68.79.209[edit]

The user Mayerroute5 was blocked for a week by CambridgeBayWeather: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued disruption by Mayerroute5 Jul 14, since then he continued his disrupting editing as an IP: 2405:204:D287:B4A6:39E7:20E7:B92F:33AA, 116.68.77.209 and 116.68.79.209. It would be not approbiate if his ban ended tomorrow as scheduled and the pages he disrupts I think need to be semiprotected. That are

--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the pages and protect them if it's necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Protected 2017, 2016, and 2015 as they seem to be the most vandalised. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but please do someone protect 2010 - 2014 as well.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The user is fresh from his ban and continous his editwar where he left!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User Miska5DT[edit]

User:Miska5DT keeps blanking, doing disruptive editing, and removing contents from articles Societat Civil Catalana, Somatemps, Javier Barraycoa, Josep Alsina and Catalan independence movement. Then he adds an AfD deletion template to Somatemps and after blanking the article states in the deletion discussion that there is not a single reference in the sources about the matter. Filiprino (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Filiprino Somatemps has been nominated for deletion, there is nothing wrong with that. Its non-notable and no credible source discusses it. I am extremely concerned about your creation of an article about Catalan academic Josep Alsina in which you call him a Nazi without a credible source. Mr. Alsina is not a nazi he is an academic you dislike. Wikipedia is extremely strict about slandering living persons and you cannot use the platform to attack people you oppose politically. Equally, the article you created about Javier Barraycoa is dedicated solely to disparage his books which you dislike. Finally your recent nomination for deletion of Tabarnia, an entry which literally has hundreds of credible sources discussing it in various languages, shows you are not editing wikipedia in good faith and are here for spurious reasons. I really think this is a boomerang situation which requires admin attention. Particularly regarding Mr. Alsina who should be alerted of this online slander. I will contact him personally ASAP so he is aware of the situation. Miska5DT (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I want to recall you that this discussion is not to attack my articles nor myself but to defend yourself. Filiprino (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Filiprino: When you start a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, all sides of the issue in question are looked it. In many cases, that means the reporting editor's edits will be scrutinized. (See the essay WP:BOOMERANG.) Further, you complain that he removed content from an article; he replied that he removed it to comply with WP:BLP because you added material in violation of that policy. In that regard, Miska5DT's comments are appropriate (with the exception of taking this offline and contacting the subject of an article directly). —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I am aware that my edits will be scrutinised. And you won't find any of the violations he reports. Thanks for your attention. Filiprino (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I want to note that the user is now blanking and removing sourced content from the article Sardana. Diffs: [6] [7]. He claims it is not in the source, but it is. It's not in the quotation, but that's all. The source is an article from JSTOR with 59 references. It's a known peer-reviewed paper from Stanley Brandes. I was now going to add information from [8] (2015) but the user blanked the whole Wikipedia article. Filiprino (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Filiprino, (also pinging C.Fred) I note from your talk page you are in extremely problematic editor pushing a hyper nationalistic line, this is why I had a look through your recent edit history. Sardana is a traditional dance of Catalonia which, incidentally my mother was made to learn during the Francoist dictatorship. The rather sinister far-right, xenophobic edit you have included in what should be a nice, normal article about a fricking dance is the following:
Immigration is also a concern for Catalans due to possible cultural loss. Andalusian immigration in the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries introduced the Andalusian feria de abril and flamenco dancing. It has been perceived by some as a manipulated instrument of Spanish state domination. In fact, learning sardana can be considered a way of expressing solidarity with Catalans. Catalans consider that sardana has to be defended against possible incursions by the dominant Castilian culture. Failing to adopt Catalan culture might cause it to disappear, effectively annihilating Catalan people.
Filiprino, I am not even going to comment. Miska5DT (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Filiprino: "my articles" ? No one owns any articles here. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@FlightTime: Where I wrote articles I wanted to write edits. Filiprino (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment:Both users have edit warred extensively in articles related to Catalonia, including over deletion templates. I think they've both offered valid critiques in places, but they have also both lain it on way to thick when citing criticisms. The Josep Alsina article is a good example: it's fair to describe him as far right, but it's probably not fair to create an entry on him primarily to detail that connection. I sympathize on some level with Filiprino's apparent frustration, but I think they might benefit from taking a step back from Catalonia issues and edit other areas for a time and/or working on writing for the opponent. I would offer the same advise to Miska5DT, but they've been blocked for sockpuppetry, making it kind of a moot point. Nblund talk 17:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect and defamatory statement on the Wikipedia page about me[edit]

On the Wikipedia page about me at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Brezsny, there is a statement at top that goes as follows:

"This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies."

It is absolutely untrue that there have been payments from me to anyone to create or edit this page. Please remove this incorrect and defamatory statement.

I requested that this be removed three days ago, and no action has been taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talkcontribs) 03:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The statement does not say who made the alleged payments, it only says that payments were allegedly made, so why do you assume it is about you? If, for instance, you have a publicist, which seems likely given your profession, the publicist could have made those alleged payments without you even being aware of them. Hence, there is no defamation here -- but in any case, you should be aware of our WP:No legal threats policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I checked Inspiratrix's edits on that page, and while they have a few edits, they aren't COI type edits. It's clearly other editors that created the issues. --Masem (t) 04:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The implication is that the article is biased in favor of the subject and that he paid for this result. There is no reason to believe that. There is nothing in the article that is biased for or against the subject. The tags should be removed. TFD (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
No, the implication is that someone paid someone to write or edit the article. Your conclusion is an inference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree the notice creates innuendo that the subject is associated with unethical self-promotion. It is a BLP issue. If merely conjecture, the notice should go to the talk page. If based on evidence, the tag should point to the evidence, and we should respond in a timely manner to resolve the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth I think {{COI}} was a better template for this occasion, as despite of the promotional languages, it doesn't really have the hallmarks of the typical undisclosed paid editing in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, that conclusion was based on this edit. Kleuske (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If we don't have any evidence for paid activity, or at least some sound reasoning based on credible suspicion, then I think the tag should be removed. It is a BLP after all, and the tag does imply nefarious activity. If it is based on this, then I don't see that as justifying it at all - creating an account and making suggestions on the talk page is exactly what the subject of a BLP (or other editor with a COI) should do. If there's evidence that the BLP subject has been editing the article directly rather than via talk page suggestions, then I see it as a COI thing rather than PAID. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, having properly read the very recent contributions of Ronald Joe Record at the talk page, I take that all back - "We are attempting to improve the content and citations" along with the rest of their way of arguing really does suggest marketing/promotional activity. I'm now neutral on whether the tag is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Foremost in the decision should be respect and the dignity of the subject, per the WMF resolution. The complaint here is a reasonable one, and a vague suspicion of paid editing is a matter for talk page discussion, not appear to be a public allegation in a large notice. I have been bold and removed the notice diff. Thanks -- (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse the removal of the tag as a courtesy to the article subject, but not as a validation of the user who was edit warring to retain promotional content. I have issued them a DS alert as well as lengthy advice on the talk page, including warnings against continued disruptive behavior. Swarm 08:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would assume - and I may be wrong - that if you're going to slap a "undisclosed paid" template on an article you should explain why you feel that this is the case on the talk page, particularly if it's not immediately obvious. Fish+Karate 08:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • AfD time? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • On what grounds? It's not a copyvio, subject is notable and article asserts this, article is referenced reliably. Fish+Karate 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
      • See my comments on the TP about the reliability of the sources. At least two of them are not independent, discogs and allmusic are user generated and there's an op-ed. I'm not very impressed by that. Admittedly, there's one source I can't access. Kleuske (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been well handled by Jytdog and Melcous, appropriately, by editing the article and Fae removed the tag. I'm now having a crack at the associated World Entertainment War article. Nice work. Inspiratrix, if you do have a publicist, it might be worth mentioning to them that their best course of action is requesting edits on talk pages of any artists they represent, because publicists' efforts here often backfire, first on their client, and then, presumably, the client may get irritated enough to find a new publicist.

FWIW, I neither agree that the tag was defamatory (note the word "may") nor do I think your post here was a legal threat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And FWIW on my part, I never said that there was a legal threat made, I merely pointed an editor who had used the legal term "defamation" towards our NLT policy so they would know the limits of what was allowed. A courtesy more than anything else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
From Inspiratrix: There has been mention of a supposed publicist here when referring to me. Maybe I should have a publicist, but I don't, and haven't had one since 2005, when I hired a publicist for three months to help promote my book "Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia."
As for the music references, I'm not sure what you mean when you say one is an "op ed," and when you say that two are not independent. The articles in the Good Times, Popmatters.com, and Gnosis magazine are not op-ed and are independent in every way I can conceive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talkcontribs) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
{{ping}Inspiratrix}} Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and makes it difficult to tell who is saying what. I've moved your comment (just above this) to the correct placement. Also, please "sign" your comment at the end by using 4 tildes, i.e. ~~~~. The system will respond to this by adding your account name and a date/time stamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Damn! I can't do an f'ing ping correctly to save my life. @Insporatrix: Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
See what I mean? I give up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, You also wrote "Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Yikes! Obviously I meant "do not" - thinking faster than my fingers can type. Thanks for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Inspiratrix asks Beyond my Ken: Thanks for your note of advice. I'm not sure where to put my comments so that it's clear they're a response to someone els'e comments. Can you offer guidance? Inspiratrix (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Just put your response directly after the end of the comment you're responding to. Use colons to indent: one more colon than the comment you're responding to is the norm. If there have been intervening comments from other editors, and you think it will be unclear who you are responding to, you can put the name of the editor at the beginning of the comment, as in: "@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your note..." And make sure you're posting in the correct thread - I rescued the comment above from a thread further down the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll say what I think is obivious--that if the subject of the article contacted an editor, and if that editor starts editing, and if then another editor jumps on that bus, and if then a third editor say "not so fast", sees a poorly written, non-neutral article with absolutely lousy sources and a bunch of linkspam, if all that happens it would be a good idea for the first editor to explain what this contact was about, and for the second editor to not start throwing accusations around. As usual, though, I'm sure sunlight is the best disinfectant: my thanks to all the editors who took an interest in the article, first of all Kleuske. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I swore off engaging with User:Drmies but that seems to have lasted about 5 hours. The narrative he constructs here is orthogonal to the one I perceived transpire rapidly over the course of the last few days. First of all, the Rob Brezsny astrological empire is not paying people to edit Wikipedia. He's not Trump. He's not even Beyonce. He's a writer with an astrology column, a few very good books under his belt, and credits for a couple of songs subsequently recorded by Jefferson Starship. Drmies came in and made such substantive deletions to the article that I initially thought it must be vandalism. I said so in the comment to my revert, taking the page back to the last agreed upon revision. I opened a discussion on the talk page to resolve this. The editor, who I subsequently learned is on the arbitration committee, provided sparse replies on the talk page and completely disregarded the main issue which was his tag bombing of the page including an Undisclosed payments tag. Most of all this has been resolved and I am posting this comment here only for the record. The editor, in my opinion, was combative, aggressive, and most importantly adversarial. There was little to no attempt at collaboration. I opened several sections on the talk page attempting to engage and even added a comment on his talk page attempting to lighten the tone and give him some respect. But all these overtures were met with continued vitriol. There is no evidence and no indication that anyone is taking any money for editing this article. It's ludicrous. The addition of the Undisclosed payments tag in the absence of ANY evidence or indication of ill will is, in my opinion, a violation of the assumption of good will policy. There are a number of really odd comments and maybe misperceptions in this comment thread I would like to comment on but do not have the time right now. One of them, however, I would like to get some clarification on. User: Boing! said Zebedee said that my comment "We are attempting to improve the content and citations" really does suggest marketing/promotional activity. I'm trying to understand how my statement of intent to improve suggests promotional activity. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (1) Long unbroken paragraphs are difficult to read online, and you should consider expressing your thoughts in smaller sections. If you don't, expect to see comments such as "TL,DNR", meaning "Too long, did not read"
  • (2) It's not in any way "ludicrous". Paid editing is a problem on Wikipedia, it's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. The integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake, and we take that very seriously. That you were momentarily discomfited is hardly of paramount concern.
  • (3) Drmies is not a member of the Arbitration Committee, they are a former member of the Arbitration Committee, having served out their term and choosing not to run again. Nevertheless, Drmies is an administrator, a long-term editor, and a respected member of the Wikipedia community, with a great deal of integrity.
  • (4) Your comments here and on the article talk page show quite clearly that you have a conflict of interest in regard to Rob Brezsny, in that you are obviously incapable of adhering to a neutral point of view concerning them. Whatever the reason is for this, I have no idea, but the inability to edit neutrally is very apparent. I would suggest that you follow the recommended procedures in the WP:COI policy and do not edit the Rob Brezsny article again, instead making suggestions for edits on the talk page, and allowing other, unbiased, editors decide whether to implement them.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • BMK, "integrity"? Ha! I appreciate it, though. As for Doctorfree--BMK, I have, on occasion, made fun of your BOLD and UNDERLINING, but I have always admired your paragraphing: a model to follow. I understand that Doctorfree is still having a hexagonal or orthogonal or diametrical issue with me, but I'm afraid it goes over my head. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I know that my bolding and so forth is idiosyncratic, and may put some people off, but as my son says, it makes the words on the page sound exaclty as I would say them, which is my goal: to avoid misinterpretation by providing in some small measure what is missing from words in print - tone of voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Just mentioning something in support/clarification of point 2, RJR you seem to have the misapprehension that only extremely rich and famous people have had paid editing for them. This isn't the case. Actually the biggest problem tends to IMO come from fairly unknown people. This may be because there are a lot more of them.

But it's probably also because for such a person, a wikipedia article is often a very important part of what people learn about them. The fact that the subject is here complaining is of course evidence that they do care, and I'm in no way saying I blame them or that indicates fault. Further the people who tend to be involved in promoting them are often a lot less informed about acceptable standards. They themselves are also probably more likely to want to get directly involved in getting the article on them, in their view, fixed or improved. I have no idea about the specifics of this case, so my comment in no way suggests that this actually happened but you mentioned books and music. There are often minor PR people in the publisher who occasionally do work to to promote the work and part of that is often promoting the person. </p

And as said, speaking generally even a direct payment isn't particularly surprising. It's not like it's tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, if someone in a developing country on a freelancer site is being hired, it could be less than the cost of a simple (i.e. not fine dining) restaurant meal in many developed countries without any alcohol served. Or a weeks worth of coffees.

And relatively unknown people are hiring people for PR and related work all the time. I had a quick look at the article in question and sure enough found a webpage. It's possible this was entirely self designed and hosted but I doubt it. In any case even if this is true, domain names nowadays can be cheap but still aren't free (well .com 2LD anyway) and the WHOIS on that fairly specific domain suggests it's been registered since 2000.

Again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting any paid editing happened. I know hardly anything about the case. I'm simply suggesting your incredulousness that it could have happened simply because the person is relatively unknown makes little sense since it's happened for people who are even less known who are far poorer than this person.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Doctorfree, whenever someone says "we", there will be suspicion due to Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts. I understand this is not the case, so naturally the next question would be, who are the other person(s) implied in your statement? Did the article subject (Rob Brezsny) ask you to improve the article back in 2008, and continued to ask you to monitor the article as of present? In either case, your conflict of interest should be apparent. Alex Shih (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply User:Alex Shih. Is it really the case that my use of the word "we" prompted other editors to reach the conclusion that the statement "really does suggest marketing/promotional activity"? The "we" I was referring to was the Wikipedia editors who were and are contributing to the article. No, the article subject did not ask me to improve the article back in 2008. No, the article subject did not continue to ask me to monitor the article as of present. Are we now in the inquisition phase? What the heck is going on? Look at my edit history. What do you mean that my "conflict of interest should be apparent"? How does one reach such a conclusion from the facts? Please point me to evidence that would support an assertion that I have a conflict of interest in this matter. Exasperating and disappointing, Wikipedia was such a wonder for so many years and has grown to become such a fine repository of information. What is happening to the editorial crew? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

From Inspiratrix: I have never asked anyone or paid anyone or even hinted around to anyone to edit or create anything on the Wikipedia page about me. On July 15, a few days ago, I put a notice on my Facebook page that the article was being edited back and forth after many years of staying the same.

There have been small inaccuracies on the page for years, but I let them alone, feeling it's not my place to intervene in any way. I don't even know who wrote the original article. I understand that this is a legitimate subject for Wikipedia editors to discuss and ask about any article on Wikipedia, so I'm certainly not angry about editors bringing up the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talkcontribs) 04:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


  • Someone isn't telling the truth apparently. Skyerise sounds like the subject contacted her but he has now denied that.

From Inspiratrix: P.S. I'm sure that Skyerise would agree with my account of what happened. Please ask her/him if you like. On July 15, I made a post on my Facebook page saying that after many years, my Wikipedia page was being edited. Skyerise, who had never before commented on my FB page as far as I know, showed up and made some comments under my post, basically saying that the edits that had been made on my page were sensible and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We then had a brief back and forth. I never asked her/him to take any action at all in editing my Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talkcontribs) 04:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Inspiratrix, as unlikely as this story is, I've heard stranger things and I'm fine with this. I wish that other user's tenacity was so easily explained. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Withdrawn

User:Doctorfree, who signs as "Ronald Joe Record", is editing disruptively here in this thread, on Rob Brezsny and, especially, on Talk:Rob Brezsny:

  • He WP:Bludgeons the talk page constantly, questioning every edit by every editor except himself
  • He insists on adding information to the article supported by sources that a child would know don't fulfill the requirements of WP:RS
  • His fawning attitude towards the subject of the article - a barely notable horoscope columnist - shows that he is incapable of editing neutrally about the subject
  • His editing and comments border on being WP:Tendentious editing
  • His disdain for community standards hides behind the veneer of a WP:CPOV-pusher

For these reasons, I propose that Doctorfree, aka "Ronald Joe Record", be topic banned from the article Rob Brezsny.

  • Wihdrawn Since this has gotten no traction, it's clear that the community doesn't find Doctrofree's editing concerning Rob Brezsny as disruptive as I do; fair enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Process question on admin undelete/delete[edit]

KAVEBEAR made a request on my user page that I restore one of his user space pages that had previously been deleted at the user's own request. I made the undeletion. RHaworth immediately deleted the page again with an edit summary saying the request needs to go through WP:REFUND. My question is why is this such a hard and fast rule (if it is)? We may have various process boards, but users make requests directly to admins all the time. And admins may elect to take care of the request or not. Why this one? It was the user's own page. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be the standard summary for G7 deletion, not specific to undeletion. Could it be that the restored page was blank or had a deletion template on it? Peter James (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the page that was deleted on February 21, 2017, was done so because the user himself placed a G7 template in the See Also section. I prefer not to engage in a Wheel War, but could we just get the July 3, 2016 version restored for the user? The user himself just wants his page restored. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
RHaworth almost certainly deleted it because it appeared in the CSD category. If it was restored again and the tag was removed then I'm sure nobody else would redelete it. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
All right. I restored the correct version, with an edit summary link to this thread. Not trying to wheel war. Just trying to get it correct. If I erred, please advise. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Per above. Maybe RHaworth should have checked page history (this doesn't always happen), or maybe Maile66 should have checked the CSD tag left intact (although it was buried in the content instead of being on top; I probably would have missed it myself)... In either case it was a good faith miscommunication, no wheel warning and no harm done. Alex Shih (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Page history wouldn't have helped since the tag wasn't removed; you'd have to check the logs. Userpages get G7'd all the time so it's understandable that it wouldn't be noticed. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I have been scolded a couple times for not checking page history when patrolling CSD; if I have checked the page history for this one (User:KAVEBEAR/Kepelino), I would have done a double take when I saw the date "02:21, 21 February 2017". Userpages get G7'd all the time, but it doesn't get unnoticed until a year and half later especially for someone that works tirelessly (that's the catch) almost daily in CSD. Alex Shih (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
If you don't check the history, how do you know if the user placed the tag themself? Natureium (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say both history and logs are equally valuable. If an admin clicks on the red link, it brings up the logs, which tells you who nominated it for deletion, who deleted it, undeleted it, how many times it's been deleted or undeleted, or any other pertinent logs. If you click on the more current view/restore link, it brings up the Page History. There might be something in that history that tells you if there is anything to indicate the delete nomination was in error. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Unless I've misunderstood something, I don't see how logs will tell you whether the author is the one who nominated it for deletion. E.g. [9]. I'm discounting someone noting it in the logs e.g. when deleting it, that this is what happened. It presumes whoever it is checked the history (so someone needed to) and obviously doesn't apply to the first deletion. BTW, in case there is some confusion, I think Natureium's point which also occurred to me is that it seems an admin should always be checking the page history before carrying out a G7 or alternatively relying on someone or thing they trust e.g. a bot to do it for them. Otherwise I could G7 tag this page and ignoring the fact that an admin should recognise without checking I'm not the only author of ANI, an admin would just G7 it. For a U1, a check of the specific diff where it was U1nd should be sufficient. (Well there is a minor risk there that someone else could revert to a previously placed U1, but probably too minor to worry too much about.) Of course checking the history for these details doesn't guarantee you will always notice the time frames. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at Jason Spencer (politician)[edit]

Mopped up by SarekOfVulcan. Natureium (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2018 (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.

There is an edit war at the listed page in the wake of the controversy concerning Jason Spencer. Germany7to1 is posting Swastika and Confederate flag as his picture in the infobox. I have repeatedly reverted the charges to no avail and warned the user at least once. Please have the page protected and deal with the user in the most appropriate manner. Christianster94 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I just reverted him removing this post. Natureium (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And we have some move-vandalism. [10] Natureium (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
And blocked indef. 10-ish edits, then vandalism spree? Bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2018 (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.

help needed[edit]

Taken care of by DoRD--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, JBW blocked the range before I redundantly semi'd the page. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 24 July 2018 (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 an admin block the IPs that are harassing User talk:Tyw7 (and maybe protect the page)? L293D ( • ) 12:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be settled for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2018 (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 at St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine[edit]

(non-admin closure) Edit war is over and Jytdog is cleaning up the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2018 (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.

Thar is a big edit war here, not quite sure what is is about, as I am not involved. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Update, the page has been protected. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2018 (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.

IP:108.54.92.30[edit]

IP blocked by Ymblanter for a year. (non-admin closure) SemiHypercube 22:43, 24 July 2018 (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.

Can an admin block this for at least a year (previous blocks have been 1 month, 3 month etc) - almost all edits are vandalism or BLP violations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done, a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2018 (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.

POV pushing IP at Ben Swann[edit]

(non-admin closure) Closing this to say what everyone here assuredly already knows: this is now a question of content, and should be dealt with on the article talk page and not here. The behavioral issue has been dealt with by admins via block and protection, and SoV doesn't seem to be inclined to up the protection to full. If full protection is still desired, that's why we have WP:RFPP. Any non-participant who feels that I closed this prematurely is welcome to re-open it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2018 (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.

There's an IP who's been on a crusade to whitewash a notable conspiracy theorist for the past few weeks. Despite encountering significant pushback with very little support for their position, they've kept it, up, bludgeoning the talk page with wikilawyering and repeated claims that we're using sources that make false claims about the subject without evidence. This has been going on for too long, and needs to stop. There's no consensus for any changes to the article at best, and a consensus not to change for the majority of the IP's proposals. The IP has been made aware of DS, has been warned numerous times, and has even been blocked once already. The IP has since gained some support on one point, and as a result, redoubled their efforts. Can an admin please put a stop to this?

A lot of this is in fact, hyperbolic. And much of it is inaccurate. I welcome anybody to check out the talk page and the edit history to see for themselves. The edit warring he highlights was among my very first edits when I was unfamiliar with a lot of the rules. I haven't repeated such behavior since then, however, I was able to clear up factually incorrect information from that exchange. All my edits have been from a NPOV and are consistent with the cited sources. I've tried to remove and modify poorly sourced contentious (and frankly false) claims about Ben because that is mandated by WP Policy. There are a few editors over there that seem hell-bent on discrediting Ben Swann and keep injecting their opinions and exaggerating what the soures say. despite many efforts (not just by me), the inflammatory claims and BLP violations continue and they have been actually getting worse since I first saw the page. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Indef PC added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I understand your imposition of PC but I think in this case full prot is more appropriate. The IP has been POV pushing against MjolnirPants and Jytdog, who I hate to say (since I agree with them 90% of the time) have been equally POV pushing, if not more. I have sided with some (but not all) of the IP's edits that actually appear to be enforcing BLP. In particular, we have a talk page dispute over whether it's verifiable that Swann has repeatedly spread fake news. This certainly appears to me to lack appropriate sourcing. By imposing PC you're inadvertently allowing the BLP violations to stand. I suggest full prot to the last stable version, which I believe is this. I'm also disappointed MjolnirPants didn't notify me of this AN report when I was already actively involved in the dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
PS please don't take this as a request for a boomerang; MjolnirPants is an excellent editor who I believe has had a momentary lapse of reason. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It's possible that full prot might have been a better choice, but I went with the option I believed would permit the most flexibility for all concerned. If another admin wants to up the protection level, that's fine -- but per WP:THEWRONGVERSION, I would oppose trying to choose a "stable version" at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought we always rollback to the last stable version when we impose full prot? The version I identified was last edited by Jytdog and I believe those edits have not been challenged. However if we wanted to rollback to an even older version that's fully stable, I suppose that would be this one. It would certainly be better than the existing BLP violations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
While WP:PREFER does urge finding a stable, non-BLP-violating version, I don't see anything that particularly fits that description. It hasn't been stable for more than about a month at any point in the past 2 years that I can see.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The content about Swann spreading fake news was originally added to the lead (as far as I can tell) here, back in June. It has moved around some. I adjusted that yesterday. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • User:DrFleischman has acknowledged that the concerns about BLP that they expressed above, did not take into account the changes made yesterday. It is hard enough dealing with FRINGE-pushing IP editors without this kind of sloppiness. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh please. In that same comment I said there are still serious problems. I could make similar below-the-belt comments about your behavior, but I choose not to because I think you're a fine editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
And those serious problems boil down to you taking issue with us not directly quoting the sources. So we should call Swann an "imbecile" and his work "boneheaded and irresponsible" because that would correct the BLP problems? Seriously? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for full prot[edit]

The BLP problems were somewhat ameliorated by Jytdog's edit and not as blatant anymore. I still think that imposition of PC ended up tipping the balance of a content dispute where there has been POV pushing on both sides, and full prot is warranted, with a rollback to some last stable version, which I do believe can be identified. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Strike your repeated accusations of POV pushing or provide some fucking evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I didn't want to do this, but here's some evidence of your POV pushing. Again, I'm not trying to get you in trouble, this is just presented to support my call for full prot.
  • Here's where you reinserted unsourced content connecting Swann to fake news and Russian disinformation.
  • Here's where you compared your campaign to add this content to disputes over pseudoscience.
  • Here's where you said your position was such common knowledge that no sourcing was necessary. (At least, you cited WP:SKYBLUE, and that's what it's about.)
  • Here's where you said erroneously that "demonstrably false claims of fact" were the "very definition of fake news."
  • Here's where you said you weren't going to waste your time arguing with me, and you told me to "fuck off."
  • Here's where you called efforts to enforce BLP "bullshit whitewashing."
  • Here's where you said you were trying to get me to "shut up" and alluded to me being "a fucking robot who can't engage in any thought whatsoever."
  • Here's where you bizarrely objected to my RfC on the basis that I hadn't previously obtained any consensus for my position. (What would be the point of starting an RfC if I had already obtained consensus?)
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, here we go:
  • Sourced in the body, as explained by at least three other editors at talk: [18], [19], [20] and me.
  • I did not add this content, I'm hardly on a "campaign" and so what if I compared it to pseudoscience? The notion that Swann is a legitimate reporter is clearly WP:FRINGE, according to the sources themselves.
  • That was not my assertion, and I explained it rather clearly in detail in that post. I clearly said that if a source defines what Swann says in the same way that fake news is defined, it's not OR to call it fake news. Just like if a source describes something as "that color between red and yellow" we can call it "orange". It would be nice if you would read comments (as you have been advised to do by multiple editors at that page) instead of simply responding to what you think they say.
  • That is not what I said, and you damn well know it. I even went back and bolded the very important point that you "conveniently" left out.
  • Are you suggesting me being unwilling to engage with dishonest editors is a sign of POV pushing?
  • "efforts to enforce BLP" is bullshit. It's efforts to WP:CRYBLP over widely reported claims about Swann's work, not himself personally.
  • That's where I point out that your argument only works if all we do is quote sources instead of summarizing them. Yeah, robots who can't engage in any thought whatsoever would have a problem with summation. It wasn't an accusation; it was a characterization of how weak your argument is.
  • That is not the reason I objected to your RfC (that I participated in, by the way), as is made explicitly clear in my comment. I quite plainly stated that I objected because you're dragging out a content dispute that has no basis in the RSes.
I want to point out that I could at least four different, policy based arguments against your objections that you've completely ignored, in favor of continuing to assert in the face of contradictory evidence that the material is not supported by sources. You are lying about what the sources say, either having read them yourself, or by refusing to read them and pretending to know already. I'm fairly certain you're not POV pushing, but you're certainly dragging out a content dispute that has no policy basis, and should have been resolved weeks ago.
Finally, as for your "case for full prot": I've edited the article exactly twice. Your "case for full prot" isn't stronger or weaker for anything I've done. I could be insisting that Swann is a child rapist and it wouldn't matter, because it's been the following list of editors opposing this change: Neutrality, Jytdog, Objective3000, NorthBySouthBaranof, Snooganssnoogans & Calton, far more than it has been I. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This will probably draw an objection, but this is my rough paraphrase of what you just wrote: "I didn't POV push! It's just that I'm so obviously right that any removal of my content is bullshit whitewashing and POV pushing, any BLP argument is CRYBLP, any disagreement over what the sources say is lying, and any extended discussion is worthy of me telling my fellow editors to shut up, fuck off, and call them thoughtless robots." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
"I didn't POV push! It's just that I'm so obviously right this change has been opposed by the clear majority of editors for such well-defined reasons that any this removal of my existing content is bullshit whitewashing and POV pushing, any this particular BLP argument is CRYBLP, any disagreement over what the sources say is lying you're lying if you claim you've made even one single attempt to characterize what the sources are saying, instead of just blindly insisting that they're not saying what me and others have quoted them saying, and any extended discussion is worthy of me telling my fellow editors to shut up, fuck off, and call them thoughtless robots this discussion has been going on for weeks with no consensus to make the proposed changes, and it's growing disruptive."
I made some corrections there, since you seem to be really bad at reading my comments, preferring to completely ignore them in favor of the kind of wild assertions I've never made on this site.
P.S. Here's me using the same basic line of argument to defend remarks by Trump as being racially inclusive. Because consistently using the same logic even when it contradicts one's POV is the halmark of a POV pusher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion @DrFleischman and MPants at work:. I am pretty good at doing line-by-line reviews of content to sources, paying particular attention to POV. I see that the article is tagged for {{synthesis}}. I would be happy to do a review and edit if that would be ok with both of you. It seems that there is aa lot of re-litigation of previous comments... and maybe having someone new come in and take a look at the content may help get to a "stable" version and one that you might both agree with (even if it wouldn't be your wording).–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate that! Thank you! FYI there's a pending RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Ok, if it's ok with MPants at work, I will get started with that. I was going to also post recent examples: Isaias Afwerki‎, as a result of an ANI issue, and Ute people, which was essentially a rewrite and line-by-line review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

SarekOfVulcan, CaroleHenson I looked at the article, and it's not good. The term "fake news" is POV in and of itself, in the fact that it's bandied about by all sides, and probably everybody in the news is practicing POV pushing. Whatever the last stable version is, it should be one without that newly-coined term of "fake news". I do have a suggestion, short of an inter-action ban, topic ban, or the like. This worked on Battle of the Alamo, but that particular topic was not being argued all day and night on TV shows. Still ... a Full Protection was put on the article by TomStar81, initially to be a 6-month ban in July 2015. A duplicate of the article was created as a subpage of the article, and editors were instructed to work out their differences there. I can no longer find the subpage, but my memory of this, is that nobody edited on the subpage, and the issue quieted down.

What I see happening here, if a full protection doesn't happen, is the news media are dictating our content - either direction - and Wikipedia is not better off for it. What I see on the news, leaking over here, is that people are so duped by one position or another, that there is no middle ground, just complete chaos. Perhaps there is a better way at Wikipedia. If this can't be worked out, there should even-handed topic bans or inter-action bans. If it cannot be resolved here, then maybe it should go to Arbitration/Requests. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree about there being an issue with the term "fake news". I think that people can take it several ways. The term did come directly from the articles, so I see why it was used, but I don't think it's encyclopedic.
I am happy to start work on the article in a subarticle or as a draft, but I am not sure how the outcome will be different. But, I am happy to do it.
My goal was to do a full line-by-line review and editing of the article, though and summarize the nature of my edits / reasoning on the talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to put in that kind of work line-by-line, I support you. But what is the assurance that the situation will not immediately reoccur the moment it's done? Just my own POV, is that you get "real news" when your local media is reporting on your area. But on a national and international level, it's now tabloid journalism. — Maile (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
User:CaroleHenson if you are going to do that, I trust you will start with the body and the circle back to the lead when you are done Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Maile66, Yes, I may have to change sources along the way. Not sure that I agree about the difference between local and international/national news, but I agree that there may be some cases where I will be looking for a change in sources for more neutral, objective tones.
OK, fine with me. — Maile (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, My approach is generally top-down starting with the intro... and then return to the intro to ensure it properly summarizes the article. So, if there is something problematic in the intro, my approach is to catch that upfront... but not rewrite the intro until the entire article is reviewed/edited. Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2018 (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.

73.7.82.234[edit]

IP has been blocked by User:Cullen328 for 72 hours. (non-admin closure) SemiHypercube 11:12, 25 July 2018 (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.

Apparent hoax creation and suspicious wikilinking (to non-existing articles). I initially thought of AIV but it's not 100% unambiguous vandalism. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Cullen328--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I saw nothing useful in their edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 25 July 2018 (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.

ponyo insult: i dont think you're reading or comprehending any of the policies[edit]

Not an insult. Pls listen--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2018 (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 was editing Ross Mathews and disagreed with FlightTime about it. Ponyo supports FlighTime. Another editor CFred is mediating. Now Ponyo is posting insults in the discussion between Cfed and I on Cfred page. Ad hominem attacks. This is the insult/. I feel Ponyo should be warned. Isnt it an admin or trusted editor supposed to know better? Do better. These titles shouldnot go to ones head. Thank you. 2601:155:8300:1659:4536:B605:9536:DB40 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: although this remark is probably worthy of a boomerang in itself... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 19:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
They have already been warned after that attack [21]. May be they could realize they need to stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You mean the warning that they blanked with the edit summary "stay away and read! your friend ponyo is the one attacking which i am sure you are happy about!" I'm not sure they are realizing they need to stop; their personal attack is absolutely uncalled for and I would have hoped for an immediate block to prevent further disruption. Lourdes 19:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not comfortable blocking this IP now (which can of course change in 10 minutes), but any other administrator can block if they feel this necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ymblanter, thanks. Just for information, they've already crossed 5RR on Ross Mathews, reverting every editor multiple times including the administrator discussing with them. I would hope such disruptive behaviour is immediately arrested. Lourdes 19:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Arrested? Are we cops? One day before retirement... I'm too old for this. --Tarage (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 25 July 2018 (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.

Proposing a topic ban for Mark Miller[edit]

I am requesting that Mark Miller be topic-banned permanently from anything to do with Hawaii. His edits are often disruptive, and his attitude combative. WikiProject Hawaii is a very small project, and we need to encourage editors, not drive them off. My personal experience with Mark Miller has caused me to steer away from anything he's part of. It's just not worth it.

Today, I realized this needs to be aired out here, and uninvolved admins need to give input. There are other editors to consider, and the project as a whole to consider. It is a sad day at Wikipedia when an editor, in this case, Andy Dingley, has to submit an AFD on article that has been around since 2007 just to get some clearance to edit it. Please see AFD Grass skirt July 2018. Mark Miller's pattern there is pretty much how he operates.

My exhaustion point with Mark Miller was reached on this editor when KAVEBEAR asked if I would help with Liliʻuokalani. Not a big deal, as KAVEBEAR and I often edit on the same articles related to Hawaii. As they say in Hawaii, "Ain't no big thing, bruddah." But it seems to have sparked something like paranoia in Mark Miller: My talk page Sept 2016, My Talk page October 2016. If anyone has time and the will, they can go through the archived talk page battles on that article. Below are some diffs on review processes:

  • Liliʻuokalani/GA1 Oct 2017 Nominated at GAC by KAVEBEAR, Mark Miller argued on the template with the nominator throughout the process.
  • FAC Liliuokalani October 8, 2017 Even though the article was not yet in shape for FAC, Mark Miller nominated it there on October 8, 2017, wanting it to be through the process and actually Wikipedia's main page Featured Article on November 11, 2017. Although neither KAVEBEAR nor I had been consulted before the nomination, we were named as co-nominators. Therein, Mark Miller began an argument with KAVEBEAR over issues that should have been ironed out before the nomination.
  • DYK nomination Liliuokalani October 8, 2017 In an argument over the image, Mark Miller stated on the nomination, "OK, since there was no attempt to save that, I will make no attempt to save this. I am against this entire DYK and am prepared to request further comment from projects. Using DYK as an attempt to change long standing images is just wrong. I really think that it should have been mentioned when the image was suggested what would happen. Since I have too much good faith in Gerda. I have to conclude that this article is not ready for DYK or FA."

I've given you my experiences as an example. Others can answer for themselves. But there is no way to predict when and where this will happen next. — Maile (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't have enough experience of dealing with this editor (or Amadscientist (talk · contribs), which I understand to have been a previous identity) to justify an opinion. However their behaviour on Grass skirt (see the Talk: page and the AfD too) has been bizarre to say the least. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what's going on at Grass skirt, Mark Miller shouldn't participate in that discussion further without explaining themselves here. I think anything wider than that article is an over-reaction; an argument over an image last October isn't reason to justify a topic ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The Oct image stuff is minor. You should read the links and diffs. What he is doing on Grass skirt is how he acts everywhere. He's a very disruptive editor. Also, he has had previous blocks for editing warring, and for making legal threats. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
...four years ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban violations Jzsj[edit]

Jzsj (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed. They may participate in deletion discussions related to these topics if they created the page(s) in question.

By now, he has already served two blocks for violating the topic ban. One for 1 "oversight", the second for 42 "oversights". And now, to my opinion he violated the topic ban again:

  1. Margaret Mary Vojtko, an adjunct professor, here (and after a polite warning self reverted)
  2. Gustavo Gutiérrez, a professor, here (6 edits).

I do not believe any more that these violations are plain "oversights". The Banner talk 11:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) I was going to comment to the effect that the Vojtko edit should probably not be held against them as they retracted it, and the Gutiérrez edits are borderline since an article on someone who holds a professorship but is not known for his educational work. Until I noticed that one of the edits related specifically to his academic work,[22] and I dug a little deeper and noticed this: if it could be called wikilawyering to block the editor for editing articles on people who happen to hold professorships, it would be just as wikilawyer-ish to say that being technically permitted to "participate in deletion discussions" allows them to thank editors for saving the entire content of those articles by copy-pasting them verbatim several months after the deletion discussions in question have been closed. And then there're all these edits whose edit summaries or article titles include "school", "college", etc., and while an argument could be made that the last group was not specifically related to schools the group founded, education is apparently such an integral part of their raison d'être that it's in their name.
I'm really thinking that at this point the editor probably needs an IDHT/CIR indef block, or a broader TBAN that covers "Christianity" since it's so easy to skirt the boundaries of the current ban by editing articles on religious institutions that are very closely (only?) associated with education but the edits themselves might not technically look like they are related to education.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm editing dozens of articles and sincerely trying to avoid violations of the ban. Please note that it was imposed mainly for my effort to get religious post-nominals accepted in infoboxes. I have learned since then the meaning of consensus in Wikipedia, and I respect that. I was also involved in a dispute over religious organizations and the poverty background of Catholic schools, with some support but little consensus. These are the only places where I have run into problems, all since last January, which I fully intend to avoid in the future. I have over 27,000 edits and over 400 articles created and remaining in Wikipedia. With regard to extending the ban to other related areas, if these are grey areas then why not wait until my editing there results in the kind of dispute that brought on the ban? Jzsj (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
No, Jzsj, the topic ban was mainly the result of time and time again ignoring consensus. And every time restarting a discussion when the consensus went against your desire. For example here. The Banner talk 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You're citing the one example of where I went against consensus and was banned. The previous discussions had not reached consensus. I have since learned that consensus is determined by administrators very largely on the basis of pro and con votes. Your "time and time again" ignores that none of this took place before last January, when I first encountered these issues after 30 months of work in Wikipedia, 10 to 14 hours most days. I am determined to abide by Wikipedia policies and am sorry for slips, which I will make greater efforts to avoid. I have reverted the ref I added to the Gutiérrez article; you're correct about it dealing with schools. I would be a fool to deliberately touch school issues, even if I was not being so carefully watched. (Also, please reference what you mean by 42 "oversights" in your opening statement.) Jzsj (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
A kinder, and truer, interpretation of this was the one given there, leading to a reasonable, 72 hour block: "Thanks for reminding me, it was an oversight. I began just correcting the links to sisters, and got into the schools inadvertently." It was a single incident, on a single oversight, on a single day when I added the "Sister" link in 81 articles and regrettably strayed into the sisters at the schools in the sisters category. Jzsj (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As to the "Wikilawyering" charge, I haven't dealt with that issue before, but when I looked up relevant material, this is all I found. Where does it say that I shouldn't thank an editor who on his/her own "merged" (not "saving the entire content") an article and mentioning that there are other articles of mine where this recommended merging was not carried out at the time of deletion. Jzsj (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how you conclude that I may not edit articles like all these edits, where the names of the groups do not mention schools, and where I was careful to avoid touching parts of their work related to education. Give me some credit! Jzsj (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Four edits on the section "Emphasis on education" did not touch education? The Banner talk 19:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I found no relation to education in the first and third examples. In the middle one I deliberately avoided touching on the work Fr. Garcia did in education. But you are right, that in one (and only one) of the four edits in the section on education the reference I added was to his being on the board of a social research institute, which was indeed an oversight on my part. I will try harder to note the verboten nature of such edits. All the trouble both of us are going through in this discourse here will have the salutary effect of bringing to my mind the matter of the ban while editing. Jzsj (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You clearly do not understand what the meaning of your topic ban is in reality. To try to explain it one more time: you are not allowed to touch articles that are related to education or schools. This includes teachers, professors, buildings etc., no matter how remote related to education. The Banner talk 10:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cyberpower678: Please give us your decision on this. It seems to me that if one looks into the material behind the ban (acting against consensus on post-nominals) then such further generalization of it is unnecessary, especially in light of the fact that I had made c. 25,000 edits and this dispute at NDCRHS is the only time I ran into this problem, and learned from it. My present editings try to respect the ban. Please clarify the ban in this regard. Thanks, Jzsj (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    My interpretation of the ban, as per the "broadly construed", is that any article remotely related to education or covering education is within the scope of the ban. However, articles not primarily about education, universities, and similar topics, and are at best a few sentences in articles mentioning the topic, should not be including in the ban's scope.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Propose indef block[edit]

NOT HAPPENING
Clearly not going to pass.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:35, 24 July 2018 (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.

Sigh This is unfortunate to see. Clearly this editor is either unwilling to or incapable of staying far the hell away from education-related edits. Rather than trying to engineer a much broader TBAN to keep him as far away from the parts of the encyclopedia he's not supposed to be editing as possible, an indef block is in order. I would say escalating blocks (he's only been blocked for violating this ban twice so far, the latest for 72 hours), but he doesn't show the slightest sign of being willing to abide by the ban, so the escalating blocks so far have not been doing their job. If you are not going to appeal your ban, you have to abide by it; them's the rules. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I’ve stayed out of this until now, but I really do think it is entirely reasonable to make a distinction about biographies of academics and “education”. An article on a theologian and another about a decreased adjunct professor (where he self-reverted) are a bit beyond broadly construed for me, and I’d personally question if this is even a TBAN vio: if this sanction applied to me, I would not consider edits to an article on a theologian to be a TBAN, and would likely consider them well within what I could edit to the point where I wouldn’t seek clarification. TonyBallioni (