위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive939

LogicalGenius3는 홀로코스트 거부 블로그를 인용하고 WP를 바꾸려고 시도했다.이를 지원하기 위한 RS

운영 중단이 심한 IP - WP:NOTHER HERE

user:Mztourist의 파괴적 편집 및 편집 전쟁 수행 의도

Wtshymanski는 자신의 편집 제한 사항을 계속 준수하기를 거부한다.

이 불평은 완전히 꾸며낸 정보에 근거하여 종결되었다.

첫째, "많은 기사가 86.157.210.153 IP와 중복된다"는 주장은 거짓이다.그것은 단지 4개의 기사일 뿐이다.나는 쿠루가 편집한 기사에서 쿠루와 랜덤 에디터가 겹치는 것을 확인했다.14개의 기사가 겹쳤기 때문에, 그것은 (쿠루 기준으로는) IP보다 양말 인형극에 더 죄가 있다는 것을 의미한다.

둘째, 두 IP가 동일한 ISP로 해결한다는 주장이 종결 요약에 있는가?아니, 그들은 하지 않아.그들은 심지어 어렴풋이 같지 않다.두 사람의 유일한 공통점은 어떤 증거도 아닌 같은 나라로 결의한다는 점이다. 85.255.234.239 (대화) 15:41, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

백과사전을 쓰는 것보다 Wtshymanski를 곤경에 빠뜨리는 것에 더 관심이 있었기 때문에 (그리고 이 IP를 24시간 동안 막았다) 내가 차단했다.그리고 "iz it coz Iz IP" 피해자 구타 구실을 그만 꺼내서 사용자 토크:리치333/아카이브 44#IP 편집 실험.리치333 16:13^(cont), 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

중단 IP 사용자

반달리즘 전용 계정

보고 사용자:피타 싱

사용자 Ron Lucci는 내가 이전에 삭제한 기사에서 빠른 삭제 태그를 제거했다. 그는 기사 작성자다.

요약 편집 탈퇴 거부 - 사용자:넵튠즈 트라이던트

비열한 모욕

사용자:심장의 어느 쪽이 편집 요약 중 하나인 diff에서 나에게 비열한 모욕을 보냈다.

번역본은 다음과 같다.

그런 모욕에는 변명의 여지가 없으며 물론 내가 말하는 언어가 아닌 중국어로 게시된다.또한 이 사용자는 POV 편집을 하고, 이슈에 대한 토론을 전혀 거부하며, 그것들이 주어지지 않은 방법 등을 주장하는 모든 주장을 무시한다.하지만 그것은 여기서 관련이 없다. 이것은 단지 이 사람이 함께 일하기 매우 어려운 사람이라는 것을 보여주는 것이다.

이것은 꽤 오랫동안 진행되어 왔고 그는 이전에 비슷한 사건으로 하원에서 차단되었다.그 모욕은 또한 위키미디어 커먼즈에서 일어난 매우 고약한 사건이었기 때문에 제도에서 제거되어야만 했다.

나는 그러한 인신공격으로부터 보호를 구한다.--2포트나이트 (대화) 09:46, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

첫째, 나는 나의 부적절한 언어에 대해 간곡하게 미안하고 사과한다. 나는 내가 미래에 더 예의 바르고 침착하게 의사소통을 할 것을 보장한다.그러나 나는 투포트나이트의 소위 POV 편집에 대한 발표와 토론을 거부하는 것에 반대한다.사실, 내 편집은 위키백과의 정책에 맞는 적절한 출처를 가지고 있지만 그는 단지 인식하지 못한다.게다가 토론에 적극적으로 참여하지만 투포트나이트의 부정적인 태도 때문에 토론이 원활히 진행되지 못하는 경우도 있어 가끔 화가 난다.전반적으로 인신공격은 어떤 이유로도 용납될 수 없는 것으로 알고 있으며 앞으로 행동에 더욱 신경을 쓰겠지만 이번 사건은 고립되어 별도의 보호가 필요하지 않다고 생각한다. --심장 10:13, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자의 주의를 위해, 동일한 사용자가 (사과 및 약속) 전에 같은 말을 했다 - [14].그러니 그것은 분명히 차단을 피하기 위해 한 부정한 사과고 그는 멈출 생각이 없다.위의 사과문 옆에 그는 내가 그의 행동을 유발한다고 주장하지만, A의원은 이미 편집한 내용을 분석한 결과 "이러한 이유가 없다"는 것을 발견했다.-투포트나이트 (대화) 10:19, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

2박 2일, 번역기 없이도 벌써 그 언어를 유창하게 읽었니?-맨드러스 인터뷰 10:26, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

신경 쓰지 마, 이제 네가 그렇지 않다는 걸 알게 됐어.
전에도 말했지만, 이것은 영어 위키백과고 인신공격은 모두 영어로 되어 있어야 한다. (그건 풍자적인 유머야, 그건 그렇고)2일 밤 동안, 만약 당신이 다른 방법으로 횡설수설하는 소음 캐릭터들을 번역하려는 노력을 하지 않았다면 당신은 모욕감을 느끼지 않았을 것이다.그것은 마치 당신이 모욕을 당하고 ANI 불평을 제기할 이유를 찾는 것 같았다.나는 여기서 빨리 끝내는 것이 좋다.-Mandrusslip 10:31, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

번역은 내가 줬다는 메모만 남기고.내 번역에 이상이 있다면 투포트나이트의 잘못이 아니다.또한 Special 편집 요약:Diff/748721461 역시 대단히 부적절하다. (필요하다면 나는 이것에 대한 번역을 제공할 수 있다.)중국어의 다른 편집 요약은 Special을 포함하여 동일한 이슈를 가질 수 있다.Diff/736992025 그러나 이것은 동음이의 과다한 사용으로 더 이해하기 어렵다. --Zhuyifei1999 (토크) 11:26, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워!나도 못 봤는데, 패턴이 보여서 이 계좌를 막아야 할 것 같아. 분명히 그만두지 않을 거야.또한 요약 편집이 아닌 요약 편집은 대화 페이지에 댓글보다 삭제하기 어려운 모욕적인 글을 게시하는 플랫폼에 불과하므로 시스템에서 삭제해 줄 것을 간청한다.--2fortnights (대화) 11:37, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 네가 돌아다니며 그것이 단지 외국어로 되어 있다는 이유만으로 상관없는 것으로 간주되는 모욕적인 행동을 할 수는 없다고 거의 확신한다.편집 요약이 외국어로 되어 있고 편집 요약에 무엇이 들어 있는지 알고 싶어서(정확히 정상인지 아닌지?) 노력만 할 수밖에 없었다.내게 비열한 모욕을 주려는 것뿐이야어느 쪽이든 편집 요약은 전혀 편집 요약이 아니기 때문에 삭제해야 한다.--2fortnights (대화) 10:54, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

맨드루스는 여기서 조금만이라도 AGF를 원하니, 아니면 아니니; 마치 당신이 모욕당하고 ANI 불평을 제기할 이유를 찾는 것 같았다. 난 여기서 빨리 끝내는 게 좋아. - 아, 그럼 내가 네가 이해하지 못할 언어로 너를 모욕해도 괜찮겠니?그게 공정한 게임이야?그것은 OP나 나 같은 대부분의 다른 편집자들을 위한 것이 아니다.어떤 종류의 논평은 결코 용납될 수 없다.이것은 그러한 유형들 중 하나였고 사용된 언어는 관련이 없다.게다가, 이것은 순전히 NPA가 되기 위한 NPA였다.문맥이 없는 의도적인 의도적인 공격이었다 - 편집을 보면, 이것은 편집-전쟁을 격분시키지 않았고, 공격적 논평과 함께 불필요한 공간을 제거하기 위한 일반적인 사소한 편집이었다.Whisper는 무례한 댓글을 남기기 전에는 그 페이지를 편집한 적이 없었다.그것은 두 가지 다른 이슈, 가능한 WP를 제기한다.괴롭힘 및 WP:SLOK(사용자가 비자 정책 페이지에서 정기적으로 편집함).Mr rndude (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 11:31 [응답]

나는 전적으로 반대한다.이것은 개인적인 공격이고 위키피디아의 예의범절에 대한 정책에 절대적으로 반대한다.그것이 다른 언어로 되어 있다는 사실은 절대적으로 무관하며 단순히 그 사실만으로 기각되거나 할인되어서는 안 된다.~오슈와~^{(talk) (contribs)} 2016년 11월 22일 04:54 (UTC)[응답]

나는 적절한 제재를 지지한다.나는 사용자의 Talk 페이지에 나쁜 행동에 대한 이전의 경고를 몇 개 적어두었다.여러 편집자가 발행한 것, OP뿐만 아니라 (그 이후 모두 백지화되었다.) ...리치 (안녕) 10:52, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 영어 위키백과에서 편집자들 사이의 어떤 상호 작용에서도 외국어의 사용에 반대하는 규칙을 확실히 지지할 것이다.우리 모두가 같은 언어를 말할 때 명확한 의사소통은 충분히 어렵다.경고 후 규칙 위반은 중단으로 차단할 수 있어야 한다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 11시 3분, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

사실, 나는 WP에서 그러한 규칙을 제안하고 싶다.지금 VPP, 하지만 다른 댓글은 기다릴게.그것은 나에게 전혀 중요하지 않은 것 같다.그것은 의사소통을 용이하게 할 것이고, 이것은 때때로 이것과 같은 ANI의 불평을 종식시킬 것이다.규칙 변경뿐만 아니라 새로운 경고 템플릿이 필요할 것이다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 11시 30분, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

WP가 있다.SPEACKENGLISH 그러나 그것은 단지 대화 페이지만을 가리킨다.템플릿도 있다.우잉글리.사라지2177 (대화) 11시 43분, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워그런 다음 편집자 간의 모든 커뮤니케이션을 포함하도록 템플릿을 수정하고, 경고 후 차단할 수 있도록 정책(WP:DE?)을 적절히 수정하겠다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 11시 48분, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 영어 이외의 언어의 사용을 전면적으로 금지하는 것에 반대할 것이다.우선, 만약 우리가 제한된 영어 구사 능력을 가진 편집자들이 있다면, 모국어를 말하는 사람들이 개입할 수 있는 것은 매우 도움이 될 수 있다 - 그리고 나는 그 접근법이 수년 동안 매우 효과적이라는 것을 보아왔다.나는 또한 편집자들이 때때로 선의로 대인관계 대화를 하고 백과사전을 만드는 데 도움을 줄 수 있을 때 다른 언어를 사용하는 것에 어떤 문제도 없다고 본다.보잉! 제베디(토크)는 2016년 11월 21일(UTC) 11시 49분에 말했다[응답하라]

편집자가 영어의 제한된 명령어를 가지고 있다면, 그들은 왜 영어 위키백과를 편집하고 있는가?영어를 배우는 방법으로는?영어를 오프위키(of-wiki)로 배우는 데는 더 적절하고 효과적인 방법이 있다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 11시 52분, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 영어를 잘 못하는 많은 사람들이 약간의 도움을 받아 이곳에서 매우 건설적으로 기여하는 것을 보아왔다.사실, 나는 영어가 서툴렀던 편집자들을 위해 직접 복사 편집을 해 보았는데, 그 협업이 백과사전에 확실히 도움이 되었다.보잉! 제베디(토크)는 2016년 11월 21일(UTC) 11시 55분에 말했다[응답하라]

나는 여기서 Boing의 말에 동의해야 해, 이것은 기사나 기사 토크 페이지뿐만 아니라 다른 위키 페이지에서도 유용할 수 있지만, 다른 언어에서의 의사소통을 포괄할 이유는 없어.특히 사용자 및 사용자 대화 페이지에는 해당되지 않음.Mr rndude (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 11시 54분 (응답)

좋아, 그럼 여기 피고인이 그들이 어떤 규칙을 위반하고 있다는 것을 알고 있는지 의문이 드는군.미래에는 WP에서 다음과 같은 것이 있을 수 있다.NPA는 그 문제를 해결할 것이지만, 그것은 이 불평에 도움이 되지 않을 것이다.우리는 또한 이것이 관련 당사자들에 따라 크게 일관성이 없는 PA 바를 명확하게 하는지에 대한 의문을 가지고 있다.그리고 위키백과 행동 정책을 일반적으로 시행하지 못하는 빈번한 행정 실패의 광범위한 문제.-Mandrusslip 12:04, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

물론이지, 하지만 그 언어는 정말 관련이 없어.우리는 코멘트가 있었고, 그것은 문제가 있는 것으로 확인되었으며, 그것은 마치 영어로 된 것처럼 (어떤 판단 기반 시스템이 항상 그렇듯이) 통상적으로 일관되지 않은 방식으로 처리되었다.보잉! 제베디(토크)는 2016년 11월 21일(UTC) 12시 10분에 말했다[응답하라]

좋아, 평소처럼 일해.나는 철수한다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 12시 12분, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 비일관성의 문제와 우리가 행동 정책을 시행하기는커녕 제대로 정의조차 하지 못한 것에 대해 동정심이 없다는 것을 덧붙여야 할 것이다. 하지만 지난 몇 년간 그렇게 많은 노력을 한 것을 본 후, 나는 정말로 우리가 어떻게 사물을 개선할 수 있는지에 대해 전혀 알지 못했다. (다른 포럼을 위한 것이라고 추측하지만)보잉! 제베디(토크)는 2016년 11월 21일(UTC) 12시 53분에 말했다[응답하라]

음.. 답장해주면 철회할 수 없어..ㅋㅋ그것은 나에게 그렇게 복잡해 보이지 않는다.WP:BATtleground(예를 들어)의 정신은 상당히 명확하고 단순하며, 그 정신의 위반을 제재하기 위해 교전규칙이 없는 일주일간의 전면적인 재판이 필요해서는 안 된다.내가 보기에, 만약 관리자가 그런 전화를 제대로 걸 수 없다면, 그들은 관리자로서의 사업이 없다.중요한 것은 관리자들이 그러한 경우에 그들의 판단에 대한 공격에 대해 대체로 면역이 되어야 한다는 것이다. 그리고 그들은 그렇지 않다.이것을 고치는 것은 어렵지 않고, 그러한 변화에 대한 정치적 장애물이며, 그것이 바로 자치체제의 결과인 것이다.나의 궁극적인 입장은 (1) WMF 개입이 필요한 것 같고, (2) 그 문제는 난해하기 쉬우니 토론하는 데 시간을 낭비하지 말아야 한다.맞아, 다른 포럼을 위해서야.-맨드러스 인터뷰 13:05, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 보잉의 말에 동의해!라고 제베디가 말했다.기사나 공개토론은 영어로 써야 하는 반면 외국어로 편집하고 소통하는 것은 전혀 문제가 없는 상황이 많다.그의 예는 완벽하다.만약 두 명의 편집자가 그들의 토크 페이지 중 하나에 기대어 서로 잡담만 하고 대화가 일상적인 것이라면, 그리고 정책 등에 반대하지 않는다면, 내가 정말로 거기에 뛰어들어 "이봐, 영어를 말해! 다른 언어를 사용하는 것은 금지야!"라고 말할 수 있는 정직하고 정당한 권리는 무엇일까?이러한 금지의 제정이 얼마나 끔찍한 발상일 뿐만 아니라 정말로 어리석은 일인가를 보여주는 많은 사례들 중 하나이다:-) ~오슈와~^{(talk) (contribs)}05:04, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

• 요약 편집에 대한 코멘트는 정말 불쾌했다.공격 규모로는 9/10으로 봐야 한다.안나 프로데시아크 (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 11시 58분 [응답]

• 레브델이 현명한가?RD2는 엄청나게 모욕적인 코멘트를 다루고 있지 않은가?Mr rndude (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12:00[응답]

아니. 그건 그 범주에 있지 않아.그것은 심하게 모욕적인 것은 아니지만 심각한 공격이다.안나 프로데시아크 (토크) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12시 2분[응답]

세컨드.~오슈와~^{(talk) (contribs)} 2016년 11월 22일 04:50 (UTC)[응답]

단지 알려드리자면, 나는 중국어를 모국어로 읽는 사람이 아니기 때문에 개인적으로 판단하기가 어렵다.하지만 나는 지금 중국에 있고 중국사람들에게 둘러싸여 있고 그들은 그것을 읽는다.합의는 9/10이다.안나 프로데시아크 (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12:00[응답]

중국어 원어민들로부터 의견을 받아줘서 고마워 - 그것을 바탕으로 편집 요약본을 아주 불쾌하게 다시 삭제했어.보잉! 제베디(토크) 12:03, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 미안, 9/10이 충분히 가까운 것 같다고 덧붙이려고 했는데;-) 보잉! 제베디(토크) 12:08, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

걱정마, 친구.:) Anna Frodesiak (대화) 12:16, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[답글]

난 괜찮아.비난은 불합리하지 않다.안나 프로데시아크 (토크) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12시 5분[응답]

Anna Frodesiak 고마워.[15]와 [16] 위의 [주이페이1999]에 의해 제기된 다른 두 개의 모욕도 범주에 속할 것인가?---투포트나이트 (대화) 12:10, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

[17]은 우리에게 이치에 맞지 않는 것 같고 [18]은 공격 척도로 볼 때 9.5/10이다.안나 프로데시아크 (토크) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12시 15분[응답]

구글 번역은 도움이 되지 않는다.후자 diff는 개 사료에 대해 말한다.환자 제로^talk 12:18, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

GT가 도움이 된다면, 여기에 전자에 대한 문자 그대로의 번역이 있다.당신이 붙이는 시스템, 당신은 당신의 몸에 인치를 붙이지 않고 벽에 당기는 시스템?환자 제로^talk 2016년 11월 21일(UTC) 12:19[응답]

Homophones are used here: 制杖 => 智障, 拔拔 => 爸爸."你身到墙墙呢？？"에 뚜렷한 의미가 없음 --Zhuyifei1999 (토크) 12:28, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 주이페이1999 - 그럼 여기서 revdel이 적절하다는 것을 좀 더 말이 된다.환자제로^talk 2016년 11월 21일(UTC) 12시 30분[응답]

이건 마치 "머리 좀 그만 부딪쳐, 멍청아"와 같은 느낌이야.--아우릭 토크 12:52, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

음, 환자야, 중국어가 중국어를 읽는 건 말이 안 돼.여기서 구글 번역이 왜 도움이 되겠어?Mr.rndude (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12시 20분[응답]

당신은 Mr. Rndude를 결코 알지 못할 것이다 - 아마도 누군가가 편집 요약이 정말로 문자 그대로의 번역으로 불쾌했는지 아닌지를 확인할 수 있을 것이다.뭐라도, 나 자신도 그것에 대해 너무 확신하지는 않지만, 나는 언어에 대한 아주 기본적인 명령어밖에 가지고 있지 않다.환자 제로^talk 12:24, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 동음이의어인 문자를 사용하고 있기 때문에 번역 소프트웨어가 어렵다.안나 프로데시아크 (토크) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12:26 [응답]

해명해줘서 고마워, 안나 프로데시아크환자 제로^talk 12:28, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

번역에서 그 논평은 확실히 모욕처럼 보인다.편집 요약을 만든 편집자도 용서하지 않을 거야그러나 대부분의 비중국인 독자들은 실제로 그 모욕을 받으려면 꽤 많은 노력을 해야 할 것이다.그리고 그때까지도, 한 사람은 궁금하게 남는다 - 이것이 어떤 순한 중국 관용/속담의 일종인가?그 모욕의 영향의 대부분은 엔위키의 대부분의 사용자들에게 완전히 손실된다.그냥 말하는 거야.마르티네반스123(토크)

어느 것이요?"지체적인" 논평, 개밥 하나, 아니면 아무 말도 안 되는 사람?Mr rndude (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12:44[응답]

셋 다?물론 원문 중국어로.보기 어려운 곳에 세 개가 있다.개밥이 나를 빠져나갔음에 틀림없다.마르티네반스123 (대화) 13:46, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:심장은 누구야, 이 모든 일로 인해 차단되지 않는다면, 다시는 그런 글을 쓰지 마, 알았지?우리는 예의를 지켜야 한다.그것은 여기서 정말 중요하다.넌 여기 온 걸 환영하지만, 그런 건 없어, 알았지?안나 프로데시아크 (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 12시 17분 [응답]

이 사용자는 이전에 하원에서 사과와 약속을 한 후 지금까지 여러 번 배운 바와 같이 여기서 증오를 퍼뜨리려 했다는 점에 유의하십시오.심지어 여기에서의 유일한 반응에서도 그는 그것이 고립된 사건이고 내가 그를 화나게 했기 때문이라고 주장한다. (사실 그것은 그가 그 기사에서 처음으로 편집한 것이었기 때문에, 그는 단지 하나의 여분의 공간을 제거했을 뿐이고 우리 모두가 보아왔던 것처럼 이것은 확실히 고립되지 않았다.)나는 블록이 순서가 될 것이라고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 내가 앙심을 품고 있기 때문이 아니라, 이것은 이미 사용자가 사용하지 못한 두 번째 기회이기 때문이다.비록 중국어로 직접적인 모욕이 멈추더라도 다른 수단을 통해서만 더 이상의 괴롭힘을 기대할 수 있을 것 같다.--투포트나이트 (대화) 12:45, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그럴 만도 하군.마르티네반스123 (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 14:13, 21 (UTC) 내가 흔쾌히 번역을 거절할 나의 토크 페이지에서는 어떤 중국인의 여분의 모욕도 환영한다.[답답하다]

호모포니아는 위키피디아에서 용납되지 않을 것이다.씽캣(토크) 23:10, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

응, 하지만 넌 왜 인버트가 공공장소에서 오럴 섹스를 할 때 사람들이 화를 내는지 알 수 있어.EENG 02:00, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

@Two Fortnights:, @Anna Frodesiak: 그리고 이 토론에서 나는 나의 행동이 다른 사람들을 불쾌하게 만들고 위키백과에서는 매우 부적절하다는 것을 깨달았다.나는 에티켓에 따르고 앞으로 개인적인 행동은 피하겠다.이번에도 부적절한 언어사용에 대해 다시 한 번 죄송스럽게 생각한다. --심장 01:00, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

안녕 심장의 속삭임알았어 이해해줘서 고마워나는 너를 막지 않을 것이다.다른 사람들이 원한다면, 그것은 그들의 선택이다.내 견해는 네가 앞으로 하지 말아야 할 것을 이해한다는 것이다.당신은 이 프로젝트의 한 부분으로 남기를 원한다.너는 그 공동체의 건설적인 구성원으로 계속 나아갈 것이다.필요한 것이 있거나 궁금한 것이 있으면 물어 보십시오.고마워, 그리고 행복한 편집.안나 프로데시아크 (대화) 02:47, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

마음의 위스퍼러, 시간을 내어 이곳에 와서 당신의 행동에 대해 사과하고 그것이 적절한 행동이 아니었다는 것을 인정해 줘서 고맙다.그것은 매우 심각한 인신공격이었고 나는 당신이 그렇게 했을 때 이것이 용납될 수 없는 행동이라는 것을 알고 있었다고 확신하지만, 나는 당신의 사과를 인정하고 당신이 위키피디아의 행동지침을 따르고 앞으로도 이와 같은 행동을 자제할 것이라는 당신의 진술을 붙잡을 것이다.이 인정 때문에, 나는 안나 프로데시아크의 결정을 지지할 것이다.제발 다시는 이런 일이 일어나지 않게 해줘; 위키피디아의 긍정적인 구축과 개선과 일맥상통하는 목표를 가진 편집자에게 기대되는 기질과 행동이 아니다.누군가에게 말할 필요가 있거나, 질문이 있거나 도움이 필요한 경우, 또는 멘토가 당신을 정상 궤도에 올려놓기를 원한다면, 당신은 내게 온 것을 환영하며 내가 당신을 도울 것이다.~오슈와~^{(talk) (contribs)} 2016년 11월 22일 05:15 (UTC)[응답]

개밥은 吔 캐릭터 때문에 말이 안 된다.주로 이것이 남방 사투리, 특히 주하이 지방에 해당하기 때문이다.'먹는다'는 뜻이다.그 중 일부는 등장인물들이 사용되는 방식 때문에 말이 안 되는 것 같다.그것들은 구어체의 서면 형태인데 그렇지 않으면 실제로 형식적인 성격을 지니지 못할 것이다.이것은 남부 광둥어의 꽤 특징적이다.기본적으로 '개 사료'는 '집에 가서 개 사료를 먹어라, 이 개새끼야'라고 되어 있다.

또 다른 광동어적 특징은 일반적인 용법이 이해되기 때문에 말할 필요가 없는 문자를 삭제하여 문장을 단축시키는 것이다.你寸到墙呢에게 그것은 느슨하게 "담보다 넓어?" 또는 심지어 "집보다 뚱뚱해?"를 의미하기도 한다.전체 문장은 你材尺達到墙 = = = =에 가까울 것이다 = "몸의 치수가 벽보다 크다"이 예에서 身材寸은 身寸로 약칭하였다.身材은 형상을 의미하지만 身은 몸을 의미하며 기본적으로 같은 뜻을 가지고 있다.尺寸은 말 그대로 " familiar- provided" 또는 측정을 의미하는데, 두 가지 모두 사투리에 익숙하다면, """자를 제거하는 측정과 관련이 없기 때문이다.이 때문에 GT는 전체 표현을 사용하지 않는 한 광둥어와 함께 사용할 수 없다.블랙매인 (대화) 02:33, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

고도의 기술 주제에 대한 간략한 페이지 시리즈

고도로 전문화된 기술 주제에 관한 것처럼 보이지만 링크나 심지어 문맥이 전혀 없는 새로운 편집자들의 최근 페이지들이 쏟아져 나왔다.회전 링의 응력, 방사선에 대한 공간 저항, 밸브 타이밍 다이어그램, 컴퓨터 제어 기능 등을 참조하십시오.창조된 후에 버려진 것처럼 보이기 때문에 어떻게 해야 할지 전혀 확실하지 않다.왠지 숙제가 된 것 같다. --버논씨(토크) 16:15, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이건 일종의 학교 프로젝트 같은데위에서 언급한 기사들은 모두 저작권 침해로 삭제되었다.이러한 페이지를 더 많이 찾으면 저작권 문제를 확인하고 초기 작성자에게 이 토론을 알리십시오.De728631 (대화) 16:40, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워. 여러 번 그렇게 해도 바로 찾을 수는 없지만, 아마 교과서에서 베낀 것일 거야.고급 자동화 기능, 디퍼렌셜 이동성 분광계를 참조하십시오. --Mr. 버논(토크) 17:00, 2016년 11월 20일(UTC)[응답]

그리고 이것은 지금 터무니없는 것이 되어가고 있다.서로 다른 계정에서 온 사람들이지만 분명히 연결되어 있는 지금 그들은 미친 듯이 튀어 나오고 있다. --버논 (대화)19:12, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 확실히 하자면, 이것들은 모두/대부분 주목할 만한 주제인 것 같다.만약 누군가가 우리가 그 근원으로 돌아가는 방법을 알아낼 수 있다면, 그리고 그 근원을 패러프한 짧은 짧은 스텁이라도 환영할 것이라고 설명할 수 있다면, 그것은 정말 좋을 것이다.EENG 20:20, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]
• 일부 최신 편집기 - 사용자:샹키누스 2016eps, 사용자:야다브.abhi, 사용자:Dpkanjo, 사용자:AMIT KUMAR9084114320, 사용자:오베싱헤케모리야, 그건 지난 몇 시간 동안 일어난 일이야.어떻게든 수사를 개시해서 이 범위를 차단할 수 있을까?개별 사용자를 차단하는 것은 새로운 계정을 계속 만들기 때문에 도움이 되지 않고, 페이지를 보호하는 것은 기사 제목을 계속 변경하기 때문에 도움이 되지 않는다. --버논씨(토크) 07:33, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]
• WP에 SPI가 있다.Sockpuppet 조사/Sivam268(이것이 수업 과제라는 의견이 있는 경우)아마 강사가 책 속의 물건으로 페이지를 만들라고 했을 것이다.몇몇은 카피비오뿐만 아니라 A10이 들어온 대상이었다.페리돈 (대화) 2016년 11월 22일 12시 19분 (UTC)[응답]

하나의 되돌리기 규칙은 아티클 대신 사용자를 보호하는 것이다.

2A1ZA (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

안녕하십니까, 로자바의 인권이라는 기사는 시리아 내전에 대한 일반적인 제재를 받고 있다.그 기사는 로자바라는 곳에 위반 사항을 열거하고 있다는 것을 암시하고 있어, 지리적 범위를 가지고 있다.이 범위는 오랜 논의 끝에 로자바(Rojava)의 창시자들에 의해 지배되는 토지로서 합의되었다.

기사가 완전히 보호되자 사용자 2A1ZA는 논란의 여지가 있는 단락과 범위를 벗어나 삽입할 것을 요청했지만 관리자는 그에게 합의를 보라고 말했다.그러한 합의는 이루어지지 않았고 그 후 보호가 종료되었고 2A1ZA는 더 이상 관리자에게 그를 위해 편집을 요청할 필요가 없다는 말을 들었다.사용자는 마치 관리자가 자신의 편집을 기사에 삽입할 수 있다고 말하는 것처럼 이것을 이해했다.오늘, 2A1ZA는 편집 요약에서 관리자가 권한을 부여했다는 것을 암시하는 단락을 삽입했다.

단일 되돌리기 규칙은 특정 기사의 범위 밖에서 편집자를 보호하는가?

한 번 되돌리는 규칙이 어떻게 이런 행동을 멈추게 할 것인가?그것은 2A1ZA에게만 이익이 된다.그는 논쟁의 여지가 있는 편집들을 합의도 없고 토론도 없이 삽입하고 있으며, 원리턴 규칙 뒤에 숨어 있다.편집 전쟁으로 인한 피해는 완벽하게 이해하지만, 이 기준만 여기 있는 겁니까?편집 전쟁이 멈추기만 하면 그가 원하는 것은 무엇이든 할 수 있다고?위키피디아가 어떻게 되어가고 있는지 이해하는데 도움을 줘.왜냐하면 내가 볼 수 있는 것은 편집자가 규칙을 이용할 수 있다는 것이다.앞으로는 공감대도, 대화 페이지도 없이 자신이 좋아하는 것을 삽입하고 원편집 규칙 뒤에 숨어버릴 것이다.그의 편집은 기사의 합의와 범위에 어긋나지만, 그는 그것을 간직할 수 있고 다른 사람들은 그것을 토크 페이지에 가져가야 할 사람들이다!!--attar-아람 시리아 (대화) 12:06, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

아타르-아람 시리아에게, 기사 토크 페이지의 편집 관련 토론 내용을 읽어보십시오.그리고 당신이 여기서 주장하는 "합의"는 그 글의 제2절("시리아 내전군과의 인권 문제")의 범위를 근본적으로 좁히고자 하는 바램에 대해, 당신들이 좋아하는 시리아 내전 당사자들의 인권침해를 단순히 배제하는 터무니없는 방식으로, 존재하지 않는다.당신은 RFC에 대해 이야기할 때, 당신의 견해를 강요하기 위해 말하고, 그 기사의 범위를 근본적으로 좁히고자 하는 당신의 욕구에 맞지 않는 그 2절의 많은 요소들을 내버려둘 때, 암묵적으로 인정한다.기사토크 페이지에서 건설적인 선의의 토론을 진행하거나, 그 의견이 마음에 들면 말하는 RFC를 개시하십시오. -- 2A1ZA (토크) 12:43, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그 토론은 내가 외웠다.당신을 제외한 모든 편집자들은 매우 큰 범위가 용납될 수 없다는 것에 동의했다.로자바는 비역사적인 지역이고 특정 영토는 해당 지역을 병합한 후에만 "로자바"가 되기 때문에 실제 범위는 논리적이다.어쨌든 당신이 삽입한 이 단락은 논란의 여지가 있었고 범위와 상관없이 아무런 공감대가 없었다.관리자 답변에서 먼저 공감대를 얻어야 한다는 것을 알 수 있다.--attar-아람 시리아 (대화) 12:47, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:1RR은 다른 사람이 한 번 편집을 하거나, 다른 사람이 한 번 편집을 취소하는 것을 막지 않는다.그것이 이전에 합의를 보지 못했다는 것은 합의를 얻기 위해 논의를 계속하는 것이 올바른 방법이라는 좋은 증거다.DMACKs (대화) 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC) 12:32, 응답

DMACks에게, 오늘 아침 바로 같은 기사에, 아타-아람 시리아는 다시 한번 합의 없이, 그리고 나의 분명한 반대에도 불구하고 FSA 고문 비디오의 기존 단락을 삭제했다. 여기를 참조하라. 그리고 기사 역사를 비교하라.논의 중인 해당 단락도 복원해 주시겠습니까? -- 2A1ZA (대화) 12:53, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

"다시 한 번"이 아니라, 마지막 되돌리기가 40시간이 넘었기 때문에 나는 되돌릴 수 있는 능력 안에 있었다.나는 11월 18일 10:14에 처음으로 되돌아갔다.오늘, 나는 40시간 혹은 그 이상 후에 두 번째 복귀를 했다.그가 말하는 단락은 다른 사용자가 삭제하고, 내가 지지한 것으로, 기사의 범위를 벗어나서 토크 페이지에서 논의되었다.합의된 내용은 삭제(2대 1)로 기사의 범위를 기준으로 했다.--attar-아람 시리아 (대화) 12:57, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

콘텐츠가 잠시 존재했다면 "제거"는 편집이며, "재삽입"은 해당 콘텐츠의 첫 번째 실행 취소다.내용이 매우 불쾌하거나 완전히 불쾌하지 않다고 가정할 때, 기존의 현 상태는 계속 논의될 때까지 남아 있어야 한다.30-40시간의 시간은 "장기/상태 쿼터"를 입증하기에 충분하지 않으며, 특히 장기간 논란이 되는 주제에 대해서는 더욱 그러하다.그리고 WP:1RR의 어떤 부분도 40시간의 시간 간격 동안 >24h...편집-전쟁 때마다 되돌릴 수 있는 라이선스는 특정 시간 간격에서 문자 그대로 1RR만큼 차단될 가능성이 없다.DMACks (대화) 13:01, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

DMACKs, 그 단락은 오랜 시간이 흘렀지만, 나는 그 규칙이 문자 그대로라고 생각했다: 24시간마다.좋아, 난 지금 새로운 기사를 쓰고 있어. 여기 봐.그런 이유로 나는 막힐 여유가 없다.내 자신을 되돌리는 것이 위반을 피하기 위한 좋은 방법이 될까?--아타-아람 시리아 (대화) 13:13, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

DMACks에게, 해당 단락은 오랫동안 올라와 있었고, 10월 말에 완전한 보호를 받는 동안 기사의 일부였던 것이 분명해, 여기를 봐.지금 복직하시겠습니까? -- 2A1ZA (대화) 13:15, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 내 자신을 되돌렸다(기사의 범위 밖이지만).-아랍-아람 시리아 (대화) 13:33, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이 두 사용자 사이의 논쟁은 최근 SPI에서 첨예하게 되었는데, 나는 아타-아람 시리아에게 포럼 쇼핑에 관한 에세이를 읽으라고 충고했다.이들은 이미 지난 9월 이전 ANI 스레드에서 2A1ZA를 차단하려 했으나 원하는 답을 얻지 못했고, 한 달 뒤 SPI에서 같은 증거를 시도했다.이 새로운 실상은 같은 논쟁의 연속이다. 만약 그것이 더 이상 계속된다면, 주제 금지에 대해 논의하기 시작하는 것이 불합리하다고 생각하지 않는다.이 논쟁의 어느 쪽으로부터도 공통점을 찾기 위한 논의에는 관심이 없는 것 같다. 다만 그들이 선호하는 버전으로 계속 되돌아가기 위해 규칙을 조작할 뿐이다.이반벡터 (/)^Talk_Edits 15:11, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Ivanvector, 그건 쇼핑이 아니었고, 당신은 증거를 요구했고, IP는 내가 그것을 가지고 있는 동안 없었고, 그것은 매우 강력한 것이었고, 나는 여전히 그것이 어떻게 처리되었는지 믿을 수 없다.어쨌든 이것은 논쟁의 연속이 아니라 1rr의 역할에 관한 것이다.내가 원하는 결과를 " 얻는" 것에 대해서는, 적어도 9월의 경우를 보고 나에게 의심스러운 것은 아무것도 없었다고 말해줄 수 있는가! 만약 내가 부정행위를 암시하는 것을 본다면, 나는 그것에 대해 말할 것이고 내가 원하는 결과를 추구하거나 게임을 했다는 비난을 받을까 두려워 입을 다물지 않을 것이다.BTW, 이 사건은 네가 코멘트를 하기 전에 해결되었어.또한 9월 사건에서 같은 증거를 사용했다고 했을 때 허위 정보가 들어있었으므로 당신의 코멘트를 검토해 보라고 조언한다.네가 말하는 증거가 9월에 존재하지 않아서 나는 그것을 하지 않았어.가장 중요한 것은, 이것은 단지 나와 편집자만이 아니다; 다른 많은 사람들이 그를 보고했고, 단지 그의 토크 페이지를 따라가면 알게 될 것이다.참고: (내가 선호하는 버전을 얻기 위해 규칙을 연주한다고) 당신이 나를 비난한 것에 대해 논박하기 위해, 당신이 코멘트를 하기 전에 나의 마지막 답장을 읽으면, 당신은 내가 내 자신을 되돌리고 나의 선호하지 않는 버전을 다시 가져왔다는 것을 알게 될 것이다.아, 그리고 당신이 코멘트를 하기 전에, 나는 공통점을 찾기 위해 그의 토크 페이지에 있는 유저에게 접근했다. 여기(그래서 당신이 말한 모든 것이 정확하지 않다)--아타르-아람 시리아 (대화) 15:36, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

하나의 되돌리기 규칙은 아티클 대신 사용자를 보호하는 것이다.

아타르아람시리아 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

오늘 아침 아타르-아람 시리아는 로자바 기사의 인권에 관한 단락(FSA Jarabulus 고문 비디오)을 다시 한 번 삭제했다. 여기서 편집을 참조하라(국기 문제는 관련이 없으며, 이전에 되돌리기 편집과 잘못 제거되었다)는 것을 충분히 알고 있으면서, 명확하고 반대 의사를 표명할 만한 심각한 이유가 없다.실속이 있다내가 그 단락을 바로 전에 복직시켰기 때문에, 1RR 규칙은 내가 그 단락을 하루 동안 다시 설치하는 것을 금지한다.이 1RR 규정은 정말로 자신이 좋아하는 시리아 내전 당사자의 인권침해를 기사에서 임의로 삭제하려는 편집자를 보호해야 할까?이 단락은 논의 중 복권되어야 하는가? -- 2A1ZA (대화) 13:07, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

위와 같은 주장을 반복하는 것이어서 내 답변도 위와 같다.--아타르-아람 시리아 (대화) 13:24, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

설명:혼란스러운 사람은 누구나.이것이 바로 이 보고서를 열었던 것, 방금 번복한 것, 아타르가 (여기서 일어났던 것과 같은) 반대쪽이 아니라 2A를 부르려고 했던 것이다.MM(WhatIDO WHATIDO?)^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 21:05, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답하라]

더 반짝반짝 헛소리

네드디1234(대화·기여)는 2016년 결과를 알래스카 대선 표에 추가했다.이것은 Molgania677 (토크 · 기여)이 보일러 판 편집 요약 "Unsourced"와 함께 Twinkle을 사용하여 편집한 이 편집에서 되돌렸다.물론 늦은 시간까지 백과사전에 이 선거와 관련된 쓰레기 양이 더해져 믿을 만한 출처가 없는 것에 기인하는 것도 끝이 없기 때문에 나는 헛소리 냄새를 맡았고 매그놀리아의 편집을 되짚어 헛소리를 불렀다.내 편집은 여기서 "원본 없이 이 데이터를 추가하지 마십시오. WP:프로밋.동의하지 않으면 대화 페이지에서 토론하십시오."트윙클에 관한 한 어떤 사람들은 정보 자원 구축에 실질적인 노력을 기울이기 보다는 낮은 열매를 따는 것을 즐길 때 그러한 전문가라는 것은 훌륭하지만, 대본이 어떤 상식을 행사하는 대신에 어떻게 그리고 언제 위키피디아를 편집해야 하는지를 지시하도록 하는 것은 그 프로젝트를 죽일 뿐이라는 것은 명백하다.종국에 가서는우리가 여기서 주목할 만한 주제에 대한 백과사전적인 정보를 제공하러 왔는지 아니면 단지 특정한 출처를 반복하기 위해 왔는지에 대한 측면도 있지만, 나는 그 주장을 나중에 하는 편이 낫겠다.

나의 편집 요약을 보면 목련의 이론이 많이 틀렸다는 것을 알 수 있어, 나는 아까 내가 얼마 안 되는 자유시간 동안 주위를 샅샅이 뒤졌다.우선, 이것을 시작한 편집은 부적절하다.알래스카 선거부 홈페이지 홈페이지는 페이지 상단에 '비공식 선거 결과'를 눈에 띄게 언급하고 있다.이것은 이 결과들이 예비적이고 인증되지 않았다는 것을 의미하며, 이것은 더 나아가 어느 시점에서 수정되어야 한다는 것을 의미한다.여기서 그 특정한 관습이 일어났던 오랜 역사가 있고 그것이 낙담되고 있는 증거가 없기 때문에, 나는 무슨 말을 해야 할지 잘 모르겠다.내가 말했듯이 테이블 전체가 비식량이다.2008년 9월부터 이 기사에 존재했으며, 전 기간 동안 소스가 되지 않았다.표를 추가한 편집 요약을 보면, 기사에 이미 존재했을 수도 있지만, 나는 그것을 추적할 시간이 없다.그 편집 요약본은 그 기사가 다른 미국 정부 기사와 일치하도록 복원되었음을 암시했다.다른 주정부 기사를 다 훑어보진 않았지만, 내가 본 대부분의 주정부 기사들은 비슷한 테이블을 가지고 있었고, 대부분 비협조적인 것들이었다.특히 관심 있는 것은 Massachusetts인데, GA도 마찬가지로 비소싱 테이블을 포함하고 있다.조달된 몇 안 되는 것은 데이브 렙의 미국 대통령 선거의 아틀라스였다.나는 이 웹사이트가 정말 신뢰할 수 있는 출처인지 아니면 다른 곳에서 신뢰할 수 있게 소싱될 수 있는 정보의 복잡하고 쉬운 결합인지 의심한다.미네소타는 대통령 선거뿐만 아니라 주지사 선거와 상원의원 선거의 역사적 선거 결과표가 수록되어 있으며, 그 윗자리에 라이프에게 출처가 있다.그 URL을 클릭하면 2016년 대선 결과만 언급되는 페이지가 나온다!분명히, 만약 여러분이 소싱에 대해 정말 걱정한다면, 그리고 다른 것은 아무것도 하지 않는다면, 이것은 여기 정말 지렁이 깡통이다.내가 편집 요약에서 꺼낸 두 번째 주요 이슈는 NPOV와 관련이 있다.이들 표의 대다수는 거대 양당에 대한 결과만을 제시한다.이것은 문제가 될 수 있는데, 특히 로스 페로트와 조지 월리스의 존경할 만한 혹은 심지어 국가별 총합이 테이블의 각주로 강등되거나 아예 언급조차 되지 않는 경우에 그러하다.해결책을 생각해 낼 수는 있지만, NPOV를 만족시킬 수 있을지는 잘 모르겠어.

이렇게 꼬치꼬치 캐묻는 과정에서 정말 눈길을 끈 것은 올해 초 네디의 토크 페이지에 이 공지였다.이 때문에 나는 매그놀리아가 네디의 편집본을 스토킹하고 있는지, 그리고 이것이 이 모든 것의 진짜 원인인지 궁금해하게 되었다.나는 이미 이 특정한 편집에 대한 소싱의 부족은 레드 청어라고 지적했고, 만약 당신이 그것을 심각하게 받아들인다면, 그것은 잘려진 경정맥에 아이의 붕대를 붙이는 것과 비슷할 것이다.어쨌든 이미 ANI에 대한 심경을 알렸기 때문에 이 부분을 다시 확인하러 올지 모르겠다.나는 단지 그 정보를 밖으로 내보내고 싶었다. 라디오KAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:50, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 이 광경을 계속 보고 있었지만 지금까지 노를 젓지 않았다.나의 관찰 내용은 다음과 같다.

• 선거 결과는 아직 검증되지 않았지만, 믿을 만한 소식통에 의해 경선이 소집되었다.
• 그래서 나는 만약 출처가 첨부된다면, 결과가 증명될 때 실제 총계가 추가될 것이라는 생각으로 그들을 포함시키는 것은 허용된다고 생각한다.
• 어쨌든, 나는 어떤 것도 해결할 수 있는 올바른 방법이 아닌 편집 요약에서 의견을 교환하는 것을 선호하면서, 어느 관련 당사자도 이것을 해결하기 위해 실제적인 논의를 시도하지 않았다는 것은 유감스러운 일이라고 생각한다.WP:BRD는 따르지 않았다.

비블브록스 (대화) 02:31, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

@RadioKAOS: - 내 감시자 명단에 미국 도시, 마을, 카운티 약 6,000개가 있는데, 지난 2주 동안 나는 출처 없이 선거 결과를 추가한 10여 명의 다른 편집자들을 돌려세웠다.어떤 경우에는 여기나 여기처럼 편집자의 토크 페이지에 메시지를 남겼어.필자도 시간을 들여 일부 편집자들이 추가한 비협조적인 선거 결과를 믿을 만한 소식통을 상대로 확인했고, 경우에 따라서는 정확하지 않은 경우도 있었다.이것이 아마도 WP:V가 위키피디아의 초석인 이유일 것이다.위에서 언급한 이 편집에서 당신은 기사의 토크 페이지에서 왜 당신이 알래스카 기사에 비협조적인 선거 결과가 추가되어야 한다고 느끼는지 설명해 달라는 정중하게 요청을 받았지만, 거기서 당신의 우려를 논하는 대신, 당신은 대신 여기에 왔다.게다가, 여기 편집 요약본은 외교의 반스타를 얻지는 못할 것이다.마지막으로, 당신은 내가 "정보자원 구축에 진정한 노력을 기울여야 한다"고 제안한다.지난 4년 동안 나는 37,032개의 편집을 했고 285개의 기사를 만들었다.사실 위키백과의 역사에서 나보다 더 많은 사랑, 사랑, 사랑, 사랑을 덧붙인 편집자는 없다.그러니 제발, 너무 건방지게 굴지 마.매그놀리아677 (대화) 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC) 17:02, 응답

아마 여기저기서 네 충고를 받아들여라.너보다 편집이 두 배 더 많은데, 어쩌지?이렇게 으스대는 것은 분명히 도움이 되지 않는다.비블브록스 (대화) 23:02, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

자존심은 내 친구를 우쭐거리게 하지 않는다.매그놀리아677 (대화) 00:49, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

이건 트윙클 문제가 아니야.트윙클이 존재하지 않았다면 매그놀리아677은 실행 취소 장치를 사용했을 것이다.만약 실행이 존재하지 않았다면 매그놀리아677은 수동으로 했을 것이다.이는 문제의 근원이 소스 없이 정보가 추가되었기 때문이다(WP:부담).네가 걱정하는 행동인데 왜 도구를 꺼내는 거야?넌 이게 그저 되돌리고 경고하는 걸 조금 더 쉽게 만드는 방법이라는 걸 알고 있지?그것은 허글이 당신에게 공공 기물 파손일 수도 있는 편집본을 보여주고 당신이 다음 줄에 설 수 있도록 되돌리도록 격려하는 것과는 다르다.clpo13_(talk) 00:56, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 적어도 여기서 문제의 일부는 일반적인 예의와 도구 사용이라고 믿는다.나는 새로운 편집자들이 편집한 내용이 '무소요'라는 간결한 코멘트로 삭제된 후 @Magnolia677:'토크 페이지에 대한 좌절감을 끊임없이 관찰하며, 매그놀리아677의 방법이 항상 효과적이라고는 생각하지 않는다.비록 매그놀리아677의 의도는 고귀하다고 확신하지만, 도구의 사용은 과정을 기계화하는 경향이 있고, 이러한 기계화는 적절한 대화와 인간의 협력을 저해한다.결국, 그녀를 단념시키는 것보다 새로운 사용자를 참여시키는 것이 더 낫고, 완전히 삭제하는 것보다 적절하게 추가된 텍스트를 출처화하는 것이 더 낫다; 논란이 되는 문제에 대해 자동 편집이나 타원적인 말로 접근하는 것보다 정중하게 논의하는 것이 더 낫다.凰兰时罗 (대화) 01:33, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자 여러분, 디스커버러에 대해 몇 가지 조치를 취하십시오.

소스가 잘 된 내용물 제거

사용자:칼 앤서니 리스

도널드 트럼프 반대 시위의 IP 편집 방해

사기 가능성

위키백과 기사를 포함하여, 사람에 대한 심각한 주장 후에 자살

사용자:Linguist111(WP:UAA

언어학자111 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

이전 설명은 WT:UAA, "경사" 및 "초안만 편집한 사용자"라는 제목이 붙은 섹션.간단히 말해서, UAA에는 사무원이 없으며, 매번 그들이 필요하지도 바람직하지도 않다는 의견이 일치해 왔다.그러나 이 사용자는 그럼에도 불구하고 그 역할에 자신을 임명했다.나는 비관리자들이 UAA에서 도움이 되는 일을 할 수 있는 것을 그들에게 설명하려고 노력했다. 그는 지역사회가 그들에게 맡긴 일을 하려고 노력하는 대신.그의 반응은 그가 계속해서 점원, 마침표로 활동할 것이라는 것이다.

나는 이 사용자가 불성실하게 행동하고 있다고 생각하지 않으며 UAA에 대한 그들의 보고는 전반적으로 괜찮았지만, 자칭 사무직은 잘 처리되지 않고 특별히 도움이 되지 않는다는 것을 분명히 하고 싶다. 이 페이지는 "관리자 주의를 위한 사용자 이름"이라고 불리며, "모든 사람이 나타나서 무엇이든 할 수 있도록 무료"라고 불리지 않는다.그래서 내가 지역사회에 부탁하는 것은 이 문제를 조사하고 그들에게 이런 성직자 행동을 그만두라고 요구하거나, 아니면 내가 기지를 벗어나 있고 모든 것이 괜찮다고 말해달라는 것이다.기록에 의하면, 이것이 우리의 의견 불일치의 큰 부분인 것처럼, 내가 몇 년 전으로 거슬러 올라가는 것을 알고 있는 모든 토론은 노골적으로 홍보 이름을 가진 유저들을 '부드럽게' 차단하는 것이 적절하고 바람직한 대응이라는 공감대를 반영했다.비블브록스 (대화) 01:22, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 또한 언어학자가 선의로 행동했다고 생각하며 어떠한 제재도 적절하지 않을 것이라고 생각한다고 말함으로써 이것을 서문할 것이다.나는 우리가 비관리자들이 UAA를 "경계"하기를 원하는지 여부를 고려해야 한다고 생각한다.WP와 유사:PERM 및 WP:AIV, 나는 이것이 그 사이트에서 믿을 수 없을 정도로 적은 관리자 전용 영역 중 하나라고 생각한다.UAA는 편집자가 사용자 이름 위반에 대한 블록을 요청하는 곳이다.비관리자는 차단할 수 없기 때문에 요청을 처리할 수 없다. 끝.관리자가 아닌 사람이 WP를 처리하려는 경우:UAA 차단 요청, RfA가 바로 그 방식이다.더 중요한 것은, 점점 더 많은 비관리자들이 이런 요청들을 "경계"하기 시작했으며, 그들 중 몇몇은 능력 문제를 가지고 있었다.그것이 계속되도록 허용할 이유가 없다.~ 롭 01:40₁₃^Talk, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

너는 내 입장에서 선의로 생각하지만, 나도 너를 위해 그렇게 할 수 있다고는 말할 수 없어.당신은 이 논쟁 동안 나에게 매우 개인적인 감정을 가졌는데, 이 모든 경박한 편집 요약 [27] [28] [29] [30], 당신이 "경련"이라는 단어를 음성 표시 등에 사용한 것이다.관리자로부터 기대하는 수행이 아님.WT의 토론에서 말했듯이:UAA, 사용자 이름이 판촉용으로 보이지만 편집된 사용자 이름이 사용자 이름과 연결되어 있지 않은 사용자. 나는 이에 대해 논의한다.나는 대부분의 시간을 그렇게 보았어.심지어 WP에서는 다음과 같이 말하고 있다.UAA/I: 홍보 위반은 명백한 증거를 필요로 한다. 프로모션을 "보인"다고 사용자 이름을 보고하지 마십시오. 위반사항이 있으려면, 특정 회사, 조직, 그룹, 제품 또는 웹사이트와 명확하게 연결되는 편집이나 로그 항목이 있어야 한다.또한, 나는 블록, 심지어 소프트 블록도 사용자들을 단념시킬 수 있다고 생각한다; 내 생각에는 블록이 계정을 빨리 바꿀 수 있는 기회를 주기 때문에 그들과 토론하는 것이 더 낫다고 생각한다.나는 많은 사용자들이 토론 후에 사용자 이름을 바꾸는 것을 본 적이 있다.어쨌든, 나는 위키피디아에 있는 것을 즐기고 싶어. 그리고 나에게 이런 식으로 행동하는 사람이 필요 없어.언어학자 모이. 06:35, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 WP에 관심이 있다.UAA, 홍보용 사용자 이름을 찾기 위해 정기적으로 새로운 사용자 이름을 순찰하는 중.@Linguist111: 나는 당신이 UAA에서 "사용자와 논의 중"이라고 태그를 붙이는 것을 여러 번 본다(예: [31][32][33]).그러나 아무런 논의도 이루어지지 않고 있다.편집자의 토크 페이지에 공지가 붙었지만, 그들은 응답하지 않았다.토크 페이지의 통지는 토론과 같지 않다.사용자가 응답하면 토론(아마도)이 있다.지금까지 사용했던 모델을 사용하여 WP에 프로모션 사용자 이름을 게시할 때마다:UAA 당신은 그것을 부인할 것이고, 그것이 사용자와 논의되고 있다는 것을 나타낸다.나는 항상 {{uw-coi-username}}을(를) 편집자의 토크 페이지에 올리고 홍보 편집을 기다렸다가 WP에 게시한다.정책 준수 실패에 대한 UAA.내가 경고를 올렸으니, 이것은 당신의 모델에서 "토론"과 같을 것이다.UAA의 통지는 실제 논의가 이루어지지 않는 한 논의로 분류하지 마십시오.제발그렇긴 하지만, 나는 네가 이런 좋은 일을 하고 있는 것을 본다.나는 이 일을 계속하는 것에 문제가 없다고 본다. 그리고 그것을 한 것에 대해 칭찬한다.@Beeblebrox: 확실히 이 토론에서 다른 눈이 필요하긴 했지만, 토론이 진부하지는 않았다.AN/나는 그것을 여기에 가져온 것은 시기상조라고 생각한다.여기서는 관리자 조치가 필요하지 않다.그곳에서는 누구든지 자신을 "경원"의 역할에 임명할 수 있으며, 그것은 변하지 않을 것이다.만약 누군가가 잘못하고 있다면, 좋아, 그것을 바로잡자.언어학자를 멈추게 하려고 노력하는 것은 좋은 일이 있을 때 성공하지 못한다.두 가지 선택사항만 있는 것이 아니다; 두 가지 선택사항 중 하나와 그렇지 않다.구체적으로 개선해야 할 사항에 대해 설명하십시오. --Hammersoft (대화) 16:14, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

@Hammersoft:고맙고, 조언해줘서 고마워.나는 "토론"에 대한 당신의 요점을 이해하지만, 나는 이전에 그 문제에 대해 생각했다.{{UAA d}}템플릿은 사용자가 아직 응답하지 않았는지 여부에 관계없이 사용자에게 사용자 이름 경고를 제공한 후 사용하도록 설계되었다.UAA에서 노골적인 위반은 아니지만 사용자와의 논의가 필요한 사용자 이름을 볼 경우 사용자에게 경고했지만 사용자가 아직 응답하지 않은 경우 어떻게 해야 하는가?"사용자에게 경고했음"과 같은 메모를 남길 것인가(또는 다음과 같은 템플릿을 사용할 것인가){{AIV w}} ; 템플릿에서 말하는 AIV용)이 아닐 수도 있고, 사용자가 응답할 때까지 보고서를 그냥 두거나?고마워!LanguageistMoi^Moi?. 16:50, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 노골적인 위반이 아니라면 어떤 식으로 편집하는지 봐야 할 것 같다.만약 노골적으로 홍보하지 않는다면 경고가 정당화되지 않을 수도 있다. 물론 이 경우에는 경고가 있었든 없었든 이미 보고되었다.나는 계속 관찰할 것이고, 만약 편집된 내용이 홍보적인 것처럼 보인다면, 홍보 편집을 제거하고 편집자에게 경고하기 위해 적절한 조치를 취하라.계속 홍보하면 차단해야 한다. --Hammersoft (대화) 17:09, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 나는 양당이 이것에 대해 어느 정도 책임을 져야 한다고 생각한다.언어학자; 나는 위키피디아에서 내가 좋아하는 것은 무엇이든지 할 것이다. 그것이 정책을 고수하는 한 - 그것은 일을 시작하는 좋은 태도가 아니다.위키 정책 내에도 파괴적일 수 있는 것들이 많다.예를 들어, AN/I에는 누구나 댓글을 남길 수 있으며, "경험이 풍부한" 사용자에게는 어렵고 빠른 규칙이 없다.그렇다고 해서 누구도 그렇게 해야 한다는 뜻은 아니다.어쩌다 보니 간단한 문제가 화두로 떠오른다.지랄 나는 약간 짜증나는 관리자가 과민반응하는 다른 사용자들에게 ARBCOM에 끌려가는 것을 본 적이 있다.AfD 태그에 기사에 붙어서게다가, 나는 적합하다고 생각되는 대로 요청을 계속 거절할 것이다. 그것은 훨씬 더 나쁜 대답이다.누군가가 당신에게 당신이 잘못했거나 도움이 되지 않는 일을 하고 있다고 말하려고 할 때, 듣는 것을 거부하고 당신 방식대로 할 것이라고 말하는 것은 그들을 화나게 할 것이다.동시에, Beeblebrox는 "groan"과 "crappy"와 같은 요약본을 편집하면 자존심이 강한 사용자에게는 아무런 도움이 되지 않는다.그것은 공격이나 어떤 것이 아니라, 단지, 대부분의 편집자들은 그들의 선의의 노력이 쓰레기라는 꼬리표가 붙는 것에 대해 잘 반응하지 않는다.특히 그것이 실제로 일어나고 있는 일에 대한 과장된 묘사일 때는 더욱 그렇다.당신이 가지고 있는 가장 큰 소고기는 토론 템플릿의 사용이고, 다른 것들은 내가 토크 페이지와 이것을 정확하게 읽으면 분명히 괜찮아.가장 취해야 할 조치는 차분하고, 측정되고, 잘 설명되어 있는 응답을 주는 것이다. 당신들 중 일부는 그랬고, 당신들 중 일부는 그렇지 않았다.Mr rndude (대화) 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC) 18:02 (회신)
• 언어학자는, 당신의 의도와 상관없이, UAA에서 활동중인 관리자들이 당신의 행동이 그들의 일을 수행하는 데 방해가 되고 있다고 당신에게 설명한다면, 당신은 그만둘 필요가 있다.당신이 궁극적으로 관리자 게시판에서 관리자 업무를 방해한다면 도움이 되려고 노력해도 상관없다.Rob은 위에서 언급했듯이 "비관리자가 WP를 처리하기를 원하는 경우:UAA 차단 요청, RfA는 그런 방식이다."확실히 위키피디아의 다른 영역은 당신이 돕고자 하는 욕구에서 이익을 얻을 수 있는 부분이 있는가? --제즈벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 18:32, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]
  • @rndude씨와 Ponyo씨:답장 고마워.당신이 무슨 말을 하는지 알겠네요.내가 비블브룩스의 말을 듣기를 거부하는 것은 그들이 나에게 대하는 태도에 기인한다.우선, UAA에서의 그들의 두 가지 거절에 내가 동의하지 않자(한 가지는 내 입장에서 오해였지만, 다른 한 가지는 지명된 사람에 대한 공격이 포함된 사용자 이름에서 "사용자가 편집할 때까지 기다리라"는 거절이었다) 유저는 재빨리 빈정거리는 회답으로 응수하고 나서, 토크 페이지에 올라가서 "부표가 되는 것이 지겨웠다"고 말했다."그리고 내가"[35] 여기서 나는 그들의 의견을 무시하기 시작했고, "그루안" 편집요약과 함께, 내가 그만둬야 한다는 요구처럼 보였다.내가 이 편집 요약들을 보았을 때 [36] [37] [38] 나는 더 이상 관심이 없었다.위키피디아에서 내가 하고 싶은 것은 무엇이든 하려고 하는 한, 정책을 고수하고 적합성에 관한 한 요청을 계속 거절할 것이며, 내가 보기에 내가 대응할 수 있는 좋은 방법은 아니지만, 비블브록스는 노골적인 위반에 대해 "논의되고 있다"는 쪽지를 붙이고 있는 반면, 편집이 없었던 만큼 즉각적으로 노골적인 것으로는 보지 않았다고 말했다.사용자 이름과 일치해서 서로 의견이 맞지 않았어그리고 이 시점에서 나는 단지 사용자가 나를 내버려 두기를 원했다.내가 도울 수 있는 위키피디아의 다른 영역까지, 나는 어떤 생각을 하고 있지만, UAA는 내가 가장 즐기는 영역이다.그러나 앞으로는 예전처럼 자주 보고를 거절하지 않고 사용자 이름 보고와 게시판 청소(Beeblebrox의 제안대로 거절된 요청을 없애고 보류 중인 요청들을 펜으로 옮기는 것)에 집착하는 한편 사용자 이름이 노골적인 제보가 아닐 때는 가끔씩만 감소할 것이다.언어학자 모이. 2016년 11월 17일(UTC) 19:13[응답]

나는 당신의 열정이 위키피디아의 많은 분야에서 환영 받고 있으며 앞으로도 환영할 것이라고 확신한다.UAA에서의 보고를 거절하려는 당신의 의도에 대해, 나는 당신이 하지 않을 것을 제안하고 싶다.차단 해제 요청과 마찬가지로, 이 경우 "해제"는 특정 관리 조치와 관련된 조치(즉, 애초에 차단할 능력이 없을 때는 차단하기 위해 "해제"할 수 없다)이다.--제즈벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 19:31, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 편집 요약에 대한 요점을 인정한다.아주 최근까지, 나는 몇 년 동안 UAA를 일하지 않았고, 나는 펜을 들고 있는 것이 완전히 엉망이라는 것을 발견하기 위해 돌아왔다.생후 한 달이 넘은 오래된 보고서들은 삭제되지 않고 있었고, 거절된 보고서들은 보류되어 있었는데, 이는 잘못된 것이고, 어떤 관리자도 답장을 하지 않았고, 방금 죽으려고 그곳에 밀어넣은 보고서들이 쌓여 있었다.나는 그것을 치우는 데 몇 시간이 걸렸다.그 이후로 나는 그것을 괜찮은 상태로 유지하고, 어떻게 다루어야 하는지를 예시로 보여주려고 노력해왔지만, 어쨌든 이런 일들이 계속 일어나고, 그것이 나를 좀 심술궂게 만들었다고 생각한다.비블브록스 (대화) 19:44, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그래, 이건 난처한 질문이 될 거야.UAA 홀딩펜이 있다고? ~ 2016년 11월 17일(UTC) 롭₁₃^Talk 20:40[응답]
    • 바로 여기: 위키백과:관리자 주의/펜 홀딩 펜 RickinBaltimore(대화) 20:43, 2016년 11월 17일(UTC)[응답]

전통적으로 사용자가 문제가 있는 사용자 이름을 가지고 있지만 실제로 편집하지 않은 경우, 이름이 노골적인 위반은 아니지만 방해할 의도를 나타낼 수 있거나, 검토 관리자가 차단보다는 토론을 선택했을 경우, 일주일 동안 보고서를 보관하는 것이 목적이었다.대부분의 경우 그들은 일주일 동안 앉아 있다가 제거된다.매일 단 한 번의 편집도 하지 않는 많은 계정들이 만들어지고 있다는 것은 이상한 사실이다.비블브록스 (대화) 22:34, 2016년 11월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

봇으로 보고된 잘못된 긍정을 내가 거절해도 괜찮을까?예를 들어, 사람들의 이름일 뿐인 것들?언어학자^Moi? 모이. 2016년 11월 18일(UTC) 16:10[응답]

나는 지금이 나도 UAA에서 사무직으로 일해왔다는 것을 인정하기에 좋은 시기라고 생각한다.한동안 사무직으로 일하지 않았지만 오늘부로 UAA에서의 모든 작업을 중단하고 응답을 중지할 것이다.도우미. 내 행동이 완전히 부적절한 것으로 알고 있으니, 내 사과를 받아줘.감사합니다, 2016년^talk 11월 19일(UTC) 환자번호 20:02 [응답]

단지 반복해서 말하지만, UAA에서 비관리자가 할 수 있는 많은 것들이 있는데, 예를 들어, 잠시 앉아 있던 거부된 보고서들을 제거하고, "기다려"라고 표시된 것을 펜으로 옮기고, 홀딩펜에 있는 오래된 보고서들을 검토하는 것 등이 그것이다(그들이 일주일 정도 후에 편집이 없으면 그냥 삭제될 수 있다).비블브록스 (대화)20:45, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 그 비블브록스를 하는 게 낫겠어?환자제로^talk 2016년 11월 22일(UTC) 10시 57분[응답]

@patient Zero: 나는 그것에 아무런 해가 없다고 본다.그런 종류의 사무직은 게시판에 아무것도 덧붙이지 않고, 단지 보고서를 즉시 처리할 수 없을 때 그들이 있어야 할 곳으로 옮기는 것뿐이므로 게시판이 막히지 않는다.

@Beeblebrox: 나는 그 당시에도 여전히 씁쓸했으므로 이 실에 대한 첫 회답을 사과한다.나는 이 상황을 검토하는데 시간을 들였고, 당신의 실제 요청은 선의로 이루어졌고 합리적이었으며, 내가 그것들을 낭비한 것은 잘못되었다는 의심을 살 수 있게 해주려고 한다.나는 네가 말한 모든 것에 동의하지는 않지만, 비관리자가 어떻게 문제가 될 수 있는지 이해한다.이제부터 나는 홀딩펜 사무직에 충실할 것이다.언어학자 Moi. 14:37, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

우리 모두 같은 입장이어서 다행이고, 내가 이 일을 좀 더 잘 처리할 수 있었음을 알 수 있다.두 분 모두, 그리고 시간을 내어 의견을 주신 모든 분들께 감사드린다.비블브록스 (대화) 17:47, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

설명:이 문제에 대해 어느 정도 관점을 제시하기 위해, Languageist111은 다소 회복된 나의 과거를 반영할 때 나를 떠올리게 한다.내가 비관리자로 AIV에서 사무를 시작했을 때, 나는 솔직히 내가 하고 있는 일이 도움이 되고, 차단할 필요가 있는 명확한 보고서를 승인하고, 절대 그렇지 않은 명백한 보고서를 거절함으로써 관리자들의 시간을 절약하기 위해 수년간의 반달 싸움에서 얻은 경험을 가지고 있다고 느꼈다.그것은 나를 새로운 반달리즘 영역에 노출시켰다; 나는 더 이상 AIV에 대한 보고를 시작했을 뿐 아니라...나는 지금 여러 가지 일을 겪으며, 토크 페이지 경고를 보고, 타임스탬프를 확인하고, 경고가 적절하게 남아 있는지 확인하고, 다른 사람의 보고가 좋은지 아닌지를 판단하고 있었다.나는 많은 것을 배우고 있었고, 내가 하고 있는 일이 독특하고 도움이 되며, 그들이 전에는 아무도 생각하지 못했던 똑똑한 방법으로 보여질 것이라고 생각했다.나는 결국 AIV 토크 페이지에서 사무직원이 방해된다는 말을 듣게 되었는데, 그 말을 들으니 정말 짜증났다.무심코 내 사무직 때문에 관리자들에게 시간을 더 쓰게 한 것이 기분 나쁠 뿐만 아니라, 내가 하는 일이 옳은 일이라고 느꼈기 때문이기도 했다.물론, 이제 '관리자 울타리'의 반대편에 서게 되었으니, 내 사무직원이 왜 파행을 일으켰는지 정확히 알겠다...하지만 나는 또한 어떻게 Languageist111이 WP에서 그의 사무직과 같은 기분을 느낄 수 있었는지 완전히 이해한다.UAA. 만약 그가 나와 같은 방식으로 생각한다면, 그는 그의 경험을 넓히는 데 관심이 있었고, 내가 AIV에서 했던 것처럼, 그리고 내가 반달 싸움을 즐기는 것처럼 그가 즐겨 참여하는 행정 구역으로 진출하고 싶어했다.Languageist111이 하고 있던 일이 파괴적인 것이 아니었다고 말하는 것이 아니다...나는 그의 사무직 뒤에 숨겨진 언어학자 111의 생각을 완전히 이해한다는 것이다.그는 그들이 전적으로 신의를 가지고 있으며 그가 UAA에서 순긍정적인 역할을 하고 있다고 느꼈다.나도 같은 실수를 했어.~오슈와~^{(talk) (contribs)} 2016년 11월 22일 20시 15분 (UTC)[응답]

코멘트에 대한 설명:내가 여기서 무슨 말을 하는 것은 약간 무모한 일일지 모르지만, 나는 언어학자가 도움이 된다는 것을 알게 되었지만, 위의 다른 모든 사람들의 말에 동의한다.사무직은 보고서에 관련된 관리자와 사용자에게 맡겨야 한다.비관리인 사무직은 좀 짜증나.가능성은 우리가 이것을 SPI와 같은 시스템으로 바꿀 수 있는 새로운 시스템일 것이다, 하지만 지금 생각해 보면, 그건 좋지 않은 생각이다...어쨌든, 나는 위의 모든 것에 동의해.사무직은 관리인에게 맡겨야 한다.TJH2018토크 05:57, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

Keysanger의 문제 있는 학문적 부정직

User와의 방위 동맹 조약(Bollivia-Peru) 조항에 문제가 진행 중이다.키싱어.2016년 3월, 기사의 이동 요청은 19세기 조약의 실제 제목에 찬성하였다([39] 참조).이 글의 적정화는 창간 이래 문제가 되어왔다(리디렉션 [40] 참조). 실제로 2011년 알렉스 하비는 "동맹의 비밀조약"([41] 참조)과 같은 제목의 중립성이 결여된 것에 대해 언급했다.이 같은 움직임에도 불구하고 키산저는 스틱 취하를 거부하고 '동맹의 비밀조약'이라는 타이틀의 포함을 계속 추진하고 있다(토크 페이지 토론 [42], 기사 편집 역사[43] 참조).

이것이 내용 논쟁으로 보일 수도 있지만, 대충 보는 것보다 훨씬 더 심각하다.알다시피, 키산저는 보통 영어로 글을 쓸 때 이해할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 출처를 잘못 해석하고 이러한 오해를 이용하여 페루-칠레 관계와 관련된 기사(이것은 태평양 전쟁, 페루 솔트페터 독점, 현재의 방어 동맹 조약(볼리비)을 포함한다)에 거짓 정보를 밀어넣는 경향이 있다.a-페루)).지난번과 관련해서 칠레의 팽창주의가 대표적 사례다.한 저자를 인용하자면 칠레의 팽창주의와 선제공격에 대한 우려는 근거가 충분했다.공식 기록에 따르면 칠레 지도자들은 여전히 군사적으로 열등한 이웃 국가인 칠레에 대해 그러한 선택들을 고려 중이라고 한다.칠레는 야망을 군사력과 결합시켰다."(요오 레센데-산토스, 네오레알리즘, 주, 현대미사군, 225쪽).또 다른 저자는 "칠레의 팽창주의 정책은 태평양 전쟁(1879~1884) 당시 페루와 볼리비아의 남부 광산 지역을 탈피하면서 가장 큰 성공을 거뒀다"고 썼다.KJ 홀스티).

그러나, 키산저는 칠레의 팽창주의를 논하는 것이 "POV"([44])라고 확신하고 있다.

제목로 돌아가 Keysanger는 그 글에 다른 이름이 있음을 단언한다([45] & [46]).서로 다른 두 명의 사용자들은 이미 Keysanger(@Nizolan과 Music1201:[47])에 동의하지 않았다.하지만, Keysanger는 현재 그의 위치를 지지하기 위해 8개의 소스를 사용한다.문제는 이러한 출처가 놀랄 것도 없이 실제로 Keysanger를 지원하지 않는다는 점이다. 이는 Keysanger가 고의로 출처를 악용하고 있다는 것을 의미하는데, 이것은 심각한 범죄다.예를 들어 데이비스와 파이낸셜의 중남미 외교사 127페이지를 읽으면 우리가 찾는 조약의 유일한 언급은 다음과 같다: "칠레를 상대로 페루와 볼리비아의 비밀동맹 조약에 대한 루머가 지속되었다."또 다른 예로, 킨과 헤인즈의 라틴아메리카 역사 264페이지를 읽으면 "페루와 볼리비아는 1874년 어느 쪽 권력이 칠레와 전쟁을 벌일 경우 군사동맹을 위한 비밀조약을 협상했다"는 문구를 발견하게 된다.두 소식통 모두 이 조약에 대해 논쟁의 여지가 없는 비밀이라고 밝히고 있지만("수비동맹조약은 비밀방위조약이었다" 참조), 어느 소식통도 이 조약에 대체적인 제목이 있다는 주장을 지지하지 않는다.Keysanger는 명백히 잘못된 주장을 뒷받침하기 위해 출처를 잘못 사용하고 있다.

게다가, Keysanger는 이러한 출처의 오용들을 다른 기사로도 퍼뜨렸다.태평양전쟁을 예로 들어보자([48]).

태평양전쟁에 관한 기사는 완전히 엉망진창으로, 다시 한번 키산저의 출처 오용에 크게 기인한다.예를 들어 태평양전쟁에 글을 쓰는 역사가들은 "1879년 시작된 태평양전쟁은 아타카마와 타라파카 지방의 풍부한 질산염과 구아노 퇴적물 통제를 위한 한쪽의 칠레와 다른 한쪽의 볼리비아와 페루간의 투쟁이었다"고 말할 것이다.알토우 아타카마는 볼리비아와 페루 타라파카에 속해 있었으며, 칠레는 두 지역에 모두 많은 투자를 했으며, 세 나라 모두 이러한 지방의 자원을 그들의 절박한 재정 문제에 대한 해결책으로 보았다."(영국 제국주의: 1688-2015, 페이지 286).브리태니카 백과사전조차 우리에게 "태평양 전쟁, 스페인 게릴라 델 파키피코(1879~83) 칠레, 볼리비아, 페루와 관련된 분쟁으로 태평양 연안의 귀중한 분쟁 영토가 칠레에 병합되었다.] [...] 그 영토에는 귀중한 광물 자원, 특히 질산나트륨이 포함되어 있었다[49].

그러나 특히 칠레와 관련된 분쟁에 대한 이러한 경제적 해석에 Keysanger는 동의하지 않는다.사용자:덴트렌은 아마도 더 자세히 설명할 수 있을 것이다. 키산저는 칠레의 경제적 이익에 대한 초점을 줄이기 위해 기사를 작성했다. (전쟁의 원인에 대한 그의 버전을 읽어보십시오.)Keysanger가 편집한 내용을 통해 기사를 조작한 것도 더 명확하게 볼 수 있다([50], [51]).실제로 이 기사에는 한때 분쟁의 경제적 원인에 초점을 맞춘 하위섹션이 있었으나, 키즈넌저는 이 섹션을 삭제하고 분쟁의 경제적 이유를 최소화하는 현재의 "전쟁의 원인" 섹션으로 통합하였다([52] 참조).

이 완전히 터무니없는 상황은 몇 년 동안 지속되었다.Keysanger에 대한 WP:AN/I 사례는 이미 제출되었지만([53] 참조), 당시 기사 금지 제안은 충분한 지지를 얻지 못했다.몇몇 사용자들이 문제 해결에 도움을 주려고 시도했다; @Neil P. 퀸, 로버트 맥클론, 어둠의 빛, 클라우드록, 위 커리 몬스터, 코쉬볼론:나는 솔직히 어떻게 이것이 마침내 해결될 수 있는지 모르겠다.위키백과 커뮤니티가 이 사용자의 비합리적인 행동과 학문적 부정직함에 대해 어떤 조치를 취하기 전에 Keysanger와의 이러한 문제가 얼마나 더 계속되어야 하는가?--MarshalN20 09:59, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

• User MarshalN20은 중재 위원회가 밝힌 바와 같이 그의 행동에 대한 철저한 분석 후에 중남미 역사 기사의 편집이 한때 차단되었다.MarshalN20(토크 · 기여)은 가식적인 편집과 배틀그라운드 수행에 관여했다([54] [55][56]).자세한 내용은 다음 웹 사이트를 참조하십시오.중재/요청/사례/군인_역사
• 그는 태평양 전쟁과 관련된 기사들을 편집하지 않겠다고 약속했다.나는 태평양 전쟁과 관련된 어떤 기사도 조만간 편집할 계획이 없음을 중재위원회에 확실히 하고 싶다([57]).너는 그가 왜 그것을 말해야 했는지 알 것이다.
• 그는 페루와 볼리비아 동맹에 관한 기사에 대한 그의 POV 치료로 다시 시작했다.그는 이 조약이 '밀약'이라고도 불리고 있다는 사실을 은폐하고, '칠레아 팽창주의'를 전쟁의 유일한 원인으로 지목하려 한다.
• 내용 분쟁에 대해서는, 기사의 토론 페이지에 쓴 것을 다음과 같이 반복할 수밖에 없다.

로버트 N. 버어, 이유나 강요에 의해:칠레와 남아메리카의 힘의 균형, 칠레의 역사에 대해 종종 인용되는 작품인 1830-1905에는 "페루와 볼리비아 사이의 비밀 조약"이라는 이름으로 124페이지부터 시작하는 특별한 장이 있다.

윌리엄 제퍼슨 데니스(William Jefferson Denis)는 아이오와대 사회과학연구소가 펴낸 귀중한 '타크나 아리카 분쟁의 문서 역사'에서 태평양전쟁에 관한 90개 조약, 각서, 서한, 공식 선언서 등을 정리했다. 편찬 색인 5쪽은 물론 56쪽에서도 내용을 소개하기 위해 주어진 본문의 첫머리에서 그는 1873년 페루와 볼리비아 사이의 '수비동맹 조약' 또는 '비밀조약'을 명명했다.

그래서 '수비동맹의 숨결'의 공허함보다 훨씬 흔한 또 다른 이름이 있다.WP:기타 이름에는 이 대안이 있어야 한다.

• 마샬N20의 진술은 얼마나 심각한가?그가 믿을 만한 소식통을 가지고 그들을 지원할 수 있을까?:위키백과 참조:태평양전쟁의 원인에 대한 조정/무상한 무게와 독창적인 연구 요청 둘 다, 덴트렌과 마샬N20은 토론에 어떠한 주장도 제시하지 않았다. --Keysanger (대화) 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

논평 - 나는 파라과이 전쟁(전혀 다른 주제; [58] 참조)이라는 글에서 중재위원회에 의해 편집 금지된 주제였다.그러나, 2015년 8월 (1년 이상) 주제 금지령이 해제되었다([59]).Keysanger가 지금 그것을 꺼려할 뿐만 아니라, 이것은 ARBCOM이 질식사들을 괴롭히고 거세하는 것을 용납할 수 없는 것이다.Keysanger는 이전에 KoshVorlon, WCM, 그리고 Cambalachro로부터 이 문제에 대해 책임을 지라는 경고를 받은 적이 있다.Keysanger가 그것을 취하하지 않은 것은 이것이 단순한 콘텐츠 분쟁이 아닌 행동상의 문제라는 것을 더욱 확인시켜 줄 뿐이다.--MarshalN20 11:38, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 여기서 태평양전쟁의 파괴적인 편집에 관한 3부작의 권고를 한 것은 약 1년 전이었다. 첫째, 같은 기사에서 편집해서는 안 된다고 생각했던 키저스와 마샬N20에 관한 주제반들, 둘째, 공식적인 중재, 셋째, 지역사회 일반 제재.수년 동안 질질 끌어온 이 분쟁을 정식 조정으로 해결할 수 있으리라는 생각에 내가 너무 낙관적이었던 것이 분명하다.나는 여전히 공동체 일반 제재를 권고한다.(또한 이전의 ArbCom이 중남미 역사에 대한 ArbCom 재량제재를 확립하지 못한 것에 대해 디폴트했다고 생각하지만, 그것은 과거의 문제다.)나는 키산저가 출처를 악용하고 있다는 주장에 동의하거나 동의하지 않을 정도로 전쟁과 전쟁에 대한 편집 전쟁의 세부사항을 연구하지 않았다.(키산저가 칠레산 출처를 선호한다는 것은 알고 있으며, 페루 출처와는 다른 견해를 가지고 있다.그것은 물론 위키피디아에서 역사적 격전지에 대한 배틀그라운드 편집의 특징이다.인도 소식통이 파키스탄 소식통과 합의하거나, 이스라엘 소식통도 아랍 소식통과 합의할 것으로 기대하지 않는다.)로버트 맥클레논 (대화) 02:16, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

혐오 리디렉션

나는 방금 악명 높은 웨스트보로 침례교회로 리디렉션되는 미국의 테러와 마주쳤다.이것은 부적절해 보였고 나는 {{db-attack}}에서 WP:RfD 사이에 의심했다.나는 크리에이터의 역사를 엿보기로 결심했고 상당한 속도로 만들어진 유사한 리디렉션을 많이 발견했다.

• 적그리스도 오바마
• 우주왕복선을 날려버린 하느님
• 페이그 에너블러를 미워하는 하느님
• 페이크스 둠 네이션스
• IEDs에 대해 하느님께 감사하다.
• You're Going to Hell
• 신은 미국의 테러리스트
• 메스꺼움 등

문제의 편집자, 바비 H 한 명. 헤플리(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 유저 · 블록 로그)는 2006년부터 편집해 왔기 때문에 새로운 실수가 아니다.Kleuske (대화) 00:08, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그거 진짜 교회 슬로건 아니야?누군가가 특정 구절을 검색하고 있지만 교회의 실제 이름을 몰랐다면 그들이 방향을 바꾸도록 하는 것이 이치에 맞을까?내게는 악의적으로 보이지 않는다. --타라지 (토크) 00:15, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

정말; 만약 독자가 교회의 간판을 봤지만 그들이 무엇이라고 불렸는지 몰랐다면, 나는 이 모든 것이 그럴듯한 검색어들이다.샘 월튼 (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 00:20 (UTC)[응답]

그럴 만도 하다.나는 "Antichrist Obama"가 공격 페이지로 삭제되었기 때문에, 분명히 한계는 사람을 명명하는 것이다.조언해줘서 고마워.Kleuske (대화) 2016년 11월 21일 00:25 (UTC)[응답]

• 논평 나는 모든 큰 구호가 방향을 바꿀 필요가 있다고 생각하지 않는다.만약 주어진 슬로건에 대한 RS 출처에서 광범위한 언급의 증거가 있고, 나는 그러한 주장을 할 수 있는 몇몇이 있을 것이라고 인정한다면, 그 리디렉션은 타당해 보인다.하지만 이 중 일부는 잘 알려져 있지 않고 무료로 보인다. -Ad Orientem (대화) 00:28, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

(갈등 편집) 리디렉션 횟수가 다소 과도할 수 있다고 말할 것이다(현재 ~30회).샘 월튼 (대화) 00:29, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

이것들 중 너무 많은 것들이 불명확하고 그것들을 유지하는 것을 정당화할 만큼 충분히 잘 알려져 있지 않다.나는 RfD에 보내는 중요한 RS 히트곡을 들거나 친숙하게 들리지 않는 리스트를 살펴보기 시작할 것이다.위키피디아는 프린지 그룹 또는 프린지 그룹에 의해 플랫폼/광고 리디렉션으로 사용되어서는 안 된다. -Ad Orientem (토크) 00:50, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

30은 너무 심하지만, 나는 단지 이것이 악의적이라고 생각하지 않는다는 점을 강조하고 싶었다.과욕?물론. 1마일도 아닌 악의적인. --타라지 (대화) 03:49, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 모든 슬로건과 말들이 전달되는 것을 삭제할 필요가 있다는 것에 동의한다.위키피디아는 구글이 아니며, 게다가 슬로건과 속담은 한 개인이나 단체만의 독특한 것이 아니다.Bobby H의 대부분은 보인다. 2009년 이후 헤플리의 위키 커리어는 리디렉션을 만들어 왔고, 최근의 위키 커리어는 모두 부적절하다는 것이다.나는 그가 리디렉션을 만드는 것 말고는 다른 방법으로 자신을 점유할 것을 제안할 것이고, 문제가 지속된다면 리디렉션에 대한 주제 금지가 순서다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 05:13, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그들이 의도적으로 부적절하다고 생각하지 않는다.AGF 부탁해.토픽 금지는 아직 보증되지 않았다.이 사용자와 실제로 대화한 사람이 있는가? --Tarage (대화) 05:27, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 당신이 그들의 대화 페이지를 확인한다면 당신은 그들이 그들의 페이지에 남겨진 메시지에 응답한 적이 없다는 것을 알게 될 것이다.바비로부터 응답을 받지 못하고 부적절한 리디렉션을 계속 만든다면, TBAN이 순서가 될 수도 있다.지금은 TBAN 치고는 너무 이르다.미스터 rndude (대화) 05:34, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자는 대화 페이지가 있는지조차 모를 수 있다.그들의 관심을 끌기 위해 짧은 31시간 블록은 어떨까? --타라지 (토크) 08:16, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

물론 그들은 그들이 대화 페이지를 가지고 있다는 것을 안다.그들은 메시지를 받을 때마다 오렌지색 배너와 점점 더 높은 빨간색 숫자를 편집 페이지마다 맨 위에 받는다.그들이 그들의 토크 페이지에서 어떤 질문도 받지 않았거나, 이 ANI가 접수되기 전까지 어떤 것도 중단하라는 말을 듣지 않았기 때문에 그들을 막을 이유가 없다.그들이 계속해서 슬로건과 인용구의 리디렉션을 만든다면, 그들은 주제 금지를 받아야 하고, 만약 그들이 그 이후에도 계속된다면, 짧은 블록을 만들어야 한다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 09:17, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

얼마나 많은 사람들이 읽지 않은 이메일이나 부재중 전화를 무시하는지 아십니까?나는 단지 주제 금지보다 블록을 먼저 제안하는 것이다. 왜냐하면 블록은 주제 금지로서 싸우는 것이 매우 어려울 수 있기 때문이다.어느 쪽이든 사람들이 말하는 것만큼 악랄하다고는 생각하지 않는다. --타라지 (토크) 11시 55분, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 나는 그들의 과장된 구호가 다시 지시될 필요는 없다고 생각해.그것은 보통 예절이라고 불린다.^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 09:19, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• 업데이트 어젯밤 나는 그의 WBC 리디렉션 대부분을 RfD로 보냈다.G-10당 CSD에 태그를 달았던 몇몇은 너무 상위에 있었고 이미 삭제되었다.그러나 몇몇은 RS 소스에서 많이 언급되어 왔고 WBC와 관련이 있는 것으로 널리 알려져 있기 때문에 IMO가 합법적이었다.그것들은 혼자 남겨졌다. -Ad Orientem (대화) 17:03, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• 설명:나는 이 사용자가 다시 로그인하기 전에는 어떤 제재도 취해져서는 안 된다고 생각한다.그는 이 ANI 제출 이전부터 그리고 스피디, RfD 등의 현재 모든 대화 페이지 알림 이전부터 로그인하지 않았다.나는 그가 다시 로그인할 때 그 메시지를 받을 것이라고 생각한다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 23:20, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
• 나는 그들의 삭제를 지지한다.대부분은 실제 구호와 상당히 가능성이 낮은 검색어들이다.니츠히프트36 (대화) 04:34, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

"모든 변경사항은 그의 가족과 변호인이 확인하고 확인한다"

Weavil-blues(대화 · 기여)는 여러 차례 비소급적 전기적 내용을 게재했으며, 대상자의 가족과 변호사에 대한 요약서 편집에 포함시켰다.WP와 관련된 경고와 통지를 남겼다.법률 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (토크) 21:26, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

법적 위협은 없다.그러나 공급되지 않은 것은 별개의 문제다.◆ 조셉^🍸(talk) 경 21:30, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

아마 아닐 것이다. 하지만 나는 'L' 단어를 사용하는 것 보다 조금 더 많은 계정들이 차단된 것을 본 적이 있을 것이다. 즉, 변호사가 관여하고 내용을 승인하고, 그렇지 않거나 하는 것을 암시한다.2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (토크) 21:32, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

또한, 새로운 편집자는 WP에 접촉하는 내용에 반대한다.BLP의 우려.출처가 노르웨이어일 때는 확실히 알 수 없다.2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (토크) 23:20, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

그들 대부분은 위키피디아 대화를 통해 도달할 수 있을 것이다.위키프로젝트 노르웨이, 내 생각에, 또는 Yngvadottir나 Bishonen을 시도해 볼 수 있을 것 같다. (그렇다, 나는 노르웨이 사람들과 스웨덴 사람들은 완전히 다른 존재지만 충분히 가까운 존재라는 것을 안다.솔직히 말해서, 나는 이것을 거짓말하는 것을 권하고 싶다; Helge Solum Larsen이 한계 관심사라고 말하는 것은 절제된 표현이다. (이 달 어느 날 그것이 가졌던 가장 많은 관점은 6이다), 그리고 그 페이지가 실제로 부정확하지 않은 한, 싸워야 할 훨씬 더 중요한 전투가 있다.현실적으로 '변호사'라는 말만 한다고 해서 누군가를 막지는 않을 것이다.▷아이디스센트 23:38, 2016년 11월 23일(UTC)[응답하라]

(추가) 그리고 나는 추정된 BLP의 우려가 무엇인지 잘 모르겠다; 이 남자는 죽었고, 그 기사에는 아무도 이름을 밝히지 않았다. (공식적인 성명을 발표하는 두 명의 당 인사 외에는, 그 내용은 의심의 여지가 없을 것이다.)∙ 무지개빛 23:40, 2016년 11월 23일 (UTC)[응답하라]

'정신과 병동' 사업인데, 최근에 사망한 환자를 대상으로 하기 때문에 BLP를 참고했다.그러나 나는 이것을 갉아먹고 싶은 욕망은 없고, 당신의 통찰력을 높이 평가한다.2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (토크) 00:43, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

빨리, 내가 즉시 일하러 나가야 하기 때문에, 그렇지 않으면 나는 기사 토크 페이지에 내 주요 포스트를 만들었을 것이다.나는 그 두 버전 사이의 다른 차이점들이 문제가 될 수도 있다고 본다.나는 노르웨이가 아니다:-) 나는 내가 아는 3: 게시히테, 아르세닉크, 이젤릴자라는 핑계를 악용하여 전화를 걸 것이다.그리고 기회가 되면 퇴근해서 체크인할 거야.Yngvadottir (대화) 05:44, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답하라]

Riz Story & 팀의 법적 위협

법적 위협: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABondegezou&type=revision&diff=750274353&oldid=748987902

한동안 리즈 스토리를 보다가 최근(11월 17일 오전 편집) 무보급 자기 홍보를 대대적으로 시도했다.IP 편집기가 되돌아왔다. 나와 다른 사람들은 다시 자료를 제거했다.내가 위키피디아를 멀리하고 있는 동안, 이것은 IP 편집자와 다른 몇몇 편집자 사이의 편집 전쟁과 함께 폭발했다.나는 위와 같은 법적 위협과 사용자 페이지 파괴 행위를 받았다.기사는 반보호되었고, 미스터 스토리 또는 그와 연결된 사람들로 보이는 IP 편집자가 사용자를 생성했다.Meopa는 이것, 이것, 그리고 이것과 같은 것들을 가지고 와서 위키피디아를 만들었다.삭제/리즈 스토리에 대한 기사.그는 이전에 User:RizStory로 편집했을지도 모른다.

IP:

• 2605:e000:60dc:400:1e87:2cff:fec8:7f83
• 2605:e000:60dc:400:e07c:6c9a:cfb3:1cf
• 8054::e000:60dc:400:8054:61cc:1ce8:8a0a

사용자 ping:상황을 도우려고 애쓰는 프라임팩.본데게주(토크) 11:51, 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 솔직히 이 일이 잠자는 것과 일어나는 것 사이에 터지길 바라고 있었다.아닌 것 같아.Meopa는 진지한 도끼를 가지고 있고 누구의 충고를 듣기를 거부한다.이게 자존심인지 뭔지 모르겠지만, 어제 IRC에서 한 시간 넘게 같이 보냈는데 정확히 아무 데도 못 갔어.그들은 분명히 휴식을 취하고 그들 자신의 페이지(그리고 AFD)를 편집하는 것을 중단해야 하지만, 그것은 관리자 개입 없이는 불가능할 것이다.자신에 대한 기사를 편집하는 적절한 방법들이 있지만, 이것은 그것들 중 하나가 아니다.프라임팩 (대화) 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC) 16:45[응답]
• 법적 위협인 것 같군니츠히프트36 (대화) 2016년 11월 19일 17:27 (UTC)[응답]
  • 법적 위협이라기보다는 킹사이즈의 엄포에 불과했다...마지막 문장까지◆야구 벅스 당근→21:13, 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 첫 번째 연결고리에 있는 것은 법적인 위협에도 가깝지 않다.이 점은 제쳐두고, 나머지 행동은 조치가 필요할 정도로 충분히 확장되어 보인다. - Ryk72 18:48, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]
• 주 사용자:메오파는 그동안 계정 공유에 소프트블록이 됐지만, 현재는 User:Riz Story가 활동 중이다.나는 AGF가 될 것이고 그들이 마침내 그들 자신의 사용자 이름을 사용하기를 바란다.프라임팩 (대화) 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC) 18:06[응답]
• 논평 나는 피험자와 그의 스태프들에 의한 자기 광고에 근거하여 삭제하기 위해 AfD를 일찍 닫았다.다른 사람은 누구든지 기사를 시작하는 것을 환영한다. DGG (토크 ) 03:46, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]
• 설명:WP:COI가 제일 먼저 떠오른다.MM(WhatIDO WHATIDO?)^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 2016년 11월 22일 17시 18분 (UTC)[응답하라]

업데이트: Riz Story가 삭제됨.혼란이 애니원(스토리의 밴드)에게까지 번질지 궁금했지만, 아직 나타나지 않고 있다.사용자:Meopa가 차단됨.사용자:리즈 스토리가 며칠째 편집되지 않고 있다.(사용자:RizStory가 오래 비활성 상태임)스토리와 팀이 무슨 일이 일어났는지 이해할 수 있을지 모르겠다(프라임팩의 칭찬할 만한 노력에도 불구하고).일이 다시 시작될 수도 있지만, 지금은 이야기가 끝난 것 같다.본데게주(토크) 11:21, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

IP PRODding 문서 및 사용자 하위 페이지?

2606:6000:63d1:3c00:e17f:9fd2:2be7:5e10(토크 · 기여)

이용자는 내가 여기에 '공격 페이지'를 만들었다고 비난했는데, 그 자체로 터무니없기는 하지만, 그는 도시바 기사를 쓴 것이 분명해, 이것은 나와 나의 오래된 양말 계정과는 무관하다고 생각하면서도 오히려 트롤링만 하고 있다.사용자 페이지의 템플릿이 이미 사용자:MRD2014, Toshiba 기사에 있던 것과 마찬가지로, 만약 이것이 동적 IP(확인 방법을 모르겠다)라면, 그들은 이미 일부 페이지의 속도를 높이는 데 성공했을지도 모른다는 걱정이 든다.

이걸 어떻게 확인할 수 있는지 아는 사람?

히지리 88 (聖や) 06:06, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

이 IP 주소는 아마도 포뇨에 의해 차단된 2602:306:379d:1aa0::/64(블록 범위 ·블록 로그(글로벌) ·WHOIS(부분)에 배치된 블록을 회피하고 있을 것이다.그 범위에 있는 IP는 위의 IP가 도시바에서 했던 것처럼 다른 사용자 페이지와 템플릿을 초월하는 가짜 빠른 삭제 템플릿을 추가하여 해당 범위의 토크 페이지를 만들 것이다.—MRD2014 (해피 추수감사절!) 12:56, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자별 AFD 캔버스 제작:피오투스

피오트루스(talk · concesses)는 그들이 만든 AFD를 위한 캔버스로서, 의도적으로 단일 사용자(SwisterTwister (talk · concerns)가 자신의 AFD에 개입하기 위해 자신의 사건에 동조할 것을 요구한다[60] 나는 특정 기사를 삭제해야 하는지 말아야 하는지에 대해서는 의견이 없지만 피오트루스와 같은 캔버스는 단지 파괴적이고 필요한 것이다.즉각적인 행정 조치SwisterTwister가 관련되어 있고, 여기에 있는 많은 사람들의 과거 경험에 의해 SwisterTwister와 관련된 모든 것이 토크 페이지에서 손실된다는 것을 보여주었기 때문에, 이 보고서는 ANI에서 직접 시작하고 있다. -- 1Wiki8............................... (대화) 20:04, 2016년 11월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

"여기서 많은 사람들에 의한 과거의 경험은 스위스터 트위스터와 관련된 어떤 것이든 토크 페이지에서 분실된다는 것을 보여주었다."진짜로?드라마를 키우지 말고 최소화하도록 노력해라.토론이 "토크페이지에서 길을 잃는다"고 해도, 그것을 시도하지 말라는 뜻은 아니다.어쨌든, WP에 따르면:COVER, 피오트루스와 ST 사이에 삭제주의 역사가 있는지 잘 모르겠어.하지만 그 ST는 두 글 모두 삭제에 찬성표를 던졌다.나는 피오트루스에게 사용자들의 토크 페이지에 글을 올리지 말 것을 제안하지만, 나는 이 토론에서 어떤 큰 것도 나오지 않을 것이라고 믿는다.Dat^Talk_Contribs Guy 20:15, 2016년 11월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• 여기서 ST에 쌓이고 싶지도 않고, 문제의 AfDs에 대해 댓글을 달면서 잘못한 것도 없고 선의로 행동한 것도 아니라고 생각한다.ST가 많은 기사에 대한 일반적인 친필적 입장 이외에는 기사들과 아무런 관련이 없는 것 같을 때 피오투스가 ST의 토크 페이지에만 논평했다는 사실은 나에게 이것이 WP의 정신에 맞지 않은 것이었을 수도 있음을 시사한다.그러나 COVER는.여기서 할 일이 별로 없는 것 같아.그 기사들은 어제 재출간되었고 일주일 더 있어야 한다.ST는 그의 목표를 선의의 몸짓으로 때리고 싶어할지 모르지만, 나는 그가 어쨌든 그것에 대해 논평할 수 있었을 것이고 아마도 같은 의견을 가지고 있었을 것이기 때문에 그것이 필요하다고 생각하지 않는다.토니발리오니 (토크) 21:02, 2016년 11월 18일 (UTC)[응답]
• 정말이지 ST를 향한 혐오감을 멈출 필요가 있어. 난 이런 일이 계속 일어나는 걸 보는 게 지겨워.솔직히 ST가 편집한 비명은 WP:무엇보다도, 우리 모두는 각자 나름대로의 방법을 가지고 있고, 몇몇 사람들은 지침/정책들에 대해 서로 다른 해석을 가지고 있다.나는 유세 문제에 동의하지 않지만, 왜 ST가 어떤 죄로 기소되어야 하는지 모르겠다.ⓩⓟⓘⓧⓧ 21:18, 2016년 11월 18일 (UTC)[응답]
• (비관리자 논평) 단일 사용자로부터 입력을 요구하는 것이 반드시 탐문수사를 하는 것은 아니다.만약 AFD가 투표였다면, 그것은 이론적으로 투표 스택으로 적합할 수도 있지만, 그것은 단지 하나의 표만 쌓을 것이기 때문에 그것의 아주 작은 형태일 뿐이다.또한, 그러한 경우 아무도 페이지를 삭제해서는 안 된다고 주장하지 않았기 때문에, 어떤 형태로든 외부 입력을 추구하는 것이 권장되어야 한다.이것은 피오트루스가 공감대가 자신에게 불리하게 돌아가는 것을 보고 그의 편을 들어줄 것 같은 사람에게 "입력"을 요청하기로 결정한 것과는 다르다.나는 개인적으로 "만약 제안서에 찬성자가 한 명 있고 반대하지 않는다면, 합의도 없고 현상 유지"의 폐교 학교가 싫고, 절반의 시간은 편집 수를 늘리기 위해 실제 합의를 강제할 수 없는 비관리자들(그리고 심지어 새로운 계정들)의 구실로 사용되는 것처럼 보인다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 01:11, 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

@Hijiri88: 캠페인이 무엇인지 잘 알고 있는 것 같으니, 어느 쪽이든 아까 ANI에서 Ltbuni에 대한 나의 게시글에 댓글을 달 수 있을 것이다.ltbuni와 나는 의견 차이를 해결했지만, 거의 아무도 유세 문제에 대해 언급하지 않아 더 이상 이해가 가지 않을 정도로 놀랐다. -다루엣 (대화) 01:54, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

사실, 다시 문제가 되면 다시 제기할 겁니다.그렇지 않으면 잠자는 개를 눕히는 것이 최선일 수 있다. -다루엣(대화) 02:01, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 피오트루스와의 수년간의 경험에서, 나는 그가 매우 독립적인 사람이라는 것을 발견했고, 그가 그 어떤 것에 대해서도 다른 사람을 탐문하는 것을 상상할 수 없다.그는 가끔 내게 흥미가 있을지도 모른다고 생각하는 토론을 나에게 통보해 주었고, 나는 동의하지 않는 것 보다 조금 더 자주, 그리고 AfDs와 프로드들에 관해서 양방향으로 동의한다. DGG (토크 ) 04:01, 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC)[응답]
• WP:VOTESTAK은 다수의 사용자를 명확하게 명시한다.피오트루스가 단 한 명의 사용자만 메시지를 보내는 경우 나는 여기서 정책 위반을 볼 수 없다. -- œ^™ 04:38, 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 다만 "특정 방식으로 토론 결과에 영향을 미치려는 취지에서 이뤄지는 선거운동은 부적절하다고 판단된다"고 복수의 이용자와는 무관하다.ST의 일률적으로 강한 삭제주의 입장 외에 ST에 대해 통보한 이유가 있다면 이는 괜찮다.그러나 ST가 아마도 지금 가장 활발한 상장폐지자인 것으로 볼 때, ST와 기사 사이의 관계가 적어도 어느 정도 명백하지 않다면, 그 통지에 의문을 제기하는 것은 불합리하지 않다.호빗 (토크) 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC) 17시 2분 [응답]

그래, 하지만 피오트루스가 (1) 피오트루스는 ST가 그들과 같은 입장을 취할 것이라고 믿고, (2) 이 입장이 그렇지 않으면 논란이 될 것이고, 페이지를 삭제해서는 안 된다는 증거는 어디에 있지?제공된 디프는 분명히 어떤 반대도 받지 않은 AFD를 가리킨다.만약 피오트루스가 결과에 조금이라도 영향을 미치고자 했다면, 그것은 단지 "단 한 사람만이 투표했다: 현상유지는 남아있다"라는 어리석은 것을 피하기 위해서였을 뿐이라는 것은 꽤 분명하다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 17:26, 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 단지 한 사람에게만 연락하는 것이 선거운동을 하는 것이 아니라는 생각을 밀어붙이고 있을 뿐이다.그러나 (1)까지는 ST에 대해 잘 알고 있는가?만약 피오투스가 ST가 삭제 입장을 취할 것이라고 확신하지 못했다면, 피오투스가 주의를 기울이지 않기 때문이다.(2)에 관한 한, 정확하다는 것이 WP의 예외는 아니라고 생각한다.COVER.호빗(토크) 21:37, 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 종류의 선거운동이 있다.자신의 토크 페이지에서 한 명의 유저에게 연락하는 것만이 결코 스팸 발송이나 선거운동, 은밀한 선거운동은 아니며, 이 경우 ST의 알려진 경향은 그것과 전혀 무관하기 때문에(만약 그랬다면 AFD가 채무불이행으로 폐쇄될 위험에 처하기 전에 연락을 받았을 것이다) 투표 스택도 분명히 없었다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 02:13, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

난 호빗이랑 같이 있어ST는 기본적으로 이 시기에 이 프로젝트에서 가장 강력한 삭제론자(그리고 나는 그것을 경멸적으로 말하지 않는다.나는 개인적으로 ST와 나쁜 상호작용을 한 적이 없으며 여기 몇몇 사람들은 그를 훨씬 더 느슨하게 할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.)그것은 WP에 대한 기술적 위반이 아닐 수 있다.COVER, 위에서 말했듯이, 그 정신에 어긋나는 것 같다.나는 여기서 공식적인 일을 할 필요는 없다고 생각하지만, ST에게 연락하는 것만이 삭제 투표를 위해 낚시하러 가는 것처럼 보인다.토니발리오니 (토크) 02:51, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇지는 않다.AFD는 논쟁의 여지가 없었다.비록 그것이 "삭제 투표를 위한 낚시"라고 할지라도, 이것은 나쁜 마무리자들이 논쟁의 여지가 없는 제안을 "합의가 없는" 것으로 해석하는 시스템의 이상한 결함을 피하는데 도움이 되었을 것이다.나는 이것이 GARs와 RFCs를 통해 수행되는 것을 보아왔고, AFDs의 문제는 비관리자들이 기술적으로 그들이 필요로 하는 방식으로 그들을 닫을 수 없기 때문에 더 심각하다.피오트루스는 애초에 기사를 프로디딩하지 않은 것을 후회했을지 모르지만, 대신 지역사회를 위해 AFD 토론을 열려고 생각한 것에 대해 칭찬받아야 한다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 23:35, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 실제로 페이지를 PROD화했다는 것을 알게 되었고, 그것들은 이전에 편집한 7개의 편집만으로 SPA와 Near-SPA에 의해 삭제되었다.PROD를 교란시키되 이후의 AFD 논의에 실제로 참여하지 않는 행위(확실히 유효한 유지 논쟁이 없기 때문임)는 분명히 시스템을 게임화하는 것이다.나는 솔직히 피오트루스가 이 계정들을 차단해 달라고 요청하고 나서 기사를 다시 PROD를 한 것을 비난하지는 않았을 것이다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 23:42, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 우에. 1Wiki8Q5G7FVITHBAC3dx8HhhhhhdNYWDvstR(토크·콘크리트)이 ST와 어떤 종류의 도끼를 가지고 있는지 모르겠다. 왜냐하면 나는 내가 아는 한 그와 교류한 적이 없는 것에 대해 나와는 의심이 들기 때문이다.관찰된 바와 같이, 그것들은 토론이 없는 AfDs인 것을 감안할 때, 나는 그들이 위키피디아를 여기서 보고하기 위해 어떤 종류의 사악한 음모를 꾸미고 있는지 거의 상상할 수 없다.그러나 그것은 위키피디아의 역대 최악의 정책인 COVER의 어리석음을 잘 보여준다.만약 여러분이 여기서 누군가 불평하지 않고 뭔가를 하고 싶다면, 위키 이외의 의사소통은 슬프게도 그것을 하는 방법으로 남아있다. 왜냐하면 투명성은 그러한 마녀사냥과 시간낭비를 초대하기 때문이다.내가 만약 다른 사람을 속였다면 무슨 일이 일어났을지 생각만 해도 걱정되서 이 곳에 더 쿨한 머리가 널리 퍼져서 다행이다.공식적으로, 나는 ST를 메싱했다. 왜냐하면 내가 작년에 AfDs에서 가장 활동적인 코멘터처럼 보였기 때문이다. 그리고 그는 "그 AfDs들이 모든 사람들의 주목을 받지 못하는 것 같았는데, 나는 누가 그 코멘트에 관심이 있는지 내가 알 수 있을까?"라고 생각했을 때 내 첫 번째 편집자였다.두번째 편집자가 생각나지 않아서 다행이야, 응?좀 더 건설적인 측면에서 이 페이지에서 관련 논의를 참조하십시오. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 15:59, 2016년 11월 19일(UTC)[응답]
  • 음, 그런 요청을 위한 중립적인 포럼을 찾아봐한 편집자에게, 특히 내가 AfD나 기사, 그 밖의 다른 것을 보지 않고도 투표 결과를 예측할 수 있는 것을 묻는 것은 아마도 서투른 선택일 것이다.그래, WP를 둘러보기 위해 백채널을 사용하는 것은 쉽다.COVER, 하지만 잡히면 큰일이야.나는 모든 사람의 95% 이상이 그렇게 하지 않는다고 생각하는 것을 선호한다.호빗 (토크) 2016년 11월 19일 (UTC) 17시 2분 [응답]
    • 그런 포럼을 찾아주면 정말 고맙겠다.위 토론에서 자동감시 목록 작성 제안은 했지만 직접 만들 수 있는 기술 노하우가 부족하다. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 02:18, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 좋은 지적이야.AFD 주요 대화면인가?아니면 무작위 관리인을 고르는 게 어때?하지만 그래, 이런 일을 하기에 좋은 곳이 많지 않아, 나도 동의해.하지만 내가 아는 사람 중에 어떤 사람을 삭제하는 데 가장 동의할 것 같은 편집자를 선택하셨잖아요.그건 좀 문제가 있어.호빗(토크) 01:07, 2016년 11월 22일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이 불만이 AFD에게 관심을 끌었던 것 같군니츠히프트36 (대화) 2016년 11월 19일 17:14 (UTC)[응답]
  • 사실, 100%의 사람들이 나와 ST에 동의하고 있어.왜 op가 이런 사악한 유착을 막기 위해 투표하지 않았는지 궁금하다.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here}02:18, 2016년 11월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 아무런 반응을 일으키지 못한 것은 정확히 두 명의 AfDs였다.그는 그 이전이나 그 이후로 그것을 하지 않았다. [61].나는 스위스터 트위스터를 선택한 것이 나쁜 생각이었다고 생각한다(관찰자가 많은 중립적인 관리자의 대화 페이지나 위키프로젝트 대화 페이지보다 낫다), 그리고 나는 그가 ST에 이런 종류의 요청을 반복한 것에 대해 질책할 것이지만, 여기서는 잘못된 것이 없다고 본다.소프트라벤더 (토크) 07:17, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 대체로 동의한다(잘못된 일이 있었다고 주장하겠지만, 중대한 일은 없고 반복되지 않는 한 걱정할 가치도 없다).호빗 (토크) 07:40, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 솔직히 어떻게 하는 것이 잘못된 행동이었는지 아직 보지 못했기 때문에 "반복되지 않는 한" 그것을 간과해야 한다고 말하는 것은 그것을 보는 올바른 방법처럼 보이지 않는다.다시 말하지만, 원래의 PROD를 필리버스터하여 시스템을 게임을 시도했던 SPA와 근거리 SPA는 사실 훨씬 더 심각한 문제였고, 논란의 여지가 없는 제안을 "합의가 없다"고 종결짓는 경향은, 일반적으로 심각한 문제는 아니지만, 피오트루스가 피하려고 하는 행동보다 여전히 더 심각하다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC) 10:42, 응답

문제는 그가 누구를 선택했느냐 하는 것이다. 유명한 삭제론자.만약 그가 관찰자가 많은 중립적인 행정관의 토크 페이지나 위키프로젝트 토크 페이지처럼 중립적인 곳에 글을 올렸더라면 괜찮았을 것이다.아니면 결정에 영향을 미치려는 실제 SPA가 분명히 있었고 AfDs가 중립적이지 않은 방향으로 향하고 있었다면 ANI나 AN에 더 많은 시선을 요청하며 글을 올릴 수도 있었을 것이다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 22:51, 2016년 11월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

메. 만약 피오투스가 분명히 여기서 가장 죄가 적은 당사자가 아니었다면, 만약 그가 "지켜라"는 단 한 명의 "지켜라"가 있었다면, 그가 "잘 알려진 삭제주의자를 조사하라"고 요구하기 전에 투표를 했거나, AFD를 개시한 직후에 그들이 문을 닫기 전에 한 것이 아니라 그가 그것을 했더라면, 나는 아마도 당신의 의견에 동의할 것이다.그러나 이 경우 기사는 최초 PRODs 이후 1주일 후에 삭제되었어야 했는데, "캔바싱"할 필요 없이, 이것이 제대로 되지 않은 유일한 이유는 기사들의 창작자들이 원래의 PRODs를 필리버스터함으로써 시스템을 조작하려고 했기 때문이다.결과적인 AFD는 "반대하지 않는다; PROD로 취급하고 삭제하라"로 끝났어야 했지만, 여러분과 나 둘 다 때때로 이것은 사실이 아니며 누군가는 (때로는 관리자도 아닌) "삭제할 합의는 없다; 현상 유지하라"고 말하는 것을 알고 있다.그래, 이상적으로는 피오트루스가 위키프로젝트나 중립적인 관리자에게 게시했을 것이다.그러나 그는 "논의"의 결과에 영향을 미치려고 노력하거나 유세하지 않았기 때문에, 그는 고장난 시스템이 스스로를 망치는 것을 막으려고 노력했다.PROD의 전체 교장은 선의의 위키피디아가 기사를 삭제해야 한다고 믿는다면 얼마든지 제안할 수 있고, 일정 시간이 지나도 아무도 반대 의사를 표명하지 않으면 페이지가 삭제된다는 것이다.AFD는 이론상으로는 같은 원리로 기능한다. 선의의 위키피디아가 해당 페이지를 삭제하도록 지명하고, 일정 시간이 지나도 아무도 반대하지 않으면 해당 페이지는 삭제된다.유일한 문제는 마감자가 부주의해서 가끔 그런 식으로 작동하지 않는다는 것이다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 13:39, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

66.87.151.122

Arbcom 선거 방해. --Guy Macon (대화) 20:06, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

꽤 명백한 차단 회피, 일주일 동안 차단.아크로테리온 (토크) 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC) 20:15 [응답]

위키피디아를 반보호해야 할까?중재위 선거 2016년 12월? --Guy Macon (대화) 20:58, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:50.201.7.90

그의 편집 요약은 아무리 말해도 좀 당황스럽다.쿠라소에 대한 이 편집은 "동일한 바나나 포레몬키"가 반복된다.방글라데시의 이 피임약 사용 편집본에는 "이것은 완전히 컨텍스트화되지 않은 데이터이고 여러분 모두가 완전히 얼빠진 망치라는 것을 지적하는 당신의 빌어먹을 소싱 4에 대한 3가지 기본적인 설명이 포함되어 있다."라는 편집 요약본이 있다.이런 부적절한 댓글이 많지만 첫 번째 댓글은 편집 요약본으로는 전혀 부적절하다. --버논씨(토크) 20:07, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

72시간 차단됨 - 요약 편집이 원격으로 허용되지 않음.아크로테리온 (토크) 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC) 20:12 [응답]

사용자가 자신의 토크 페이지에 부적절한 편집 요약을 계속 사용하고 있다. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A50.201.7.90&type=revision&diff=751314647&oldid=751310748 --Mr. 버논 (talk) 21:09, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]을 참조하십시오.

실제로 사람과 조직을 대상으로 한 가짜 편집자 브론히그스

조직의 행동 및 대화 페이지에서 관리자 주의가 필요함

IP 사용자가 임의의 대학 기사에 "환자 보호 및 저렴한 진료법에 대한 법적 도전"을 삽입

취약성 데레코 드 우나 상상

랩 음악 기사에 대한 소싱되지 않은 대량 편집(2부)

잘못된 사용자 이름에 대한 무한 블록

편집 충돌에 대한 질문

탁퐁 혜성

카우틸랴3

50.30.100.33의 법적 조치 위협

User:chisme

User:chisme은 나에게 지시되고 모욕적인 부적절한 행동을 한다.왜? 왜냐하면 나는 친절하게도 사용자들을 자제하려고 노력했기 때문이다:키즘은 당신이 Talk를 읽을 때 모든 사람들이 분명히 느낄 수 있다는 그의 개인적인 의견을 강요하지 않는다.안드레(예술가)

최근 그는 자신의 토크 페이지에서 나의 다음 통지(cf : [65])를 수정했다.

나는 방금 위키피디아에서 너의 행동을 알렸다.분쟁_해결_공지판.나는 네가 나를 « 년이라고 부르는 게 맞냐고 물었다. »다시 말하지만, 나는 너의 부적절한 행동에도 불구하고 너의 관점을 개방하고 환영한다.나는 단지 안드레(예술가) 기사를 공평한 어조로 중립적으로 만들고 싶을 뿐이다.폴라어트 (대화) 21:49, 2016년 11월 6일 (UTC)

로

나는 방금 위키피디아에서 너의 행동을 수정했다.분쟁_해결_공지판.나는 그것이 옳은지 물었다.나를 «년이라고 불러줘 »다시 말하지만, 나는 참을성이 있고, 악의에 찬 행동에서 환영받는 관점이 있다.나는 단지 안드레(예술가)를 공평한 곡조로 중립을 지키고 싶을 뿐이다.폴라어트 (대화) 21:49, 2016년 11월 6일 (UTC)

참고: 나는 이 두 인용구를 명확성을 위해 템플릿으로 포맷했고, 단어 "by"를 "to"로 변경했다.소프트라벤더 (토크) 15:37, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[답글]

이 부적절한 행위를 멈추기 위해 내가 무엇을 해야 하는가?도와줘서 고마워 --폴라어트 (대화) 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC) 12시 41, 25분[응답]

일부 코멘트를 바꾸는 것은 (특히 이런 패션에서) WP가 아닌 다른 것이라는 데 동의한다.Civil and fly in WP:TPO. 적어도 엄중한 경고는 질서 정연하다.그러나 그가 너를 "와플리어의 홍보계년"이라고 부른 코멘트는 프랑스어 위키백과에서 만들어졌고, 여기서 수입되어서는 안 되었지만, 프랑스어 위키백과(예의식에 관한 비슷한 규칙을 가지고 있다)에서 다루어졌어야 했다.DRN에서 같은 문제를 제기하셨는데 WP인 것처럼 느껴지십니다.포룸쇼핑.클라우스케(토크) 14:27, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이런 행동을 처음 접한다.2006년 이후, 나는 영어나 프랑스어 위키피디아에서 관리자의 도움을 요구하지 않았다.그래서 어떤 포럼에서 사용자에게 다음과 같이 알려야 하는지 몰랐던 것이다.치스미의 행동.폴라어트 (대화) 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC) 15:21 [응답]

• 나는 인터위키의 이전 자료를 축소했다. 인터위키는 여기 엔위키에는 속하지 않는다. 클리어스케가 말했듯이, 그것은 여기 엔위키에는 속하지 않고 FR위키에 남아있을 필요가 있다.Polaert와 Chisme, 둘 다 예의 바르고 협력적인 자세를 유지할 필요가 있으며 Chisme, 어떤 상황에서도 당신이 여기서 했던 방식으로 다른 사람의 직위를 변경하지 마십시오 [66].나는 이제 위키 기준에 따라 문제의 기사를 편집했다. 나는 두 사람이 다시 다른 기사 편집으로 돌아가서 서로 내버려 두기를 제안한다.만약 당신이 이 기사를 더 편집하거나 토의할 필요성을 느낀다면, 그렇게 하고 다른 편집자나 그들의 행동이 아닌 내용과 정책만을 참조하라. -- Softlavender (대화) 16:18, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자: 여러 IP 계정과 사용자 계정을 사용하여 사용자: 이중 선명도를 지속적으로 편집하십시오.

사용자가 에네아곤 페이지에서 끊임없이 전쟁을 편집했는데, 사용자가 계속 그들을 괴롭히고 왜 편집 내용을 삭제했는지 귀찮게 굴기 때문에 다른 사용자 더블샵과 편집 충돌이 있었을 것이다.모든 IP가 동일한 편집 절차를 따르다가 더블샵에 집착하기 때문에 공격받는 사용자가 편집하는 IP가 여러 개 있는 것 같다.불쾌감을 주는 편집기에서 사용되는 것으로 보이는 IP는 Special:기여/88.109.192.184 특별:기여/88.109.194.22 특별:기여금/88.109.203.10 및 무한정 차단 계정 2개, 특별:기여/Hfddhdhddhddhf Special:기부금/Sdhshjsahsa. -glove- (토크) 20:29, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

간단히 살펴보면, IP 주소 중 하나에서 나온 이 의견은 특히 받아들일 수 없다.다크나이트2149 20:20, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

이 두 가지 사항을 기준으로 하면, 모두 User의 양말인 것 같다.베컴비즈니스.Sro23 (대화) 2016년 11월 26일 00:00 (UTC)[응답]

이 논의를 WP로 넘어갈 것인가?SPI, 그럼?[67] DarkKnight2149 01:55, 2016년 11월 26일 (UTC) DarkKnight2149 01:55, 2016년 11월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이는 IP가 여러 차례 비아헤드론(리디렉트)으로 복사하여 붙여넣으려 했으나 되돌아가고 있는 무호흡면(neaheadron)에서 시작되었다(내가 아는 한).그곳의 토크 페이지에서는 토론이 이루어지고 있다(IP가 계속 편집전을 벌이겠다고 협박하고 나서 위협을 제거하기 때문에 그리 오래 걸리지 않는다).After shorter times failed, I have semiprotected those two articles indefinitely, and also made (in most cases shorter) semiprotection for List of polygons, Enneadecagon, Enneacontagon, Enneacontahexagon, Hendecahedron, Decahedron, Enneagonal prism, and (redirect) Nonagonal prism, where the IP has continued their war against "ennea"-based nomenclaIP 주소는 바뀌었지만 범위 블록이 작동할 수 있을 정도로 범위가 제한될 수 있다. 아직 확인하지 못했다.Hfdfdhdhdddhf와 Sdhshjsahsa는 분명히 같은 편집자의 양말이다.—David Eppstein (대화) 02:18, 2016년 11월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

Rthhuhrh도 그렇다.더블 샤프(토크) 2016년 11월 26일(UTC) 10:00[응답]

SlitherioFan2016에 대한 주제 금지 제안

나는 다음 기사에서 SlitherioFan2016에 대한 주제 금지를 제안한다.

• 영화등급제
• 텔레비전 콘텐츠 등급 시스템
• 비디오 게임 등급제
• 모바일 소프트웨어 콘텐츠 등급 시스템

이 편집자는 사실상 SPA로서 거의 독점적으로 이 기사 계열을 운영하고 있으며, 그가 그 기사에 참석했던 시간 동안 엄청난 파괴력을 가져왔다.그의 MO는 글의 색 구성표를 끈질기게 변경하여 글이 색맹 사용자들을 위한 위키피디아의 접근성 기준을 위반하고 미적 매력에 대한 접근성을 희생하도록 하는 것이다.토크에서 RFC:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: 글의 비교표는 색맹 사용자가 접근할 수 있는 색 구성표를 사용하여 문제를 해결해야 하는가? 그러나 RFC는 이제 SlitherioFan2016이 그것을 놓을 수 없다고 결론지었다.나는 그 사건을 연대기적으로 제시하고 가능한 한 간결하게 유지하도록 노력할 것이다.

1. 위키백과:Administrators_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/usciented 편집 요약 사용 - 선호하는 색 구성표를 설치하려고 반복적으로 시도(그리고 되돌리기)한 후에 나는 이 보고서를 제출했다.Ed Johnston은 이 사건을 맡아서 SlitherioFan2016에 의해 4주 동안 영화 등급 시스템을 전혀 편집하지 않기로 합의하였다.
2. 토크:모션_그림_등급_시스템#RfC: 글의 비교표에서 색맹 사용자가 접근할 수 있는 색 구성표를 사용해야 하는가?– SlitherioFan의 비호환 계획이 거부된 RFC는 어제 폐쇄되었고, 색맹 사용자에게 최대한의 접근성을 제공하는 RFC를 사용하기로 합의하였다.
3. [68] – 오늘 아침 SliderFan2016은 RFC 결과를 그가 선호하는 색채 배열에 또 다른 변형으로 과대 포장했다.
4. 토크:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: 비교표에서 새로운 8색 구성표를 제안해야 할까?– RFC SlitherioFan2016에 의해 인용된 버전을 복원한 후, 새로운 RFC를 시작했는데, RFC는 그의 새로운 버전을 제안하기 위해 그의 원래 버전에서 변형된 버전을 제안했다.말할 필요도 없이 그것은 색맹 사용자들의 접근성 문제를 악화시키지 않는다.
5. [69] – 게다가, 그는 기사의 다른 부분을 "그래픽 표시"하기 시작했다.호주의 항목에서 볼 수 있듯이 그는 일반 텍스트를 컬러 코딩된 아이콘으로 변환했다.다시, 텍스트를 다른 색으로 변경하고 색상으로 둘러싸면 화면 판독기에 접근성 문제가 발생할 수 있다.또한 항목에는 등급 기호가 정확히 어떻게 보이는지 보여주는 이미지 파일이 포함되어 있기 때문에 완전히 중복된다.

나는 진정으로 품질, 미학, 접근성을 향상시키기 위해 헌신하는 편집자들과 이 문제에 대한 더 이상의 논의에 반대하지는 않지만 SlitherioFan2016은 분명히 이러한 기사에 긍정적인 기여를 하지 못하고 있다.슬리테리오팬2016은 명백히 이슈를 이해하지 못하거나 단순히 신경 쓰지 않고 있으며, 이제 접근성 문제를 기사의 실제 텍스트 부분에까지 확산시키고 있다.나는 그 기사들이 그의 참여로 인해 호의적이라고 생각하지 않으며 그의 노력이 다른 기사로 향한다면 더 좋을 것이다.베티 로건 (대화) 06:39, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

두 가지:

1. 현재 30/500 보호가 시행되고 있는가?그렇다면 콘텐츠 등급 기사에 적용할 수 있을까?
2. 내 새로운 관심사가 어디 있는지 알아?SlitherioFan2016 (대화 • 기여) 07:05, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

보통 누군가가 이와 같은 것에 대해 대답할 때, 그것은 그들의 행동을 변호하기 위한 것이거나, 혹은 그들이 고발당국에 의해 파괴적인 것으로 여겨졌던 행동을 더 이상 지속하지 않을 것임을 증명하기 위한 시도일 것이다.너도 마찬가지야.위키백과에서 당신의 목적은 무엇인가? --타라지 (대화) 09:15, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 고발자에 의해 파괴되었다고 여겨졌던 것을 더 이상 하지 않을 것이라는 것을 증명하기 위해 노력하고 있다.나는 조금 생소한 방법으로 했을 뿐이다.SlitherioFan2016 (대화 • 기여) 10:01, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

너무 깊이 보지 않고, RFC 질문의 제목은 믿을 수 없을 정도로 일방적이다.그것이 정당화될 수 있는 유일한 방법은 OP가 이 실에 옳고 한 사용자의 파괴적 행위에 문제가 있는 것인지 여부일 것이다. 그러나 만약 RFC를 개설하는 것이 단지 RFC를 개설하는 경우라면, 더 많은 사람들이 여기에 먼저 보고하기보다는 그들에게 나타나서 동의하지 않을 것이다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 10:03, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 너의 의견을 잘 이해하지 못한다.당신은 어떤 RFC 타이틀을 "일방적"이라고 생각하십니까?원본 RFC(Mine) 또는 최신판(SlitherioFan2016이 첫 번째 RFC가 폐쇄된 후 24시간 이내에 제출한 것)?그리고 정확히 누가 뾰족하게 행동하고 있는가; 새로운 RFC를 시작하는 SlitherioFan2016? 아니면 이 사건 보고서를 제출하는 나를?내가 이 사건을 여기에 가져온 이유는 나는 이 편집자가 이 기사들의 접근성을 잠재적으로 손상시키는 변화를 하는 것에 점점 더 싫증이 나기 때문이다.나는 그와 그 문제를 논의하려고 노력했지만 본질적으로 무시당했기 때문에 나는 RFC가 문제를 영구히 해결할 것이라는 희망을 가지고 원래의 RFC를 신청했다.베티 로건 (토크) 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC) 18:29 [응답]

평소처럼 어설프게 굴지 못한 것에 대해 사과해야겠다.페이지 이력을 거슬러 올라가서 누가 무엇과 왜 단어를 썼는지 알아낼 힘이 없다.오전 6시인데, 공항에서 버거킹에서 커피를 마시며 밤을 보냈는데, 비행기를 놓치지 않는 유일한 방법은 집에서 자고, 3시에 일어나서, 비즈니스 호텔에서 하룻밤 이상 묵는 택시비를 내는 것뿐이기 때문이다.그렇기는 하지만, 내가 RfC를 언급하고 있는 것은 꽤 분명하다고 생각했다: 기사의 비교표는 색맹 사용자가 접근할 수 있는 색 구성표를 사용해야 하는가?내가 여기서 말한 것처럼 말을 했어야 했어.RFC라는 명칭에서 (그쪽이 옳다고 하더라도) 의견 불일치 중 한 쪽에 대한 근거를 제시하는 것은 명백히 문제가 있다.흑백을 제외한 어떤 색채도 색채맹 사용자나 색채맹 사용자가 똑같이 접근할 수 없다는 것은 사실이고, 색채맹 사용자나 색채맹 사용자가 똑같이 접근할 수 없다는 것은 사실이지만, 특히 문제가 되는 것은 슬리테리오팬의 근거(이것은, 다시 말하지만, 나는 유효하다고는 말하지 않는다)가 "색채맹 사용자가 위키피디아에 접근할 수 없어야 한다"는 것이 아니라,RFC 헤더는 그것을 그렇게 표현했다.다시 말하지만, 이것은 슬리테리오팬의 관점을 지지하는 것이 아니다; 그것은 RFC 문구에 대한 논평일 뿐이다.그리고 내가 RFC 문구의 중립성에 대해 악명높게 엄격하다는 것을 명심하라(내 RFC 질문이 나 자신의 관점에 치우쳐 있다는 이유로 한때 비판을 받았던 정도까지) 내 의견은 아마도 일말의 염치로 받아들여질 수 있을 것이다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 21:23, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 RFC 질문 자체가 전혀 중립적이지 않다고 생각하지 않는다.위키피디아는 접근성 지침이 있기 때문에, 지역사회에 색맹 접근성 체계를 사용해야 하는지에 대한 의견을 묻는 것이 완벽하게 합리적인 IMO이다.나는 선택사항들을 선호로 해석될 수 있는 "현재"와 "제안된" 계획으로 라벨을 붙이는 실수를 저질렀다고 생각한다. 그러나 사실 두 선택사항을 구별하기 위해서만 행해졌다.그것은 RFC 질문이 실제로 하나는 색맹 "접근 가능"으로, 다른 하나는 "접근 불가능"으로 홍보하지 않는다는 것을 의미하며, 나는 설문 조사에서 내가 언급할 때까지 어느 쪽도 주장하지 않는다.베티 로건 (대화) 03:22, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 RFC 질문 자체가 전혀 중립적이지 않다고 생각하지 않는다(강조 히지리의 질문) 나 또한 그렇다.내가 한 말을 좀 더 주의 깊게 읽어 보아라.질문(기본적으로 "다음 옵션 중 어느 것을 실행해야 하는가?")은 중립적이었고 그 자체로도 괜찮았다.그러나 중립적인 RFC 질문을 갖는 요점은 코멘터를 편향시키지 않기 위해서입니다. 만약 그것이 "옵션 중 하나는 접근 가능하고 다른 하나는 그렇지 않다"는 제목 아래에 나타난다면 중립적인 RFC 질문을 갖는 목적을 좌절시킨다.위키피디아는 접근성 지침이 있기 때문에 색맹 접근성 계획을 사용해야 하는지에 대한 커뮤니티의 의견을 묻는 것이 완벽하게 합리적인 IMO. 그것은 요점을 벗어난 것이다.모든 것이 균형잡힌 행동이다.여러분은 "일부 사용자들은 상대적으로 접근성이 떨어지는 옵션이 미적으로 더 잘 작동한다고 믿는 반면, 다른 사용자들은 접근성의 절충이 가치가 없다고 믿는다"고 말했어야 했다 -- 여러분의 목표가 코멘터들에게 편향되는 것이 아니라면, 단지 "한 가지 옵션이 더 쉽게 접근 가능하다"고만 말하지 마십시오.다시 말하지만, 만약 당신이 실물에 대해 옳다면, RFC를 열지 않는 것이 완벽할 것이다. 하지만 일단 RFC를 열면 당신은 RFC의 규칙에 따라 경기를 해야 한다.그것은 RFC 질문이 실제로 한 가지는 색맹인 "접근 불가"로, 다른 한 가지는 "접근 불가"로 홍보하지 않는다는 것이다. 당신은 이 실의 꼭대기에서 SlitherioFan의 MO가 "미적 매력을 위한 희생적인 접근성"이라고 말했다.이것은 만약 당신이 RFC를 통해 중립적인 제3자로부터 의견을 얻으려고 진지하게 시도하고 있었다면, 당신은 "기사의 비교표가 색맹 사용자가 접근할 수 있는 색 구성표를 사용해야 하는가?"라는 논쟁의 양면을 제시했어야 했다는 것을 의미한다."접근 가능 대 접근 불가능"으로 표시.다시 한 번 말하지만, 그것이 사실이고, 이것이 (그리고 내가 당신의 의견에 동의하기 위해 약간 기울고 있는 것을 보았던) 거만한 사용자라는 것이 매우 옳을지도 모른다. 그러나 만약 그렇다면 RFC를 열지 말고, 만약 RFC를 개설할 거라면 중립적으로 그렇게 해달라.나는 보통 RFC가 어떻게 사전에 언급되어야 하는지에 대해 정확히 의견이 다른 당사자들로부터 동의를 얻으려고 노력한다(위에서 언급된 문제의 이유는 그들이 그렇게 하는 것을 거부했기 때문이다).히지리 88 (聖聖) 06:23, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

왜 네가 500분의 30 보호책을 꺼냈는지 이해가 안 가.문제를 일으키는 유일한 편집자는 당신이다.문제가 있었는지 여부에 대한 언급 없이, 만약 있다면, 해결책은 다음 중 하나일 것이다. 1) 문제가 있는 행동을 자발적으로 중단한다. 예를 들어, 필요한 경우 기사를 완전히 멀리한다. 2) 커뮤니티나 관리자는 문제가 있는 행동을 멈출 수 없기 때문에 편집(예: 주제 금지, 차단)을 제한한다.lf. 일반적으로 편집자 한 명 때문에 30/500 보호가 필요하지 않아야 한다.닐 아인(토크) 13:12, 2016년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• Comment SlitherioFan2016은 색상 배열을 다시 바꾸었다. [70].RFC 폐쇄 이후 두 번째 교체다.그는 토크에서 또 다른 RFC를 시작했다.Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: 비교표에 8가지 색상으로 색 구성표를 설치해야 할까?(이것은 그가 이전 RFC를 철회하라는 관리자로부터 요청을 받은 후 24시간 만에 시작한 두 번째 RFC이다.)그는 RFC 시스템(원래 RFC가 폐쇄된 지 48시간 이내에 2개의 새로운 RFC)을 남용하고 있으며, 여전히 원래의 RFC의 중심이었던 우려를 해소하지 못하고 있다.우리 제발 그 행동을 좀 봐줄 수 있을까?베티 로건 (대화) 06:23, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 색 배열을 바꿀 때 마음에 안 들어?만약 아니라고 대답한다면, 다시는 바꾸지 않을 거야.SlitherioFan2016 (대화 • 기여) 07:13, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

우리는 당신이 합의에 반하여 편집하는 것을 좋아하지 않는다.그러니까 그래, 너 자신을 위해서 다시는 바꾸지 마. --타라지 (대화) 03:00, 2016년 11월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그가 색깔을 바꾸는 것을 끝냈다고 주장한 후에 그의 편집 내용을 두 번 되돌렸다. 그래서 그는 심각한 능력 문제가 벌어지고 있거나 아니면 그는 신경 쓰지 않고 게임을 하고 있다.어느 쪽이든 이 일은 지금 당장 멈춰야 한다. --타라지 (대화) 06:38, 2016년 11월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이제 슬릿헤리오팬2016을 WP에서 한 주에 한 번씩 차단했다.AN3. 이 편집자는 합의를 따르는 데 동의한 것 같다. 그리고 나서 그는 자신 이외에는 아무도 지지하지 않는, 또 다른 변화를 일으키기 위해 떠난다.그가 거래를 제안할 때 나는 우리가 그를 더 이상 진지하게 받아들일 수 없다고 생각한다.에드존스턴 (대화) 2016년 11월 26일 17:25 (UTC)[응답]

선의의 편집자일 가능성이 높지만, 의사소통을 거부한다.

BT101(토크 · 기여)은 캐나다 도로 시스템에 관한 여러 기사를 만들어 왔다.대부분/전부는 아니더라도 상당수는 다양한 삭제 장소로 보내졌다(샘플은 편집자 토크 페이지 참조).

나는 안주 인터체인지와 아프데드를 우연히 만났다.편집자가 선의로 행동하고 있는 것 같았기 때문에 트윙클 통지(마지막 단락은 편집자가 퀘벡 출신인 것처럼 보이므로 "필요하다면 프랑스어로 의사소통이 가능하다"는 의미) 아래에 해명 쪽지를 남겼다. 그러나 물론 기사들은 수준 높은 영어로 되어 있어서 말할 수 있을 것 같다.그들은 신경 쓰지 않는 것 같아서 나는 다른, 더 강한 노트를 별도의 제목과 함께 남겨두었다.(다른 사용자도 그 실에 대해 논평했다.그 이후로 그들은 또 다른 두 개의 기사를 만들어냈다. (그 기사는 결국 삭제될 것 같다.)

이것이 지금까지의 그들의 유일한 대화 시도인 것 같고 별로 고무적이지도 않다.그들의 무능하거나 토론하기를 꺼리는 것과 그러한 기사들이 포함하기에 적합하지 않다는 사실 때문에, 나는 지금까지의 그들의 행동은 위키피디아에 전적으로 부정적인 것이라고 믿고 있으며, WP의 일부 변종별로 한 블록씩의 블록을 보증한다.CIR.

(참고: watchlisting이 아니므로 필요한 경우 ping을 하십시오.)티그라안^{Click here to contact me} 16:20, 2016년 11월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

@Tigraan:일주일 동안 막혔어. 짧았으면 더 짧았을 텐데, 주말 편집자인 것 같아.2016년 11월 26일(UTC) 미니애폴리스 23:24[응답]

:NFLJunkie22

중단 IP

BabbaQ의 인신공격

한 페이지를 어떻게 할 것인가가 전혀 다른 기사로 바뀌었다.

아티클 보호 상태 - 폴란드

"BLP" 위반 및 토크 페이지 댓글 삭제

사용자:Mplayer1999

법적 위협

관리자 Mike V에 의해 반환된 후보자에게 중요한/관련된 질문

잠재적 Sockpuppet:사용자: Future Perfect at Sunlight

크리스토프 부셰러

공정하고 독립적인 해돋이 미래의 완벽한 시험

반달리즘 전용 IP: 72.180.196.16

삭제: Nadziejewo, Greater Polland Voivodship

관리자 응답

블록 필요

파워세븐 컨퍼런스 활동

IP 기여자의 경계, 취약성, 블록 회피 편집

블랭킹 및 합성

미 대선 파행 편집, 2016년 기사

이 사용자가 미사용 파일을 업로드하고 페이지에 추가함

IP 사용자 71.195.221.79에 의한 액화불소 토륨 원자로에서의 교란 편집

문제가 있는 사용자 이름으로만 Vandal 계정 사용

새로운 편집자들과의 이상한 일들

태국어 위키에서 살아있는 사람과 연결되는 내 작업 파일이 왜 삭제되는가?

신의 고질라는 그의 교훈을 얻지 못한 것 같다.

Unverified claims in Johor Bahru page

User Deleting Articles Without Discussion; Continuous Refusal to Even Slightly Try & Compromise W/ Others

Repeated cut & paste moves and edit warring at Vento Aureo/Golden Wind

Rangeblock request

118.137.145.191, an uncivil and edit-warring user

Calvin Wisanto brought the incompetent behaviour of 118.137.145.191 (talk · contribs) to my attention. I think this page history best summarizes the IP's behaviour: adding information that failed verification, edit-warring over it and insulting/threatening others (the edit summary "Eh wisanto jgn sok tau ente blom pernah diciduk trus dibuang ke laut tinggal nama" translates to "Hey Wisanto, don't pretend to know it all; you have never been arrested and thrown into a to-be-specified sea"). Additionally, the IP has been repeatedly warned, but subsequently keeps blanking the user talk page. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the IP editor one final warning; any further misbehaviour (including removal of threads from this noticeboard or other people's talkpages) will result in an immediate block. Note, however, that I'd ask other users to refrain from edit-warring over the removal of warnings from the IP user's own talkpage in the future; the user is allowed by policy to remove such warnings from their own page if they choose to. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I was writing this, some other admin beat me to blocking the IP; quite justifiably of course, as the IP kept edit-warring on this noticeboard trying to remove this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The shared IP notice, on the other hand, cannot be removed. Amaury (talk contribs) 10:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Block expired and the edit warring continues at Sam Ratulangi International Airport. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And he just blanked this discussion again. John from Idegon (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ltbuni repeatedly, blatantly canvassing

On four pages related to far-right Hungarian politics, Ferenc Szaniszló, Romani people in Hungary, Magyar Hírlap and the Petra László tripping incident, Ltbuni has posted on Norden1990's or Koertefa's talk pages requesting help in conflicts, and often received the help they've requested:

• Yesterday, on 13 November, Ltbuni posted on Norden's talk page asking for help at two pages, Ferenc Szaniszló and the Petra László tripping incident. Norden promptly came to Ltbuni's aid at Ferenc Szaniszló.

• On 25 October, Ltbuni requests that Koertefa help them at Petra László tripping incident stating, "I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR.”

• 21 August, Ltbuni requests Norden's help at Magyar Hírlap, writing "Look at the controversy section?" Norden promptly replies that they will, and does. Ltbuni also posts at Koertefa's talk page, requesting help on this and another article, and complaining about me and Der Spiegel. Koertefa promptly replies favorably, and gets involved as well. The unsourced and offensive WP:OR about Roma immigrants that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article.

I first encountered this particular Hungarian editing crowd after I wrote the wiki article on Szaniszló, where I wrote a meticulous survey of news coverage on him at the Talk Page. Eventually we had a dispute resolution, found here DRN, which also includes a very long review of RS coverage. The article remained stable for over three years, until Ltbuni removed the description of Roma as “discriminated against” (following "ostracized" of The Independent and The New York Times), calling this language "malicious" and false.

Content issues aside, I’m shocked at the brazen character of Ltbuni’s WP:CANVASSING, and also surprised that Norden and Koertefa indulge it (they don’t always help edit war, but they also never warn Ltbuni to stop). I have a suspicion there may be much more of this going on for many Hungarian political topics, but these recent incidents are clear enough. After Thucydides411 warned Ltbuni above canvassing, their response was unapologetic: more or less "bring it on." I think all of them should be warned, and Ltbuni deserves some sanction - they’ve been around since 2011 and should definitely know better. Lastly, Ltbuni has repeatedly declared that the international media is unreliable and instead favors their own interpretation of reliable sources [118][119][120][121][122] (all diffs from the last couple days), and this strongly suggests they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Update - this has been going on far longer, as I note in my reply to Koertefa below -Darouet (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)@Darouet: Some of the diffs you given above are not in English. Has this editor been informed of WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Can you provide a translation for what is being posted since you seem to be able to understand Hungarian (I am assuming that is the language being used)? It might make it easier for others to determine if any action needs to be taken if they knew what was being posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly:I had already translated them on my Talk PAge, in response to M. Darouet's friend, Thucydides411 - th hey work together, (s)he simply did not want to present it to You. Nota Bene, Darouet knows that they are on my Talk Page, since (s)he posted below it...I wrote: Could You please take a look at this or that TALK page - I find it biased etc. What is Your opinion? or something like that. LOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing --Ltbuni (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I don't speak Hungarian. In this case the talk section titles, references to me or the sources I've used, and immediate follow-up editing, all make the general gist of the canvassing obvious, though I've used google translate to try as best possible to follow. I can post google translate links tomorrow if that's helpful. -Darouet (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from User talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing that Ltbuni is more than capable of discussing things in English, so perhaps he/she will comment here and explain the posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I know WP:SPEAKENGLISH does not apply to personal pages. There are some non-English text even on you page. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I need some time to refresh my memories. First, I find it malicious what Darouet is doing: one sided edits. I have already translated and explained what I wrote on the Talk page of the Articles, and on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing. He is always sensible to sources, why did not he link it? Second: I offered him dipute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#Dispute_resolution - which he refused, and denounced me.

Regarding Ferenc Szaniszló: The whole article was a Political Soapboxing. It gave undue weight to a specific event (Mr. Szaniszló was given a medal, then he gave it back), and its only aim was pushing a certain political view of his, proving that the conservative Fidesz-gvmnt has close links to "neonazi Jobbik". Under the pretext of collecting Reliable sources, Darouet has now a list of links on the Talk Page, to promote his view, that the Jobbik party is neonaczi. Apart from the fact, that He can not speak Hungarian, so he must rely on the judgements of those journalists, who can't speak it either, we must keep in mind, that the article itself deals with Mr Szaniszló. Darouet added the story of a rock singer, some archeologist, long contemplation over the nature of Fidesz, its close links to radical Jobbik, the sufferings of Roma, the uproar of the US -Embassy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=566210814&oldid=566210742 As You can see on the Talk Page, I was constructive, tried to upgrade the article. His responses were mostly political manifestos. BTW, as I have already explained it on my Talk page, Norden1990 and I were not on the same side regarding this article, I deleted his edit, he reverted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=735470868&oldid=735469085 Strange, that Darouet did not mention it in his "indictment", because I have already explained it to him on my Talk page days ago.... The tip of the iceberg where this whole "administrative" issue began, was the point when I linked the Romani People in Hungary article, which deals with the WHOLE situation of the Romani, and I removed the "who facing discrimination" half-sentence from the Ferenc Szaniszló article.

And as I have already explained it at least two times to Darouet, not the language ("they are discriminated") was malicious, but the whole context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#.22Discrimination.22_a_.22malicious.22_term.3F. Strange enough, that wherever Darouet is in trouble, Thucydides411 turns up, uses the same language, , accusation etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued...

Petra László tripping incident - Yeah, there was a debate over she tripped or not. Since the mainstream media was biased, as I proved, and she now has an OFFICIAL document, (proving that she did not) from the Hungarian Judicial System, I found that strange that in the lead we claim that she tripped, referring to CNN and other stuff, which "somehow" forgeted to report with what she was indicted, and also omitted the facts which ruin the picture of an innocent refugee (He was fired from his job!), so I took a look at the Talk Page, and found that only THREE persons were interested: Amin, Norden1990, Ltbuni. Since Norden had some administrative something with Amin, I guess he was blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Norden1990#3RR_.40_Petra_L.C3.A1szl.C3.B3_tripping_incident I found it appropriate to call Norden's attention, that he/she could come back. No one else was interested in this article. Neither Darouet, nor Thucydides411. Only three of us, one is blocked or something. Whom on Earth should have I notified?

And I can not follow the argumentation of Darouet. International media can not be wrong? So it is a crime to add other point of views? They finally got those Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Darouet suggests that "there is something going on in the Hungarian Politics-articles", and Ltbuni is a "promoter of hate speech", is "canvassing" - Are these the manifestations of the Good Faith? Or simple libelling? Which of my edits was not underpinned with data, heh? What is more, we have an edit war in the article Romani People in Hungary. From the "Edit History" it is clear, that the eager-beaver editor, who happens to share my oppinion is User: Borsoka. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people_in_Hungary&action=history Where did I ask Borsóka to help me, with the abovementionned articles? Remeber, I am blatantly etc canvassing!

The following problems occured in the Articles:

Petra László: She OFFICIALLY DID NOT TRIP, the lead was misleading, suggesting that she did - now, it is neutral. I brought up sources. Reliable ones. No one can deny that. I brought examples which proved media bias towards Hungary, as well

Ferenc Szaniszló: Why is it relevant in an article on a journalist, to add that the Romani people face discrimination - I deleted it, but also linked the whole article, dealing with Romani

Romani People in Hungary: is it appropriate to insert FACTS that lead to violence against Romani? Even the murderers of Romani kids confessed that they decided to kill Romani after the mentionned crimes Why on Earth is that irrelevant? So instead of deleting the content I disliked, I tried give neutral title to the content: Beforeward it was: Romani crimes against Hungarian and another one was Hungarian crimes against Romani or something like that. I proposed: Violence between the two population. Then I was accused of being some nazi shit. I offered dispute reolution, Darouet declined, and kept on insulting me--Ltbuni (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry to waste Your time, but I simply did not get answers on the Talk Page from Darouet, just insults, and Darouet refuses the Dispute Resolution with me as well... One must see this as well. And I refuse the canvassing thing: I could not be sure whether Norden1990 is on my side (we disagreed), and I did not invite someone, whom I should have (Borsoka), finally, I tried to reconcile the opponents. Take a look at the articles, please, and help to write them in a Neutral manner.--Ltbuni (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, we really had a dispute resolution - but not on this specific sentence I questioned.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my two cents: the issue seems exaggerated to me. It looks like Darouet has some disagreement with Ltbuni (probably a content dispute) and (s)he wants to use this ANI discussion to put pressure on him/her. Even if Ltubi's behavior could be classified as canvassing, the right way should have been to point this out to him/her, and not to immediately run here in hope to get him/her punished. Darouet's bias is evident even from the way (s)he presented the issue. I agree that probably it would have been better if Ltubi launched an RfC instead of asking specific editors, but that better option should have been suggested to him/her. I deliberately don't talk about content related questions (like whether those articles really connected to far right or which sources are reliable), since those questions only obscure the situation and preferably belong to the related articles. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koertefa: Why didn't you explain to Ltbuni that canvassing is prohibited? It actually appears you've been encouraging this behavior. Ltbuni asked for your help at Victor Orban in 2015, and while I don't think you helped him, you encouraged his behavior and made no mention of canvassing. KIENGIR (currently blocked) also asked for your help on an Austro-Hungarian page where he was edit warring with Hebel in 2015, and though it's hard to know exactly what you replied, you don't make a note about canvassing.

It looks like you've actually been encouraging this for a very long time. Your very first edit to the Szaniszló article immediately followed Ltbuni's request for your help at your talk page, and your favorable reply. Ltbuni canvassed you twice for three more articles that April and September (you encouraged him in one case, didn't respond in the other).

There are many more instances where Norden or Ltbuni ask for your input, and it's hard to know without deep research whether these are all instances of edit conflict, or if they are asking for your editorial advice in acceptable, non-conflict situations. However, it's clear that in the many instances I've detailed, Ltbuni came to you knowing that you might agree with them in an edit war. If you ever did respond you encouraged them, and sometimes you helped.

I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics. I think this is really harmful to Wikipedia and I wish I had the time to look more closely at the extent to which this is happening beyond Ltbuni. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this editor yesterday at the László article following a related post at the Teahouse by Amin. At least in that instance, a lot of the problem was failure to WP:AGF, which led to a lot of frustration and killed compromise. We seem to have come to an amicable solution after a day or so and may actually be having productive discussion now.

Since this seems it may be a thing across articles and users, I would be in favor of a careful explanation of canvassing policy, and a warning to avoid the appearance of edit warring behavior for the foreseeable future.

Certainly it takes two to edit war, but Ltbuni seems to be the common thread, and they are an experienced user and should certainly know better after five years. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: see my reply to Koertefa above, and have a look at Koertefa's talk page. It seems there's a lot more of this that's gone on - more even than I can have time to fully investigate. -Darouet (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly well covered in a clear strong warning, with an understanding that future violations will almost certainly result in sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I call You names? (nationalist etc) like Darouet keeps doing with me? Was I ready to accept Your version? Did I brought up arguments? And, with all due respect, I think the common thread are Darouet and me - when he/she noticed I don't accept one of his/her edits, he/she intervened in articles which are - according to him/her - out of the focus of his/her interest ("I rarely edit Hungarian articles...")--Ltbuni (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been openly canvassing for years, and there is still zero indication you understand that it's a problem. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we have this latest special for today... Since I have only some 300 edits in English Wikipedia, and I only edited some 6 or 7 articles, I think I am a bit far from being a nationalistic, hate-speech promoter as you kindly call me...--Ltbuni (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are meaningless without diffs. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QED --Ltbuni (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My original posts have 26 diffs. -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My favorites quotes:

"Hungarian editing crowd",

"about Roma immigrants' (????) that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech' that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article. "

"calling this language "malicious" and false." - The context was that...

"I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR." - or simply it means that You have better command of English, and greater expertise on Neutral language...

"Repeated failure to understand something so simple - e.g. why a prominent media personality attacking a minority is related to discrimination, but not musical talent - strikes me as a major WP:COMPETENCE problem. Even if you didn't understand this yourself intuitively, newspapers, which are the basis of our content, are doing it for you, and even those have no impact on your understanding here." - woow, I've never been called stupid this kindly...

"I also believe it's not a coincidence that Norden and Ltbuni request the removal of the term because they don't believe the Roma are ostracized, and believe the media are wrong" - Yes, that's why we did NOT delete the discrimination section in the Romani People in Hungary. No, we don't think that media is wrong - we just say, that there is a phenomenon called media-bias. So just because it is on the net, it does not mean that it is true. Please, stop reading in my thoughts thnx!

" I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics." - You are my next hero, seriously!!!! I love You!!!--Ltbuni (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said that you added hate speech (from a primary source) to Magyar Hirlap, and stand by that and all other statements you've quoted. -Darouet (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the issue, because this not the place to hash our content disputes, Ltbuni, do you understand why policy forbids editors from purposefully recruiting others whom they have reason to believe will join a content dispute on their preferred side? Do you understand that this applies regardless of whether you are right and someone else is wrong? TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. But as I mentioned above, I dispute that I was canvassing. Why didn't I notify other editors (Borsoka), who was on my side, and had participated in the very same edit war? Borsoka could have strenghten my position! Why did I call Norden1990, who deleted my edits? Koertefa got a barnstar for being neutral in disputes, that's why I called his/her help, because with Darouet one can not talk calmly. Just look above, how he/she treats people who don't share his/her oppinion! And why did I drop both Borsoka's and Norden's version in the Romani people in Hungary article, if we were canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So no, you don't understand what canvassing is, and still think it's OK. Koertefa does too, if the last three years of diffs on their talk page mean anything. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking with You, man. I am waiting for Timothy's answer. --Ltbuni (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase this, do you understand that, regardless of your intentions, notifying users with whom you have a history on contentious topics, appears to be a form of canvassing and is not permitted. Do you understand that from this point forward, having been notified of this in no uncertain terms, if there is a content dispute that requires outside opinion, you will seek that outside opinion, in the most neutral way possible, through one of the following methods:

• WP:Third opinion
• WP:Request for Comment
• Appropriate notice board such as WP:NPOV, WP:ORN, or WP:BLPN
• Or posting on related WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary

This is not a special sanction; this is the normal process that all editors, including myself, must seek input through from time to time. This is the way to do it correctly. This is the way you will do it from this point on. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I have a problem, and the other user keeps insulting me instead of responding, I can not ask for Dispute resolution, like I did? I read that it was appropriate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ferenc_Szaniszl.25C3.25B3_discussion

And Where can I denounce Darouet, for insulting me, as Hate speech promoter/ nationalist editor crowd and other libelling stuff (see above)? This is totally NPOV, no good faith etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, is also a way of seeking outside opinion. However, DRN is also sometimes a cumbersome and lengthy process, and if another user declines to take part in that process, you have these other options of seeking outside input on the article talk. Again, these processes are in place because contacting editors with whom you have a history, especially on contentious topics, can be, or can be seen, as a form of canvassing, and are not conducive to resolving the disagreement. TimothyJosephWood 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All involved can probably use a review of WP:CIVIL, a reminder to act like adults. Also, since this is apparently lost on everyone, accusing someone of hate speech (a crime in some areas), and libel (a form of litigation), may be construed as a legal threat, which is taken seriously. Please all review policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats, and consider this a warning to that effect. TimothyJosephWood 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: I apologize to all, especially Ltbuni, if I gave them the impression that Ltbuni personally had engaged in hate speech. I was referring to Ltbuni's addition of a long quote to Magyar Hírlap of text from Bayer that was universally condemned by global media outlets. I am not a lawyer, and I do not believe that a reasonable interpretation of my comment would be characterized as a legal threat. However, if I am wrong I will gladly eat humble pie and retract my use of that term, even to describe Bayer's text. -Darouet (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Bayer, whose text I described as hate speech, has caused his paper to be fined for hate speech in Hungary: BBC source. From the BBC: "Journalist and activist Zsolt Bayer is best known for his xenophobic views and close ties to the ruling party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban... He also writes a regular column for conservative pro-government newspaper Magyar Hirlap in which he frequently makes anti-Roma, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim comments, often couched in extremely crude terms. The US Holocaust Museum says his statements are as extreme as those emanating from Hungary's racist, ultranationalist, and xenophobic Jobbik party. His newspaper has twice been fined by the state media authority for publishing articles deemed to constitute hate speech. In 2013 he wrote a vitriolic piece about Roma, and in 2015 he said all refugee boys over the age of 14 were "potential terrorists"." -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how about the tone? I find Darouet's tone libelling, as it was libelling on the Talk Page, as demonstrated. What can I do? What if I see that he is doing POV pushing, and soapboxing, as he/she did so - lacking Good Faith?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, meanwhie You responded. So it seems to You, that I was canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is a bad practice because it results in exactly these types of situations. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how about Darouet, who accused me of criminal charges?--Ltbuni (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think most, if not everyone involved has certainly violated WP:CIVIL, and probably said something that could be construed by a frisky admin as a legal threat, so it's probably in everyone's best interest if we move on with our lives.

I think it's also important to note that ANI is not in the business of taking sides in content disputes. So if anyone is hoping to get the other party blocked on a technicality so they can win an argument, they are going to be disappointing. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ltbuni: of course, you can also ask for Dispute Resolution, but in general (contrary to what some editors might suggest) it is not prohibited to notify individual editors, e.g., if they have a known activity of the involved topics (e.g., who have made substantial edits to the article in question or to articles with similar topics), participated in similar discussions in the past, are experts of the fields, who directly asked you to inform them, etc. The important thing is that the editors should not be pre-selected based on their opinions. I assume that you contacted me because of the former points (e.g., that I have some knowledge about these topics, made several edits to related articles and explicitly asked you to notify me in controversial situations) and not because of the latter one, since you had no guarantee that I would agree with you. My comments to Darouet and Timothyjosephwood are that: please, assume some good faith: not everybody who contacts another editor is canvassing, not everybody who edits a Hungary related article is a nationalist, not everybody who edits the bio of a right-wing politician is a radical, etc., even if he/she does not agree with you. The important thing is to discuss the issues and seek a consensus. Let's try to be more open towards each others points of views. Ciao, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't feel that I made a mistake,or something.Thanks anyway. The bias and the tone of Darouet still shocks me. He floods now the Talk Page of Magyar Hirlap, with administrative rules, just to decontextualize an excerpt of a journalist, presenting him as a kind of monster. Yes, Mr. Zsolt Bayer is not a nice person. But even he does not deserve this treatment just because international media does not cover every word of his, and citing the whole citation gives "undue weight" and would be "original research" and so on. I don't edit Hungarian articles because I am a "nationalist-crowd :) or "hate-speech promoter" or whatever, but because I have extra knowledge on these topics. Mr. Darouet replaces the gaps in his knowledge with his conviction. And that is no good, he relies on his "international, reliable media" and sweep away the context, how things sounds and works here. Anyone, Timothy, just take a look at the Talk Page, and remove the content the way he proposes! Totally the opposite result!--Ltbuni (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that Timothyjosephwood is right that we should let it go. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this thread, I have to say that I do not see WP:CIVIL violations from all sides. I see most people behaving civilly, but I also see Ltbuni significantly overreacting to perceived slights and unwilling to acknowledge Wikipedia policy on canvassing. FWIW, I think Darouet's contributions to the relevant articles and on the talk pages are very constructive, consistently going back to the reliable sources and making an effort to reach compromise. I certainly don't have that level of patience when I wade into these sorts of contentious subjects, which is a reason for my contribution to Wikipedia not being greater than it is. I strongly believe that a warning to Ltbuni is required, and that if they continue to disregard canvassing policy afterwards, sanctions are issued. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KIENGIR

Dear Darouet,

(1) You have to always inform the one you mention in ANI discussion, why didn't you warn me?

(2) What you wanted to express with this "currently blocked", what goal you serve with this? You want to influence the discussion? How does it come here (anyway, the case is disputed and controversial and is being investigated, but it is not the subject now.)

(3) Without any intention to involve in this discussion I am confident that KœrteFa {ταλκ} is a very important member of Wikipedia regarding also his contributions/work with also Hungary related matters, and in emerging issues with high importance or against anti-Hungarian vandalism attempt we also ask help editors with more experience

(4) The Austria/Hungary related debates were resolved near 3 months, since then with the user you mentioned we are correct partners in editing with mutual respect since finally we understood each other, an extraordinary troublesome modification happened and we always struggle for truthful and professionally historical content! Koertefa's reply became so late that I even noticed more months later, he seemed inactive in Wikipedia and he did not even involve himself to that "incident". I don't even know why he should inform me about any "canvassing", I know what it is, and noone then considered any canvassing regarding this then.

(5) Please do not involve me anymore unnotified in any incident that anyway I am not belonging to. You could have just present the diff you debate without mentioning anyone who does not belong to the current incident's topic thus you are unable misuse my name/situation to influence something I have no business with! Thank You!

PS: I did not even read what this incident/discussion is about, I just read those fragments where you mentioned me, nothing else I have reacted. Even better do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@KIENGIR: I didn't mention you in my original report, because I hadn't realized that you'd also (unsuccessfully) canvassed Koertefa. When I did mention you later, it was only once, and I tagged you so that you'd know you were mentioned. I assumed you would face no consequences for a single instance of canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough?

- Please avoid such statements that I would "canvass" Koertefa, that time the user I debated with expressed his concerns on possible canvassing, but what you refer was not regarded by anyone canvassing (not even a suspicion of that) and I did not wrote anything because I would be afraid of any consequence of that. Also in the future, if any i.e. troublesome edit would appear in an article, in case we may notify other users who have an expertise on the subject.

- Please be careful regarding relocating other user's comments. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

You wrote to Koertefa and to Fakirbakir asking to "PLEASE HELP" you at Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), and 10 minutes later your edit to the article led to 11 reverts in 2 days (an edit war), where Fakirbakir helped you, until Ritchie333protected the page. That is classic WP:CANVASSING in the service of an edit war. If you don't think that's canvassing, can you describe what canvassing is? -Darouet (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) - Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar, everything was in the service of against a blatant disruption attempt. BTW If you have read what you refer of: Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

(2) - I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

(3) - do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page! + I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough? -> Which of these two are not understood, as I see you are a first level English speaker, should I try French or you prefer other langauges? If you wish to communicate with me, feel free to wite on my personal page, there we may discuss and answer of all your questions, I am intending to finish here! Mercy!(KIENGIR (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Actually it appears you canvassed 3 editors in that instance [123][124][125], and while Hebel complained, I am unable to find any investigation or judgement of any kind. Can you link that?

I understand your request for me to comment on your talk page only, but will continue to reply here: I think it's important to keep a record of the diffs in one place. But I will leave a note on your talk page about policy so that in the future, you can avoid canvassing, or solicitation that could lead others to suspect canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you did not understood - the 4th time - that I won't continue discussion with you here. I just repeat that you have failed to grasp unfortunately:

- Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar

- I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

Nota bene:

- "in the future, you can avoid canvassing" -> please stop defamation Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

- It appears to be you are "canvassing" cases, users that have no connection to the subject here and with such you want influence your report on others that has not any connection with any good faith. Moreove, you can totally ignore anything regarding that Austria/Hungary related incident, since it is a closed case, in the approx. due three months everything was checked investigated, punished, sanctioned, consensused what was needed or possible and all participants since then with a good faith and mutual collaboration are developing articles, the best and most beautiful outcome after any incident possible.

- On my personal page we can continue discussion, there you may have more answers, but prepare if you still do not finish and continue here (or just you mention me again), I will regard it as a harassment and willfull personal persecution. I have no business or involvement with the current incident, moreover as you should know every incident has to be investigated on it's own, so you better concentrate on the current subject, not closed cases, not even the real life there is two trial on one case that has been already trialed, with such acts you are just enweakening your position and arguments here on the current case - I still did not read and I won't do that -, so finally leave me in peace out of this!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

There's really no point in these walls of text. I think the diffs speak for themselves: there's a group of editors who often notify one another when they get into content disputes, and then come to one another's aid. What we really need here is for an admin to evaluate the messages listed above, to evaluate whether or not they constitute canvassing, and to issue any appropriate warnings or sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are more points that the other party does not get, he tries to involve and influence the subject with cases, editors that have not any connection to the current subject. Yes, admin's should evaluate, as in the "admin input" section it has been already requested, but not anything that has already been outdated and closed. Bye.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I have the same experience. See e.g. diff ( google translated) or here. Ditinili (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditinili, the usual provocation, did someone invited you in this discussion? It is a healthy and constructive behavior to always check other user's contribution and persisting trolling? Why are you gluing on me, could not you let me in peace? Check WP:NOTHERE. Disruption attempts will be always discussed, much more if we are encountering provocation on a daily basis. Try to ignore me as much as it is possible and prove with this your claimed non-combattant&non-provocative attitude. Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

On 21 October 2016 (see diff above) I noticed that you use to contact a limited group of editors (some of them were mentioned in this discussion) with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way (see also this diff /translation/ or this diff /translation/). It seems that there are more editors who came to the similar conclusion. Ditinili (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those editors have expertise in the field or belonging to relevant wikiprojects. There is no intention to influence something, I drawed the attention of relevant problem and I shared my concerns. I uphold what I have said about this earlier no need to repeat. Please do not commit the same mistake that you drag in something that not belongs here. I am not surprised you did not reacted to all of my questions, please prove your good faith aims, since encountering here has nothing to do with it. Write in my personal page if you want something, even answer there.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

It seems that it is not about "expertise", but a trial to organize a small working group at national level to defend "our cause" (in other words WP:CANVASSING). I am sure that you can find more experts on WP:WikiProjects, instead of contacting (repeatedly) a limited group of editors in your language. Ditinili (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, it is again a defamation attempt I met countless times from you. "Our cause" is the valid, truthful, proper, accurate, etc. content. I think I have enough experience to decide who is an expert and the fact that you did not even take account my ask and note proves your bad faith approach and provocative manner. Simply choose another person to abuse, I will believe you if i.e. for the next three months you are not trolling or encountering me and your goal is really to build a good encyclopedia, instead of persisting a long-term personal persecution of another editor. If you have any reaction, post in my personal page, if you continue here, you just prove my point.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Initially, I did not contribute to this discussion. However, somebody opened this issue and my comments + diffs are above. Ditinili (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you proved my point unfortunately. You contributed although this incident has not any connection me, you did it just and only to persecute me, since again you analyze mainly other user's contributions instead of a much more valuable activity in Wikipedia and simply you were not able to resist to harass me again, as since ongoing already 4 months ago.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I would appreciate input from admins who have actually looked at those canvassing diffs (last few months, and going back to 2013), and at Ltbuni's, KIENGIR's and Koertefa's continued insistence that canvassing was not, and is not a problem. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet, so you did not understood finally that ignore me and don't draw in me to something I have no business with. So I uphold that you are willfully harassing me and you want to deteriorate the attention of the current subject of the incident with already closed cases. Shame on you!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Solution?

Is there a WikiProject Hungary (or whatever would encompass these various topics that people are notifying each other about) that everyone could put on their watchlists? Then anyone who started an article talk-page discussion that was stymied or that needed outside input could post a (hopefully brief) notice on the talk-page of that project. That way, everyone would be on neutral footing, there would be no cherry-picking of users or selective canvassing, and WP:CONSENSUS would remain more neutral. This would solve the problem of like-minded editors acting in self-selected teams. PLEASE NOTE: Notices posted on WikiProject talk pages must be completely neutral, or else they will be regarded as canvassing as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, Wikiproject Hungary exists, i.e. due to weight sometimes finally we ended up there. However, in the future i'll mainly use in case a simple ping, w/o further details that anyway could be read in the relevant talk pages. However, whom I contacted are mainly members of that project, thus they would have been informed anyway. Personally, your note I'll take serious. I have to emphasize I just only reacted that may have any affiliation with me here, I was "involved" this incident having no business with it - I did not even read it in whole. Furthermore, in my particular case I just found finally and read WP:Harassment and I am the victim of this since 4 months. Softlavender, I've promised you last time if I face any personal attack, I'll immediately act but my good heart was again more tolerant, however as I experenced WP:NPA sanctions are also applied when it did not even fulfill it's details, I was a victim of that and I am still investigating it. But WP:HA is totally that wiki rule I've been searching for, and I will immediately act if I face such again. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, you still haven't acknowledged that what you did was canvassing. And when other editors confront you about your canvassing, you plead that it constitutes harassment. Being asked to follow Wikipedia's editing rules is not harassment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides411, yes, read back if it is still not clear why. Editor's does not confronted me because of any "canvassing", one just misused my name and situation to influence the discussion (although I have no business with this incident) here with closed cases where nothing of his claim found to be supported (and I told him if he does not stop harassing, defamating and involving me inproperly how I will regard this activity), the other user is fulfilling WP:Harassment since 4 months, that's why he trolled here unmentioned and uninvited. "Being asked to follow Wikipedia's editing rules" was not the main motivation of any of these, however it is funny to hear from those who did not follow these rules. Nevertheless, as I said, I'll give less chance to even be possible any accusation of "canvassing". Now I tell you, that if you have anything to say, head to my personal page, we should let already to have the main subject of this incident discussed regarding the involved ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@KIENGIR:WP:HARASSMENT is a real thing. Stop accusing me of harassing you (6 times now). As WP:HA#NOT explains, harassment is not "tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight... Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." -Darouet (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KIENGIR could you point to this supposed discussion that has taken place involving your canvassing actions? You claim that one has been held, yet nobody seems to know about it. The "accused" is also responsible for bringing evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, stop claiming WP:HARASS. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrrndude this isn't the time to pile on, though I appreciate your help. -Darouet (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Comment edited Darouet (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: thanks for your note. In this case, even posting at a larger forum like WikiProject Hungary could lead to accusations of canvassing, depending on the context. Consider that most problematic ARBEURO issues involve a dispute with nationalistic overtones between two or more nationalities/ethnicities. In that case, posting at one forum but not another will almost certainly bring editors supporting one side, but not the other: exactly the "problem of like-minded editors acting in self-selected teams." Posting on both would be a minimum requirement, but even then, in the context of a conflict this could potentially fuel, rather than resolve the dispute.

I would say that requesting feedback from a neutral body like WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:NPOVN is the best way to go, escalating to WP:DRN only if these other options demonstrate it is necessary. Curious to know what you think, and anyone else who's seen many of these nationalistic disputes on Wikipedia (not just for Hungary or EE - they can occur in many places). -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that DR is needed for every discussion, and there is no reason that a neutral posting on WikiProject Hungary could be construed as non-neutral or canvassing on articles that are Hungarian, as all of the articles mentioned so far on this thread are. That's what the WikiProjects exist for -- as a neutral place to gain input and assistance without the need to contact individual users directly. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Oh! I agree completely with respect to DR - that's why I wrote it should only be used as a last resort, if WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:NPOVN failed. Do you have a concern about going to these general, non-nation-specific forums? However, please check my comment again re: Wikiprojects, as I'm not sure my concern came through? For instance, in this case the articles coming up relate to Hungary and the Roma, or Hungary and Austria, etc. If I chose to solicit opinions only from Wikiproject Romani, or Wikiproject Hungary, or WikiProject Slovenia, I would be certain to elicit vastly different responses. For example, here is an instance where someone was blocked, in part, for posting notice of discussion on some boards/projects, but not others, and where that choice could have conceivably prejudiced the outcome. Those distinctions would be far more subtle than posting at Wikiprojects for different nations. -Darouet (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of those links you posted are WP:DR, and are not necessary for every discussion. To repeat also what I said before, there is no reason that a neutral posting on WikiProject Hungary could be construed as non-neutral or canvassing on articles that are Hungarian, as all of the articles mentioned so far on this thread are. That's what the WikiProjects exist for -- as a neutral place to gain input and assistance without the need to contact individual users directly. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly disagree. There are several articles (mentioned also in this thread) that are related to a common history of various nations and present-day countries. In this case, posting on WikiProject Country X and WikiProject Country Y is a more transparent and neutral way. Ditinili (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I thought by DR you meant DRN. Sorry to belabor the point, but just to be clear, if there's a dispute between predominantly Polish and Ukrainian editors over Polish killing of Ukrainians in Ukraine, for instance, you wouldn't see Polish editors posting notice at Wikiproject Poland, but not Wikiproject Ukraine, as a problem, or vice versa? Just from a practical perspective of having seen these disputes in various iterations throughout the encyclopedia, I wish that would work, but I don't think it would. Actually I fear it could just inflame the situation by bringing more like-minded editors to the dispute. -Darouet (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are making non-relevant assumptions and analogies and I disagree with you about the current group of articles being discussed. Indeed any article under the banner of a specific WikiProject may consult that WikiProject for opinions and input -- that is what WikiProjects exist for. Therefore any article under the banner of WikiProject Hungary may consult WikiProject Hungary for input and opinions. I've said my peace and people can implement my advice or not, as they see fit. I won't prolong this discussion further. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet, stop deteriorating, WP:Ha is mainly was not adressed to you, and again, ignore me and leave me in peace, I've explained more times my point, I am sorry I had to repeat because of an other user who still did not understood the case.

Mr rnddude, I have already pointed everything - see above - and I have no further intention to join/continue a discussion/incident I have no business with and were dragged improperly. WP:HA is valid regarding one of the users. Hopefully in the further participants will concentrate on the subject and the involved ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

And which user is WP:HARASS valid for? - Ditinili I'm guessing, as I recall you two have a history of conflict on Wikipedia. also I've been tracking this discussion for the entire week it has been up, I've read the comments above and you have only stated that it has been investigated - no evidence to support this though. Only, and only, because this has nothing to do with you have I not pressed you about some of your comments previously. Bringing up WP:HARASS for no obvious reason, however, crosses several borders of AGF and NPA. Any reasonable editor would expect a) evidence, and b) an explanation, for such a serious accusation. You may recuse yourself from further discussion if you wish, but, you can't expect to drop the harassment card and then be left alone. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion has run its course. I strongly disagree with Softlavender about the advisability of consulting only one national wikiproject in a dispute over two nationalities (for what I think are pretty obvious reasons), but nobody is going to get sanctioned by anyone. If anything, Softlavender is right about this: going to neutral boards is the best way to get outside feedback in a dispute. -Darouet (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude, I have to inform you you were always correct and nice to me, I did not forget it! I have no intention to involve or mention anyone here since, I don't want to have things that are not belonging here, I think it is obvious in which case who I referred. I even won't make extra effort to search for near one year old things regarding closed and happy end cases, you have to expect in a case that has been resolved near 3 months with admin attendance and intervention (protection,3RR sanction, etc.) everything has been checked. Sometimes admins does not even start a discussion or they just act or don't act. Again, just for you, as I recall the user I had a debate on Austria/Hungary matters had a suspicion of canvassing and he notified an administrator. In the end not any decision or action/sanction had been taken, on the other hand, the complainant also did not debated any outcome of this, we misunderstood eahc other in many cases but finally we understood each other. About AGF and NPA, I am the victim of these, I never made any report although if I would be so sensitive like others I could have raised many incidents, frankly not my style, I am generally a very peaceful creature who dose not seek trouble where it is not necessary. In the end because of my ignorance and good faith, I am the one who is accused about these. The debate is still ongoing that if I describe a negative behavior of a user - and it is true i.e. - could be taken as a personal attack? Since not I am responsible for the negativity, etc., but it is again a longer subject. a, The accuser has to prove it's claim generally, but as you say the accused has to also defend himself, well I won't repeat more what I have already told, that is my defence (also described here above)! b, My reactions are full with explanations, and yes, I agree that "This whole discussion has run its course". Regarding WP:HA of the other user I could easily present approx. 50/100 diffs, but it does not belong here also. I am for peace and happy&accurate editing, me and other users get used to many times we became the target of alleged or hidden anti-Hungarian feelings, after a while it becomes clear unfortunately. I am even afraid to imagine what's the situation in Israel/Palestine or Ukranian/Russian, or Turkic/Iranian issues. So you may understand that after a long while of provocation I have the right to be also sensitive! Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Alright, KIENGIR I'll take all of the above at face value. As both you and the OP Darouet have no will to carry this discussion further I too will recuse myself from here on out. I assume that within a few days time this thread will be archived and the matter put to bed (unless somebody else wants to archive this first). I figured this was with reference to the threads I had been tangentially involved in a while ago. You'd be correct that this thread is not the place to start up a 100 diff discussion, that would be for another thread entirely. I wasn't asking for a hundred diffs either, you could have just pointed to a talk page and said "look through the archives" or some such. This is not necessary though. Right, carry on Mr rnddude (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences?

So, are there going to be any consequences for Ltbuni's canvassing? Will there be any warning or sanction? Does an administrator want to weigh in on this? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I no longer think that's necessary: Ltbuni, if not contrite, has edited productively since I brought this complaint. I am however disappointed that there's been almost zero response here. I've never seen such a blatant case, and the message left by silence is clear: canvassing is OK, and may continue in the future. -Darouet (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides411, Darouet:

The purpose of this board is to help protect and improve the project. It is not here for "consequences" nor for legitimizing complaints. If the user has been to this thread, and has acted differently accordingly, there is no admin action necessary. Neither is a formal warning necessary, as this thread itself well serves as such. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timothyjosephwood, after your response, it's not apparent to me what the purpose of this noticeboard is. Above, a pattern of repeated canvassing by certain editors is demonstrated. What's more: the editors involved continue to deny that there's anything wrong in that behavior. Yet the outcome of this discussion is -- what exactly? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides411: As far as I can tell, the purpose and scope of WP:CANVASSING has been laid out in no uncertain terms. Appropriate avenues for requesting outside input has been provided, including the DR process and contacting related WikiProjects. The original content disputes seem to have resolved themselves with good old fashioned discussion.

So, what exactly is the present disruption that these "consequences" are needed to prevent? TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood, the harm is that in every future conflict over a Hungarian-politics-related page, we can expect the same users to act in the same way -- to call the same circle of editors to help them edit-war. They don't acknowledge that this sort of behavior is wrong, so we can expect it to continue. So the next time they canvass, shall we come back here again? And what will the outcome be next time? If it's exactly the same as this time, then the canvassing will continue indefinitely. In other words, the canvassing policy is more of a suggestion than an actual policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_inappropriate_canvassing states that blocking a user is an appropriate response to repeated canvassing, which is what we're discussing here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And since the stakes are "every future conflict", I assume the only effective block would be indefinite? TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a logical conclusion. One purpose of blocking a user is deterrence. If a user is temporarily blocked for canvassing, but continues to canvass, then a longer block might be warranted. Eventually, a user who consistently refuses to abide by Wikipedia policy might deserve an indefinite block. In this case, I can think of several appropriate responses to the history of canvassing demonstrated above, ranging from warnings to blocks. But what's certain is that if users are never sanctioned for canvassing, they'll continue to do it. Given that the editors involved continue to insist that there was nothing wrong with their canvassing, I think this is a near certainty in this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly clear that the user has already been warned, which does not require an admin. The reported user and OP seem to be in a nice place about the ordeal. Your chances of gaining consensus for a block when there is no ongoing disruption are probably near zero. So, it's possible this is a deceased equine. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insults and abuse

Personal attack/false accusation against me in an edit summary

User:Oncenawhile has been making non-stop personal attacks against me for years, culminating in now including one in an edit summary, where he accused me of WikiHouding him after another editor and I asked him to provide reliable sources for his edit. (The edit involved inventing his own classification system for ethnoreligious groups and arbitrarily placing different groups within his own made up categories.) He did not provide a link which supported these categorizations, instead he added one which described a different categorization system and wrote "reversion of Drsmoo wikihounding across unrelated articles." [[146]]. Per my understanding, this is explicitly forbidden Help:Edit_summary#What_to_avoid_in_edit_summaries It's just the latest in a string of uncivil personal attacks he's made against me and others, the other most recent one being when he posted on my talk page that my posting was reminiscent of a Milli Vanilli song, whatever that means. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=744867813&oldid=738479488 Drsmoo (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• New or innovative scholarship should not be cited to a dissertation--a dissertation might be acceptable, in certain circumstances, but I don't see those here yet. Oncenawhile, can you drop the snark? Drmies (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, the link was intended to point to the section in the dissertation which summarizes existing scholarship - it walks through in a methodical fashion the various scholars which have published classification systems. I was being lazy in not explaining this properly, and/or not pulling out the underlying sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my accusation of WikiHounding. The evidence is below:

• By number of all time edits: [147]: 35% of all his edits have been on pages which I have also edited within the prior 24 hours, and that figure goes up to 45% if you remove the time constraint
• By number of edits in 2016: [148]: 63% of all his edits have been on pages which I have also edited within the prior 24 hours, plus those on my talk page, and that figure goes up to 70% if you remove the time constraint
• Edit history analysis: We have had a very long running dispute on Southern Levant, ever since I reported Drsmoo for edit warring back in 2011. The dispute simmered for a long time, and began to get very heated from late April 2016, when Category:Southern_Levant was put up for deletion. Since then Drmsoo has become involved in numerous unrelated discussions across the encyclopaedia, each time his involvement came only after I had already made an edit or was involved in a discussion: [149]:

3 May 2016 joins a discussion in a thread I was involved in at Modern Hebrew, in combative opposition

10 June 2016 joins a discussion I was involved in on Zionism, in combative opposition

21 August 2016 reverts an edit of mine at Palestinians

28 August 2016 joins a discussion at Rachel's Tomb, in combative opposition, and later joins a similar discussion at Joseph's Tomb

16 October 2016 partial revert of my edits at L'Shana Haba'ah

30 October 2016 joins a discussion at Template:Graphical Overview of Jerusalem's Historical Periods, in combative opposition

19 November 2016 reverts my edit at Demographic history of Jerusalem

25 November 2016‎ partial revert of my edit at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

28 November 2016 reverts my edit at Ethnoreligious group

His intent is clear and it is making for a very difficult editing environment.

As an aside, and in the interest of transparency, please note that Drsmoo has opened four previous ANI claims against me: [150], [151], [152], [153]

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is complete and utter BS and the same percentages appear with others who frequently edit in the I/P field. It also includes places where I edited first, for example, my talk page. I have no special interest in Oncenawhile and regularly edit in the I/P field which involves disputes with multiple editors. In the last six months I've edited 63 articles and Oncenawhile has edited 157, there have been 14 overlaps, which is roughly the same ratio you'll find with anyone in the I/P field. However, essentially every time Oncenawhile is involved, he drags the discussion on into a long meaningless argument, usually filled with personal attacks (from him), endless "pinging" (from him) (a weird thing to do to someone you say is "hounding" you) and harassment (including on my talk page). This combined with the fact that I often make multiple grammar edits for every "contribution" due to not utilizing preview as often as I should leads to the BS above.

Meanwhile, Oncenawhile has been harassing me (and other editors), including on my talk page, incessantly. Including this, where when it was clear that he had no reliable sources to back up his/her edits, he started accusing me of "hounding".

Some recent examples:

• Tells me he will not assume good faith when editing

• Falsely accuses me of "plagiarizing a student website" even while my edit is fully sourced

• Posts on my talk page that my edit reminds him of "Milli Vanilli", whatever that means

• Says my policy based statements are "vacuous", and thus he will ignore them

• "you made a stupid revert about something totally irrelevant, and noone can be bothered to deal with it.”

• Calls me "pathetic"

• Accuses me of Islamophobia based on nothing

And some examples of his editing towards other editors

• "Telling NMMNG not to attack another editor is like telling a child they can't have cake. It only feeds his aggression. The best way to deal with editors like this is to ignore them."

• “I would note that the quality of your edits so far suggest you know very little about the city's history. You appear to be using this as a learning exercise, rather than a valid attempt to improve the encyclopaedia based on any pre-existing knowledge.”

• “I worry about people when they feel the need to project their own self-importance to unknown strangers. Numerous psychological studies have shown that such behaviour belies a deep lack of underlying self confidence. It probably goes without saying, but I am here for you if you ever need anyone to speak to.”

Feel free to look through my posting history or any of the examples he gave, I have never engaged in personal attacks and all my edits, including this most recent one, are policy based. Drsmoo (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting NPA block of IP user

• 184.189.217.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• User talk:BatteryIncluded (edit subject history links watch logs)
• User talk:184.189.217.210 (edit subject history links watch logs)

Requesting a WP:NPA block for this IP user who's been on a series of rants today in which they've referred to me and other editors and our edits as "illogical nonsense", "people with poor reasoning skills", "cheap and lazy", "grossly incompetent", "completely incompetent", "involved users" with "political agendas", "certainly weren't competent", "utterly incompetent", and in summary "people like this should not be allowed anywhere near the moderation machinery of Wikipedia" and "do Wikipedia and its editors a favor and never ever involve yourself in a issue of sockpuppetry again, because you are no good at it." (all emphasis in original). None of these are particularly egregious on their own and I would applaud their use of a thesaurus, but it is a lengthy rant by a user who was warned recently about making personal attacks, and whose pattern of personal attacks was demonstrative in the sockpuppetry block they just came off (which was later shown to be erroneous and would have been lifted no doubt, had they not personally attacked the admin reviewing their unblock request). Considering their own political agenda and history of POV edits, it seems they don't have much interest in contributing constructively. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the possibility that BatteryIncluded and the anon are not the same person? The whole issue seems to revolve around that accusation, which the IP vehemently denies and which was not backed up by a CU (CU denied twice), though the IP was blocked for it. If they are not the same peson, calling someone incompetent isn't nice, but a personal perception based on facts and sheer exasperation. Failing to doubt ones infallibility usually leads to no good, I know from personal experience.

Also, please provide examples of POV edits from which you conclude WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was attacked by this IP user, I agree with Kleuske here that a block is not necessary. This user was angry because of the sockpuppet accusation, I hope everything will be good when they calm down. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I wrote above that their block was later shown to be erroneous, so yes, I've "considered it". There's a conversation on BatteryIncluded's talk page wherein a CheckUser confirmed that they are not related, in which I also explained why requests for CheckUser on an IP address are routinely declined. I'm not claiming infallibility but I made the only judgement I could make given the evidence that was available. When technical evidence that they are not the same user became available later (because a CheckUser elected to check, of his own accord) then it was shown that the block was wrong. BatteryIncluded's block was reset at that time and I'm not sure why the IP's wasn't lifted, but it seems that the reviewing administrator didn't consider their unblock request to be genuine.

Being frustrated about being on the wrong end of this error is entirely warranted: it's frustrating. And it's understandable from time to time a frustrated user blows off steam, and we usually ignore it. But this is not an outburst: it's a continuation of a pattern of abusive editing. You can see warnings on the IP's talk page for failing to assume good faith at Talk:Alicia Machado (presumably here) and for personal attacks apparently here. There are more personal attacks in edits here, here, and here, all of these occurring before there was a sockpuppet investigation. That pattern is part of a broader pattern of tendentious POV-pushing at Myron Ebell insisting that we must describe him as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate science denier" ([154], [155], [156]) against apparent consensus. Their comment that "Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS" doesn't sound a lot like an editor interested in a collaborative project based on consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be one of the flimsier blocks for sockpuppetry I've seen. I'd be hard pressed to accept, based on the evidence at the SPI page, that the IP was BatteryIncluded. Having an extremem POV on climage change, regardless of whether one leans towards acceptance or denial, wouldn't be surprising and that the IP edited around the same time as BI certainly does raise eyebrows, but a comparison between the two editors' styles, at least in my mind, certainly did not say the IP is BI's sock. Blackmane (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, naturally. Certainly climate change is a topic on which many editors have strong opinions, myself included; two editors with a similar (even extreme) POV isn't unusual at all and in fact there are several other users arguing the same side of this debate. In addition to the narrative presented at SPI, what connected these two users in my mind was:

• their tendency to repeatedly refer to opposing viewpoints as "bullshit" or a "soapbox" and vowing not to spend any more time on them ([157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163])
• engaging in blatant ad hominems ([164] [165] [166] [167])
• using this debate to lament the recent American presidential election ([168] [169]) in a tone that suggests intent to right great wrongs
• gravedancing an enforcement sanction against Zigzig20s ([170] [171] [172])

As I said, there were (and are) several other users continuing this discussion at Talk:Myron Ebell, but only these two editors have participated in this debate in this same style, at reasonably nearly the same time, and with one continuing to do so while the other is blocked. That's a strong sockpuppetry case, in my opinion. Nevertheless, technical evidence obtained after the fact has shown that to be incorrect and I'm not arguing with that: the IP is not BatteryIncluded's sockpuppet, notwithstanding my prior conclusion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I too am scratching my head at the behavior of this IP editor. Clone-like in tone to BatteryIncluded and angry at everyone, the IP made a few edits like a tornado in a trailer park, including vexatious edits towards those who had tussled with BatteryIncluded, and soon got blocked. Then a week later the IP heads to the alleged puppetmaster's talk page to introduce himself and commiserate about how they are both victims of an abusive Wikipedia administration, stating here "BTW, English isn't BI's native language, where as it's my only language -- anyone competent can tell the difference between us." How the heck do you know that? And here "if I were BatteryIncluded, it's unlikely that I would be posting this comment." Huh? Why would angry IP give a hoot about BatteryIncluded or righting a wrong on his talk page? I've never seen such a sense of justice from an ephemeral IP editor. Most just unplug their modem overnight and start fresh with a new IP in the morning. I've spent my share of time in Ducktown, Tennessee, and the quack is unmistakable. But if the glove doesn't fit, the glove doesn't fit. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck do you know that? -- By reading BatteryIncluded saying so; duh. Why would angry IP give a hoot about BatteryIncluded or righting a wrong on his talk page? -- Um, this really isn't hard to understand. I don't give a hoot about BI, but I do give a hoot about having been drawn into this, and about WP editors tossing around bogus charges based on flimsy evidence. I explained this in my "rants" at some length. And you completely missed the obvious point, which is that BI never would have posted a "series of rants" with an IP address on a page where he is being accused of using that IP address as a sockpuppet unless he wanted to be banned. My comments don't show giving a hoot about BI; quite the opposite. "I've never seen such a sense of justice from an ephemeral IP editor." -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam. And that's a ridiculous claim; ephemeral IP editors are just people ... there's no inverse correlation between using an IP address and having a sense of justice. The fact is that there are very few people with my sense of justice, so not having encountered one is irrelevant. And my sense of justice being strong and unique is another argument against my being BI, as he doesn't display it either. Only the most superficial sort of analysis -- seen both in your comment above and in the sockpuppetry "evidence" that you presented -- could make us out to be the same person. "the quack is unmistakable" -- you say, after having been proven mistaken. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, naturally. -- Eh? It was proven by a CheckUser that I am not a sockpuppet of BatteryIncluded and someone (you, perhaps?) thanked that CheckUser for setting them straight. It is amazing that you would continue to press this idea that we are sockpuppets after a CheckUser has shot down the claim and has severely criticized the original claim and the block based on it. You write "That's a strong sockpuppetry case, in my opinion" -- this is a serious logic failure when you have in hand hard evidence that we are not sockpuppets ... your "strong sockpuppetry case" is no such thing, it is merely a case of two different people having some things in common, which is vastly different from them being the same person. What we have here is a strong case that you don't understand what makes for a case for sockpuppetry -- that's a demonstrated fact, not a "personal attack". And that was the point of my "rant", which remains entirely valid by your own words and actions. Both you and Magnolia677, who presented the entirely bogus "evidence" of sockpuppetry, are way too personally involved. You are now advising blocking me based on political views that I have expressed. That is not the Wikipedia way. Follow the lead of sensible, disinterested people like Kleuske and Vanjagenije. Back away and drop this. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@184.189.217.210: I'm requesting that if you have something else to post, create a new post below your previous one. Going back and changing your already posted statements makes it hard for others to follow, as I have been trying the last few minutes. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 13:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: . I will again note that, while English is not BatteryIncluded's first language, it is my only language and I am very fluent in it ... I don't need a thesaurus to write well. Ivanvector's "strong sockpuppetry case" totally ignores the significant stylistic differences between two users, while making far too much of irrelevant facts like both of us writing on the Myron Ebell talk page around the same time -- no surprise because it was within days of the U.S. election and Donald Trump's announcement that Ebell was in charge of the EPA transition team. I made these points in my "rant" but he has completely failed here to consider or present the argument made in my "rant". And Magnolia677, who presented the entirely bogus "evidence" of sockpuppetry while he himself was an active editor on the Myron Ebell page. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who considers this block request should read carefully the reasoning and points I presented in my "rants". while considering that it is now well known and has been acknowledged even by Ivanvector that I am not a sockpuppet of BatteryIncluded; that the charge was bogus, based on 'evidence" that did not remotely support it, and yet resulted in a six month ban for BatteryIncluded. As the CheckUser wrote, BatteryIncluded would have had to "acknowledge" the nonexistent sockpuppetry in order to have the ban lifted. Think for yourselves how you would characterize the people who placed that ban. Perhaps my "rant" wasn't so far off. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

whose pattern of personal attacks was demonstrative in the sockpuppetry block they just came off -- the block had nothing to do with "personal attacks", it was a block for evading a block ... based on a completely bogus charge, made by you. would have been lifted no doubt -- the block was "lifted" by expiring. had they not personally attacked the admin reviewing their unblock request -- this is a false charge, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the reviewing admin would have lifted the ban. The reviewing admin gave their reasons for not unblocking, and being personally attacked was not among them -- of course, because I had never addressed or even heard of them before their rejection of the unblock request. The claim that "no doubt" they would have lifted the ban is absurd, illogical, and has no basis in fact, like so many of your claims. And you can call that a "personal attack", but that too has no basis in logic or fact. OTOH, you have used my expressed political views as a basis for your argument for this ban, and that is a personal attack. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claim that I have made "POV edits" is nonsense ... in an attempt to improve the lede of the Myron Ebell article I changed text saying that he is a "climate change analyst" to saying that he is a climate change skeptic ... the latter is well supported by the cited sources, whereas the former is not. An edit isn't "POV" just because you have some other POV. The current lede, which does not contain anything I wrote, notes that he has been described as been described as a climate change skeptic, a climate contrarian, and a climate change denier. If you want to ban me for supposedly having a "political agenda", you had better ban everyone involved in writing that lede, and ban all those reliable sources as well. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that most users will be able to see the multiple places (including in my original post and on BatteryIncluded's talk page) where I've acknowledged that this IP user is not BatteryIncluded's sockpuppet. I've said so explicitly twice (now thrice) just in this thread. Sometimes what looks and sounds like a duck turns out to be just some guy with a duck call and a feather hat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Most users can see that I'm not a duck (BI-like) at all, that your "strong evidence" for that was nothing of the sort, and that your block request is baseless and ill-advised. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of multiple unsourced articles

Bruce hughes (talk · contribs) has a history of creating unacceptable articles, and in the last week has settled into a niche, starting multiple unsourced articles listing BeeGees concert tours from the 1970s. I find it difficult to dig up sources that confirm dates and places, and wonder if these are even notable. One could template the heck out of the articles and pile warnings on the account, and the situation would be static and likely sit indefinitely. Perhaps each article will need to go through AfD, but some input regarding the editor will be appreciated, too. This isn't a terribly constructive account, and seems to be looking for something to add, period. No edit summaries or interest in explaining rationale. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect we have block evasion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PogiJmon/Archive for accounts with a similar interest in BeeGees arcana. Maybe Bbb23 can help, since you weighed in there. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: - I looked over some of the contributions from the listed users and I don't think it's a sockpuppet. The Bruce user in question can barely format a bulleted list. They have also reverted a minor formatting change on one of the BeeGees tour pages -- so I feel it's clear they have no idea about formatting or the MOS. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I PRODded a couple of them. In their current state they fail NTOUR spectacularly. I'm also worried about articles like The Bee Gees' concerts in 1967 and 1968. NTOUR is violated all over the wiki these days, with every popstar (not just K-pop) getting a list of tours, tour articles, etc., besides a separate discography, list of awards, and so on. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. I see you also nominated one of his articles at AfD. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised account?

I've looked through Pm master's edits in the past. This leads me to believe the account is compromised. To wit:

• From 2007 - 2013 PM master made several thousand edits, all in the area of project management and related business organisational topics. Much of this was fighting spam links in business articles. They evidenced no interest in historical, Iranian, or Islamic topics.
• Yet the account became active again yesterday (after a 2 year hiatus), immediately undertook disputes in an entirely novel field, and claimed knowledge of editors and edits with which they have no prior interaction.
• The style of talk page postings in the earlier period and the recent days is entirely different.

It is clear that the person currently using the Pm master account is an experienced Wikipedian; but I do not believe it is the same person as used it until 2013.

Obviously the logs from 2013 are long gone, so a checkuser wouldn't be able to confirm this. I don't know what steps we can take. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this warrants investigation. A checkuser may not yield any definitive results because, as you say, the logs from 2013 would have long since expired. However, it may be possible to discern the original Pm master's probable timezone by examining the time stamps on his pre-2013 edits. It would by no means prove anything on its own, but if there's been a radical enough change between then and now, it could go a long way in affirming the possibility of a compromised account. That's assuming there isn't any other more explicit indication of it in his contributions.

In any event, the communication style and primary areas of interest are divergent enough, coupled with the sudden return to active editing following a three-year hiatus, that a compromised account seems likely. I would not be opposed to an indefinite block of Pm master until we get to the bottom of this. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I hesitate only because I've never dealt with a compromised account before. Maybe Stephen can have a go... Drmies (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Drmies, I'm not an expert by any stretch - I only catch the obvious cases like Wales vandalizing the main page. However, a calm experienced editor with an interest in software development project management suddenly diving into middle-eastern matters and accusing an respected admin of sockpuppetry in his second edit in two years is indeed compromised. I've extended your block indefinitely until identity can be reestablished. Stephen 23:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh that Jimbo Wales thing is TOTALLY NOT WHY I PINGED YOU STEPHAN but I appreciate the extra set of eyes--I think that makes five pairs by now. Also, I don't know if FPaS is "respected", though I appreciate their service, but you know, they've been here forever and that counts for something. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil discourse by User:Elvey

Accidentally edited a page on id.wikipedia.org without logging from my account

I am an Autopatrolled and New Page Reviewer on English Wikipedia, I have accidentally edited a page on id.wikipedia.org (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/TelkomTelstra) without logging from my account. Is there any way to avoid such incidents or whitelist my IP address or what is the best practice for it? Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you don't want to edit as an IP user? If yes, then I don't really think there is any way for it, other than routinely checking you are logged in at the top-right corner. Normally when you edit as an IP user it should show something like "You are not logged in. Your IP will be publicly visible..." at the top so then you know that you are editing without logging in. NgYShung ^huh? 09:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a global solution unless you can implement a global stylesheet (which some browsers will allow you to do), but for easy recognition of when you're logged in (or not), add #wpSave{background-color:#00f} to Special:MyPage/common.css. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 09:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using your own laptop/computer or mobile to edit, you can enable the "Keep me logged in (365 days)" when logging in. You should that if you sign out, say, on a laptop and also using your mobile, you be logged off in mobile. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Kavdiamanju, this question may perhaps be more appropriate for ID-wiki, since the interfaces could possibly be different. If you'd like to request WP:REVDEL so that your IP address in that edit would be invisible to others, please contact an administrator on that wiki (here: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pengurus) rather than English wiki. An admin there can probably also more accurately answer your question about staying logged in and making sure you don't accidentally edit logged out. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request rangeblock of 185.69.144.0/25

I've noticed quite a bit of vandalism/personal attacks from this IP range (at least I think 185.69.144.0/25 is the right range) recently, so much so that I think a temporary block is warranted. Some examples: [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190]. If a block is not possible, then could an admin please keep an eye on the range for the time being? Sro23 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked most of that range for 72 hours. Although I realize this is a mobile phone ISP and there is going to be some collateral damage, I think the nature of the personal attacks and the persistence of them, plus the additional disruption and edit warring, warrants the soft block. Not a long term solution, but hopefully it will help for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's your sad friend Cebr1979 getting all worked up again. Maybe your user and talk page needs ECP or semi prot. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Is that them? I thought Cebr1979 was a human being. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• They've moved on to a new range (85.255.232.0/21). Diffs: [191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199]. Would another rangeblock be possible? Sro23 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sro23: I've conferred with a CheckUser, and unfortunately, there's too much collateral here to range block. I'll bop individual IPs as they pop up. Feel free to either report to WP:AIV or ping me as needed for this guy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing and BLP accusations with United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016

Rangeblock for socks

Socks of Bigshowandkane (SPI linked) are continuously blanking the user pages of previous socks. Furthermore, one of the socks has left this message on my talk (in addition to this edit summary). The IPs (they are using two kinds) are all similar to each other, so would it be possible for a rangeblock? Both me and Sjones23 requested one at the SPI, but no one has responded, so I'm bringing it here for consideration (it's getting annoying and action needs to be taken of sorts). Pinging @Sro23 and Ebyabe as they are directly involved in this as well. Also to note that I will not be notifying this user since the IPs change constantly, making notification useless. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to the edits presented at SPI the range is 2600:1000:b000::/42. It's part of a Verizon Wireless range. I expect there would be a lot of collateral damage on this range if it were blocked. BethNaught (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent attempts at censorship, tag-teaming reverts, on page for 2014 Crimean Referendum by User:Volunteer Marek

Editing behaviour of User:Spacecowboy420

User randomly adding fictional characters to ethnic categories without any evidence from the articles or anywhere else that they're accurate additions.

Sorry if this is the wrong place. This is a new account, but I'm not new here and have been dealing with vandals since at least 2005. GoldenRainbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), however, I have no idea how to deal with, and I can't tell if the person even is a vandal or actually believes his information is correct. What this person is doing is adding fictional characters to categories such as Category:Fictional American people of Maltese descent (edit talk history links watch logs), but the problem is there's very little evidence that they belong there in many cases. I can provide more examples, but I think his history shows that he's been making a lot of edits like these. I can't go around checking all of his edits for accuracy and reverting the bad ones, so this is more to bring the edits to someones attention because he's been doing this unnoticed for some time now. Supergahd (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very sorry guys being so adding fictional characters to ethnic categories without evidence, I will remove some of my edits. I'm cleaning them. If I revert to nor don't remove my edits, then please take them with a grain of salt until I receive word from any studios. But still, please accept my apology. I promise that if I ever add them again, I will add an explaination to "take it with a grain of salt". I will focus on other stuff instead of TV shows and movies. This is more like a dispute than an incident. GoldenRainbow (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, wait. The problem is that you're adding the items at all. If you don't have any evidence, don't add them. The information is supposed to be accurate to the best of knowledge. You're using this site, as well as other places, like IMDB and TV Tropes, to start your own "conspiracy theories" (which is what you've admitted on another site). Leaving edit reasons is not enough, because most people are not going to see it. Knowingly spreading false information is not okay. Supergahd (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I just saw his recent edits, and leaving reasons like "Take them with a grain of salt till conformation from Nelvana, his actor or the creator" shows that this guy has no clue how this is supposed to work. Someone needs to deal with him. Supergahd (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed - this edit from today is worrying. GoldenRainbow had previously self-reverted by way of apology, and then made three edits including this one. Incidentally, I'm not as clueless as my IP status might suggest (I've been editing with various IPs for several years) but - categories on redirect pages, are they a thing? 84.93.51.170 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm cleaning them up. This time is for real. I'm also adding more accurate additions based on articles. Can we close this thread, I understood Gahd's advice. GoldenRainbow (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @84.93.51.170: Categories on redirects are and should be rare. But they are sometimes useful when the redirected name is a better choice than the primary name for how an article should be listed within a category. There are a few of these in Category:Triangle centers, for instance, for centers that don't have their own article but are described as part of other articles. I have no opinion on their use in GoldenRainbow's edits, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks - that makes sense. 84.93.51.170 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes needed at Pizzagate and related pages

This BLPN discussion got my attention first. Relevant pages include:

• Pizzagate (edit talk history links watch logs)
• Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) (edit talk history links watch logs)
• And any pages that link to those.

Long story short, a lot of overly-vocal conspiracy theorists with a large web presence are making all kinds of claims regarding a pizza place and associates of the Clinton campaign that go well against BLP (not to mention common decency or sanity). It'd be reeeaaaallly nice to have plenty more uninvolved admin eyes who are familiar with discretionary sanctions until it settles down and the true believers go away. I'm arguably involved by this point, having tried to fix the draft (even if it's something I'd rather not touch). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some things needed: Multiple users in those talk pages could stand to be topic banned under discretionary sanctions. The draft will probably need page protection at some point, as this topic is going to attract some WP:SPA trolls (for example, User:PingPongIsChildRape) and sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. Can it just be MfDed or AfDed (or even SPEEDYed)? It's already a non-notable cooked-up nonsensical problem, and keeping it around or posting it live will only increase the problem. Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would've just deleted the draft if I could find a valid reason to, but having fixed it, I have to say that it does (unfortunately) meet WP:GNG (for now). That also doesn't resolve the problem of the disambiguation page. I can't figure any valid reason for deleting the disambiguation page, and that'd only feed the conspiracy theorists further at any rate. However, because it's a disambiguation page, we apparently aren't allowed to cite sources explaining that the conspiracy theory is debunked and founded in alt-right delusions, inviting Pizzagate believers to come in and argue that it's inappropriate to call it a conspiracy theory without a source. The course of action I'm seeing (though I'm open to suggestions) is that the draft will be tightened down to the strictest adherence to policy, put in to article space (link to that replacing the unsourced link in the disambig page), and then at least a few uninvolved admins keep eyes on it and remember to apply discretionary sanctions authorized by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up to uninvolved/non-local editors, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is unrelated to the existing Pizzagate section, which is derived from an event in football in the UK in 2004. It might be worthwhile for an admin to protect that page to keep uninformed users from trying to tie those unrelated articles together because they happen to share the heading. Thanks! Alicb (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft needs to be deleted posthaste. It can't ever become an encyclopedic article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this isn't The Onion. I can think up WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOT off the top of my head on why this article would never make it into mainspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Fringe says that our articles on fringe topics uses high quality academic and journalistic sources and is dismissive of fringe ideas. I've fixed the draft to do so. What part of WP:NOT specifically precludes us from summarizing mainstream journalistic sources' dismissal of this conspiracy theory? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An MfD discussion has been started here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's weird, I actually heard about this and tried to search for an article here, so there's that I guess. I haven't looked into the sourcing but I can see something existing. Arkon (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've imposed extended confirmed protection on Pizzagate due to continued disruption. Right now regular semi-protection is doing reasonably well at Comet Ping Pong - the disambiguation page must look like a safer target for drive-by disruption. A number of editors seem to think that it's not a BLP violation if you sling accusations without naming a specific person: I've attempted to correct some of them, or at least warned them. Several admins have placed DS alerts - probably BLP notices are most appropriate. And I've done a fair amount of revision deletion: there was some bad stuff happening before more eyes started looking at it. I've only done the most blatant diffs that contain direct defamation, as opposed to defamation-by-insinuation. I think oversight suppression would be appropriate for many of the revdels. Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm watching the relevant pages and will help where I can - I won't offer any !votes or editorial opinions anywhere in order remain WP:uninvolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:WikiProject Law articles

Could an admin please have a look at the history of Category talk:WikiProject Law articles. An IP-hopping editor keeps adding large blocks of copied text. Some of it appears to be personal email correspondence that might need revdel for privacy reasons (it's non-English, so I'm not sure). To a lesser degree, the IPs have occasionally done the same thing on other pages, so the same revdel may be needed elsewhere as well (Talk:Fuad, Talk:Email service provider (marketing), etc.) Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have found dozens more instances of this "spam" (I don't know what else to call it), with the oldest apparently being by Againstotrure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in 2008, so this has been going on for many years. See my recent edits. Perhaps an edit filter? Deli nk (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There was nothing but spam in the history of the talk page, so I just deleted it and restored the first two revisions. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have cleaned up the other talk pages. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock required

Hi. I noticed an IP vandalising User talk:GiantSnowman and realised that the same editor has been attacking other editors (for example User talk:Kelisi) and edited Margaret Rhodes, but they have been using different IP adresses. Could we have a rangeblock please? Qed237 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably want at least 85.255.233/24 and 85.255.235/24. They're quite busy ranges and could only be blocked for a short time unless there's something seriously disruptive - IMO, semi-protection is a better option. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Okay, I dont know much about different ranges but since this was attacks against user talkpages I thought it was best with rangeblock so that other editors still can discuss. Qed237 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it continues... Qed237 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please! Now again a new IP was blocked by User:Widr after block evasion and attacking editors. Qed237 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected one user talk page. I assume GiantSnowman can take care of their own. The article itself is protected for the next week. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that I dont agree. Now a lot of new editors and other IP can not speak to User:Kelisi. It is better to stop the abusing person from editing and at the moment the can still be disruptive at talkpage of User:GiantSnowman. Qed237 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block lots of unregistered users from everywhere, or any who post to one talk page. It's an age old conundrum, but from what I've seen there's more unregistered users editing everywhere than talk page posters. Other admins are welcome to have a different view. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hob_Gadling

Juanda International Airport

Apparent attempts at censorship

The user Xtremedood (talk · contribs) seems to be engaged in a long-term agenda to censor valid information about the prophet Mohammad, and just deleted/redirected an entire page filled with references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtremedood

[212] [213] [214]

[215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224]

He has apparently also been blocked several times previously due to edit-warring. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree these are problematical edits -- driveby removals and re-removals made without the least bit of discussion and with inaccurate edit summaries. I also believe that Xtremedood is often a problem editor who is unable to edit collaboratively, particularly not on the subject of Islam, Mohammed, or related subjects. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xtremedood's editing behaviour clearly demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, making biased edits in favour of Islam and Pakistan. In just two recent scenarios, this user attempted to link a pornographic actress with Catholicism and attempted to state in an article that anyone else besides Muslims, such as Indian Hindus, use the term fakir erroneously. Digging through his contributions reveals more alarming edits. Does anyone oppose a topic ban for User:Xtremedood on articles related to religion in general, as well as articles covering India and Pakistan-related topics broadly construed? If not, he needs one, badly, as other editors are getting worn out with having to engage with this problematic editor. Jobas (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resonating with what User:David_A mentioned above, User:Xtremedood just attempted to redirect a page about Muhammad to a distantly related article. Edits such as these are frustrating and harmful to the project. Jobas (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism article is about other peoples perspectives on the issue, and has nothing to do with the objective analysis of Prophet Muhammad's teachings about slavery. Xtremedood (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I Weakly support a topic ban. There is some pretty obvious POV pushing, and the user has a slightly troubling habit of quickly erasing their talk page (or the section) whenever they are given advice, a warning or have had sanctions placed against them. However, it's not entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules. However, I'm open to having my mind hardened. Once I started looking through their talk page history, there's a lot of indications of a battleground mentality. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:MjolnirPants, I do not believe that I have demonstrated WP:BATTLE as demonstrated by my statements below. I think it is important to get both sides of the picture prior to making a decision. Xtremedood (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic Ban on articles relating to religion and India-Pakistan broadly construed. Despite the issues raised by User:David A in his OP, User:Xtremedood continues to edit war on these topic areas, e.g. Example One, Example Two. If this user is topic banned, their very recent history of using sockpuppets to edit war in these topic areas (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtremedood) should be taken into account and monitored. Given these facts, to respond kindly to User:MjolnirPants, it should be "entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules" and should be topic banned in order to prevent further damage from being caused to the project. Jobas (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In reality, user:Jobas has an extremely pro-Christian bias. He deleted referenced materials [225], [226], [227], [228] which apparently shows a strong pro-Christian bias and which according to a consensus at the time [229], between Jobas, myself, and User:Sturmgewehr88 was considered to be a legitimate entry in the article at the time. Jobas alongside similar pro-Christian editors are far numerous on Wikipedia and their POV should not take precedence, just because they have more people. There is a clear denial of facts by Jobas and his supporters [230]. Mia Khalifa still identifies as a Catholic [231], whereas the current article makes it look as if she might have left Catholicism with ambiguous words such as "although is no longer practicing" [232].

My edits are based on fair, source-centric, and authentic information. Jobas on the other hand has committed himself to censoring sourced materials on the article List of converts to Islam from Christianity, over here [233][234], while on the other hand introducing questionable, or incorrectly sourced materials (including blogspot references) on the List of converts to Christianity from Islam, [235], [236], [237].

• As far as the Early Muslim-Meccan Conflict, I am correct in my edits as it consists of misattributed references, take a look at the references, the sources do not indicate as the author (user:Misconceptions2 states, who has a strong history of sockpuppetry and deception [238]. Also, literally zero sources refer to it by the non-NPOV name he allotted for it "Caravan Raids". I have attempted to engage in the users like David A who opposed my edit in dialogue, here [239], however they refuse to even try and validate the references and have not responded to my inquiries. The entire article is made up of misattributed sources, which do not say as Misconceptions2 states.

• As far as the Al Kudr Invasion, the article was created by the same user (user:Misconceptions2), who has the extreme history of deception and sockpuppetry. He misattributes the source, stating that the Prophet Muhammad kept the one-fifth to himself, whereas the Mubarakpuri reference does not say that. In reality, the one-fifth is in regards to a Quranic commandment, and the money was used for freeing slaves and helping orphans.

• As far as the History of Sufism is concerned. This was a disagreement between user:MezzoMezzo and I. We discussed it over here [240] like civilized people and came to a conclusion. I disagreed with the source being so old (from 1930) and how it contradicted recent studies like those of Carl Ernst and William Chittick. For example, Carl Ernst has gone as far as saying that Orientalist sources during this period (1930) should not be trusted on page 2 of [241]. Titus Burkchardt has also contradicted such data during this period in his book, Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, on page 4 [242].

• As far as the Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi Article is concerned, it was a similar disagreement with user:MezzoMezzo, where we discussed [243] like civilized people the nature of the source and came to the conclusion that the source was not about criticism. Which neither David A or Jobas participated in. The source does not state any criticisms and therefore is a misattributed source and should be deleted. See our discussion for further information on the matter.

User:David_A and user:Jobas have no foot to stand on, as Jobas's biased edits on the Mia Khalifa, List of converts to Islam from Christianity, and List of converts to Christianity from Islam shows a strong bias. Wikipedia should not be a place in which the more numerous Christian editors have say over others. Xtremedood (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective. Xtremedood (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Topic ban--Yeah, you're not supposed to write about your perspective on Wikipedia. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xtremedood:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective.

1. It was David A who opened this discussion.
2. He absolutely did notify you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. There is something wrong with my notifications, I have 21 of them and they are not going away. Xtremedood (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your defense against my statement that you show indications of a battleground mentality, you accused another user of being "unfair and trying to censor [your] perspective" based on zero evidence and zero effort to find said evidence? That's battleground behavior, right there. Indeed, your defense consists entirely of attacking another editor. If you're trying to convince me to change my weak support to a strong support, you're certainly on the right track. I'm not suggesting that Jobas' behavior is perfect (I haven't looked into their behavior yet), and it is possible that they may need to face sanctions as well, but that is an entirely separate issue from your own behavior.

By the way, there is a link at the top right of the notification drop-down that says "Mark all as read" which you can click on to dismiss your existing notifications. Furthermore (though it is sometimes buggy), clicking on an individual notification should mark it as read. Finally, if you have viewed all of your notifications (by opening the drop down), the icon will be grey, even as it shows the number of notifications, instead of red, which means you have new notifications. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my record of attempting to engage in and engaging in dialogue for matters pertaining to misattributed sources shows that I am not operating upon such a mentality, but instead I am showing concern for the authenticity of the sources and the content in the sources. I have shown above that for all of the articles referenced by David A that I have a strong justification for the edits. I had invited David A to talk about the matters and for all of the links he has cited he was never a part of the dialogue.Xtremedood (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I Support a ban, for much the same reasons as Jobas and MjolnirPants. The user appears completely unrepentant and relentless in pursuit of an agenda, with several past rule-violation incidents. David A (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited you to discuss the issue [244], however, you never (not even once) have engaged in dialogue about the issue. We also had discussions about the other articles you have referenced [245], [246] and you have not even once joined in the conversation. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: As any decision-making body or person, whether in courts or in the legal field takes in to consideration the mental health of both the complainant and defendant, it should be noted that David A self-identifies as autistic, OCD and ADD on his profile [247]. Attention to the details is critical to this issue and while I have demonstrated sound rationale for my edits, citing clear misattribution of sources as the primary cause, I have not heard from any of the other editors about actually verifying what the sources say. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not engaged in dialogue because I am not expertised regarding the subject matters, and am also technically on vacation at the moment. I have however, noticed repeated attempts to remove information, with highly similar patterns in terms of viewpoint-pushing.

As for the issues that you noted, they are not mental illnesses, just minor handicaps, and completely irrelevant to this case. They do not make me unstable or mentally defective. David A (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To claim a user's ASD prevents them from making sound judgements is rather ridiculous. In fact, in most cases, the opposite is true (I too am autistic, and it is for me). Xtremedood is setting up a strawman's argument. Patient Zero^talk 12:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. The OP presented 13 very clear instances of blatant censorship and POV-pushing: article blanking, section blanking, and repeated undiscussed removal of cited material. This sort of behavior has been going on ever since he started editing a year and a half ago. I support a topic ban on articles relating to either religion or India-Pakistan, broadly construed. If admins do not wish or see their way to implementing this at present, I suggest a sanction in the form of a warning that if this behavior crops up again in any way, an immediate topic-ban or indefinite block will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed those edits as being justified in accordance with WP policies, see my above comment. In your most recent edit, of Al Kudr Invasion you have utilized a misappropriation of source. I have set up a conversation here [248] to discuss it. You have readded the following statement: "He also kept a fifth of the spoils." This is not an accurate portrayal of the instance, as the one-fifth that was taken was used in accordance with the Quranic commandment 8:41, [249] which states: "And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent." I find it strange that you want to include reference only to Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller? Any reason for such an edit? The Mubarakpuri source clearly states "he had set aside the usual one-fifth". Why is it that you want to mention only Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller of the one-fifth? Wikipedia should not be the place of such anti-Islamic bias.Xtremedood (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the issue here seems to be that you wish to remove any references that you consider to have a negative bias against Islam, and its prophet, but this is not how Wikipedia is intended to work. Wikipedia is strictly supposed to list accurately referenced facts, or statistics, regardless if these display a particular religion, ideology, opinion, or other concept in a positive or negative light. You cannot start to remove anything that you dislike, in order to deliberately try to slant public perception. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So with 5 editors in support of a ban or permanent topic ban, will it be carried out? David A (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP consensus is not based on votes. As of now I have not seen any solid policy related arguments for a ban. The ban seems like true censorship. My edits are based on solid rationale and do not violate WP policy. With the extreme sock-puppetry and mass mis-attribution of sources involved by the article's creator (Misconceptions2), admins should not base their decisions on votes. Also, I am the only editor who has actually tried to start and engage in discussions over here for the articles you have referenced, whereas none of the other editors here have so far even engaged in 1 single dialogue about the articles you have referenced.Xtremedood (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless whether Misconceptions2 has inserted references or not, they should not be removed wholesale as long as they are accurate. And I sincerely doubt that he alone wrote all of the material that you have edited out during your time in Wikipedia. Not to mention, your block history is suspicious in itself, so you are not one in position to cast stones. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is exactly the point. They are not accurate, and you have made so far zero attempts to try and discuss it with me. The other materials I have removed, I have justified as being either outdated, a misrepresentation of the source(s), or WP:OR. Xtremedood (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing premature edits without reliable sources

User:Aaron's The Best is a user actively engaged in editing articles concerning Australian television channels. However, on multiple occasions, he has come into conflict with WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RELIABLE over premature edits that he bases on unreliable sources and/or personal speculation. Such examples include the following:

1. October 2016: The renaming of the article Food Network (Australia) to SBS Food Network because, and I quote, "It's all because of SBS Viceland's name. SBS are probably doing an mistake by referring the channel (Food) without SBS in its name, but they are referring the Viceland channel WITH SBS in its name. So it looks like that's what the channel should be called", speculating a change that even now has no backing whatsoever. I questioned him on his talk page concerning this and explained the policy behind the reversion of his edits.
2. November 2016: Premature edits to the article SBS Viceland by changing the name of the channel from its then-current name (SBS 2) to the rebranded "SBS Viceland" before the rebrand occured.
3. November 2016: Premature edits to the article ABC HD (Australian TV channel) based on then-speculation concerning the network's launch of high definition simulcasting with no reliable sources to support his editing. I cautioned him on his talk page concerning this and again cited policy.
4. December 2016: The renaming of the article Prime HD to Prime7HD based on speculation concerning the network's possible future launch of high definition simulcasting with no reliable sources to support his editing.. I have cautioned him on his talk page concerning this, citing different policy in addition to that cited in previous instances.

It appears that despite my continual contact to advise him of policy and offer assistance in future, he has not taken this on board and continues to erratically edit articles in this manner. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 08:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user has a WP:COMPETENCE problem. Despite being very new, he has carried out a large number of ill-considered page moves, as shown by the messages on his talk page. This would not be so bad if he would communicate and we could be sure he was taking the comments on board. However, he never replies, so it is hard to gauge what is going on with him. He just carries on with more of the same. A block would at least force him to engage and speak to other editors. SpinningSpark 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's Aaron and I have listened to you. I'm pretty sorry about adding info on articles of Aussie TV channels that are actually rumours from the MediaSpy forums. Lucky that ABC HD one was confirmed a few days later by the ABC themselves. Also, I'm sorry about the Food Network move, since SBS don't refer Food Network with SBS in it's name, but they do refer Viceland with SBS in it's name! I won't add any rumours from the MediaSpy forums anymore. Thanks. Aaron's The Best (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Aaron. It would be helpful in future if you tried to reply to people when they contact you on your talk page. SpinningSpark 22:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, we are here to help. If we leave a message on your talk page concerning your edits and you do not understand, please respond so that we can help you. I think that it would be best for you to step back from moving pages for the moment so that you can learn more about the process to prevent incidents like this in future. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron's The Best: Just because you are occasionally vindicated in your premature edits doesn't entitle you to make so many errors. Until it's reported by the subject in a press release or covered in generally accepted reliable sources you shouldn't edit wikipedia to include information. This especially includes rumors on forums. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Users Dkendel and Ilham muhammad

Dkendel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ilham muhammad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted to the edit warring noticeboard about this User Dkendel about 24 hours ago but no action has been taken yet. In the meantime their behavior and has escalated/had other concerns arise. So I am bringing it here.

First of all, Dkendel has been edit warring at List of Mayday episodes. He has reverted multiple times

1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752503032&oldid=752447155
2. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752435497&oldid=752319185
3. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752238584&oldid=752162761
4. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752265688&oldid=752263872 Which was a modified version of a post that had been reverted here[250]

He has done further reverts today. This is just one example.[251]

Note- Dkendel reverted not just me, but at least three other editors. This User's only other edits, all to [[ Norwegian Long Haul]], have been reverted. Dkendel edit warred there also.

That covers the edit warring.

Today, after I updated my post to the edit warring noticeboard[252], he reverted it.[253] That makes it a case of WP:DISRUPT.

Another issue raised here[254], is that this User might be a sock of another account User Ilham muhammad. IM's last edit[255] was to List of Mayday episodes and was very similar in content to those done by Dkendel that I list up above.

The issue with Dkendel is more than edit warring. Socking may be taking place plus a violation of WP:DISRUPT, so I bring it here to ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird activity from Kacperf

Kacperf (talk · contribs)

This user's behaviour has me stumped. Most of it seems to be pretty benign, but some of them are pretty weird, especially interpreted in light of each other.[256][257][258][259] He also curiously thanked me for this edit.

Additionally, the first edit looks like they are also these IPs[260][261] which makes it difficult to interpret as a good-faith mistake the same user made three times, and if there aren't multiple IP trolls on WAM that makes it even worse.

Thoughts? I honestly have no idea.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The account is new, so I believe that trolling is a strong possibility. All of the users current contributions seem a bit strange, save for the sandbox edits. I also wouldn't rule this out as a new user simply edit testing, though it's odd that they thanked you for the warning. I don't think that there are enough contributions to determine if it's a compromised account or if multiple people are using it. DarkKnight2149 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment still needed DarkKnight2149 19:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with creation of page

Correct and substantiated information was reverted without review.

Dear admins, please check the recent revisions of Ilias Psinakis. On my side I had provided only confirmed sources and no personal point of view. Just facts. Please, review the issue in terms of WP:COMPETENCE. Another editor, having no idea about subject of the article being threatening me all the time, even when I totally respect previous version and just make corrections to clarify the facts and add links. LanaSimba (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into your content dispute, I'd like to point out that 1) You need to notify people when you take them to ANI. You did not do this, as far as I can tell. 2) The editor you reverted is a long-term, experienced editor, so citing WP:COMPETENCE probably isn't the right thing. I'm not saying that person is innocent, I'm saying you're going to need to cite something else (harrassment? Point of view pushing? Something else?) and probably directly links to direct instances of breaking policy. You're not going to get anywhere with this as your starting off point. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] The other editor was Winkelvi, by the way. I looked over the changes and have the impression that some changes were good and some not. I don't understand why he removed the birthdate from the intro (it's sourced and present elsewhere in the article, after all), but a bunch of what he removed was unhelpful. Looks like a simple content dispute that doesn't need admin intervention. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the complaining user's edits will show several net negatives: repeated edit warring, tendentious editing, POV pushing, WP:SPA, WP:OWN, WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE, likely WP:COI and possible personal involvement with the article subject. A look at the article talk page and the user's talk page shows they have been asked if they are involved on a personal level with the article subject, they declined to answer. Brought to AN3 more than once for the obvious. They even opened an AN on me last month and were told, essentially, that they needed to back off from editing the article as well as editing disruptively. They've been warned by admins more than once. WP:BOOMERANG has also been suggested with this individual everytime they've come to a noticeboard because of their refusal to get it in combination with their tendency toward WP:IDHT. The article they are stuck on has been edited and re-edited numerous times by several editors over several months to remove the poorly sourced or unsourced content, fluff, peacocking, undue weight and resume-like additions they insist on adding over and over again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, Sergecross73 I just say that proper sourced information was deleted (as you mentioned about the date of birth) and proper sourced correction of the place of birth was reverted. What kind of policy is it? When an article after all contains wrong data... ? LanaSimba (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand what you're asking, but to recap the main ideas here:

1. WP:COMPENTENCE is the wrong thing to cite here. Its a rationale where you're basically saying someone is incapable of understanding or learning the very basics on how to edit Wikipedia. As such, it wouldn't make sense to accuse this an editor who has edited for years in multiple content areas. It's the type of things you'd say about a ten year old child who doesn't understand how to write in paragraph form yet, for example.
2. This sounds like you both just have a disagreement in whether or not content or sources are appropriate for an article. That's what we call a "content dispute". Content disputes don't belong here at ANI. When you have a disagreement over content, you start a discussion on the article talk page about solving the disagreement, and if you're still in a deadlock, you ask Wikiprojects for help, or start up a Request for Comment. In short, you need to try to "work out a compromise", not "report them for disagreeing with you". Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 Thank you for your attention. I supposed that understanding of basics of Wiki editing includes first of all knowledge and understanding of subject of the article someone is editing. Or at least possibility to read information, provided in sources. Well You are right, this is the "content dispute" in the end. But how to dispute content when any revision I made is being reverted without reading? I wrote the article from the very beginning providing all sources, never wrote a single fact from my own point of view and just feel responsible for correctness of data. May the article be summarized, but not contain wrong data, absent in any sources. And why should be deleted sourced data about the personality parents if it is a Biography? Why shouldn't be present sourced information on current projects? LanaSimba (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Start up a discussion on the article talk page, and make sure Winkelvi is aware of it. (He looks active there, so he'll probably see it automatically.)
2. Make a list of every idea you wanted to add/change from that edit, and then discuss them each one, one by one. Mention what the old version was, your proposed new version, and the source that supports it.
3. Wait for a response from Winkelvi or any other participants for each idea, and give further input as needed.
4. If there is a consensus in your favor, or a compromise most agree with, make the change.
5. If there is not a consensus in your favor, you cannot make your change until if/when there is a consensus of people supporting your change. That's when you consider forming a neutral question about it at a WikiProject or a Request for Comment.
6. If there is a consensus supporting your change at this new discussion, make the change. If not, then you've probably run out of options, and should drop it for now.
7. Repeat for every individual idea there is disagreement over. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 Thanks! I did as you wrote here. Except for that I have no desire to talk to Winklvi or argue on anything due to their dictatorial manner. Let other people argue with this person. I referred to other editors, who previously commented on the article and did contributions. I specified all data and sources. I may give more sources if needed. If any other editors may come and attentively read the versions, and give their ideas, it would be great. LanaSimba (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OWN, editing while logged out, edit warring, and more

Could anyone take a look at Wim Naudé (edit talk history links watch logs)? There's quite a lot of controversy and edit warring that is occurring. There 2 IPs in the mix are obviously either meatpuppets or the users editing while logged out. Personally, the material could be viewed as contentious, however there are references regarding it. How reliable the sources really are are debatable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an economist nor do I play one on TV, but other than numerous tense errors throughout the article, I don't see the problem. So two things: First, if your main concern is reliability of sources, might this be better placed at WP:RSN, and second, if your complaint is about editor behavior, you're going to need to provide specific diffs and editor names (and notify said editors) so your complaint can be dealt with. John from Idegon (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is someone doing "pranks" - his word

User:JohnWilkinson

• JohnWilkinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JohnWilkinso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AIV got me nowhere with this a few weeks ago, so I'll try here now that it's come up again today. User:JohnWilkinson is a bizarre SPA who keeps parroting some nonsense about how the International Boxing Organization (IBO) does not belong in the lead sections of certain articles (mainly Gennady Golovkin, plus other articles involving the IBO), and keeps removing it after a series of ranting edit summaries. He also seems to have a presence outside of WP, promoting his agenda at forums and comment sections. Examples: 1, 2.

Several such edits have been made in the past few months; multiple warnings given; a previous account for the same thing earlier in the year; and his occasional rambling at my talk page (3, 4) is annoying as hell. Example quote from the latter:

"I am writing to you as your superior in this ONE FIELD."

I mean, seriously? Discussing the matter with him won't work, as I can't make heads nor tails of what he's going on about! What's clear is that he won't stop removing the IBO from articles, which is disruptive and basically vandalism by this point. Tempted to say NOTHERE, even though others might view his edits as "misguided but good faith". Regardless, he's an absolute nutjob. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in either account's contribution history that is particularly out of bounds, like edit warring. There may be a WP:COI, since the user seems to have strong personal opinions about IBO. It seem like WP:DR is the best course of action. AIV is not the right venue because there's no indication that the edits were done with the intent to damage the encyclopedia.- MrX 19:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is edit warring, though, and disruptively so. Besides the continual rambling and nonsensical edit summaries, he has given no justifiable—or even decipherable—reasons to remove the IBO from those articles. More like WP:PN should apply here, as most of what he writes is the very definition of "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." WP:DR seems like a waste of time, since he only makes the edits every few weeks and is not a regular user. Perhaps WP:EWN instead? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that people trying to help you don't have to trudge exhaustively through two accounts' contributions, please provide diffs showing edit warring.- MrX 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of slow-edit warring at Gennady Golovkin:

• Current edition with stable lead, and IBO included: 1
• Lead with content (IBO) persistently removed by User:JohnWilkinson – 19 Oct, 29 Oct, 18 Nov.

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These edits, while repeated, aren't occurring at a high enough rate for me to justify this as active "edit warring" or that any administrative action is needed at this time. I think the best course of action is to inform the user that he needs to discuss his thoughts and rationale on the article's talk page and explain (with references and sources that support his argument) why he believes that his contributions are valid and the content modifications/removal he's been making are accurate improvements that are verifiable. He just needs to get affiliated with dispute resolution and understand the need to properly discuss disagreements like this on the article's talk page, that's all :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, so I'm on my own with this one. Fine, but I'll say this outright—I dread being obligated to interact with him in any way. Any non-admin user who calls themselves my "superior" on WP, whilst touting a fictional organisation set out to "fix" boxing, and saying things like "I can assure you..I myself am one of the "greats" in understanding modern boxing at admin levels", or leaving their damn phone number at my talk page, is not worth my time.

Let alone the walls of text I would expect to receive, like these posts from him (under the same name) on boxing forums: 1, 2. Quote from the first one: "I am AT WAR against the IBO which is the FIRST &FOREMOST MAJOR DECEIVER!" That's what I'd be opening myself up to. Just sayin'. I don't believe this paragraph violates WP:OUTING, since he himself has repeatedly posted his own name and number on WP, which seems to be covered by this RfC: "Noting undeniably obvious cross-site identity". In fact, it looks to me like WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BADPOV are at hand here—by admission he is not posting as an individual, but as an "organization" with an agenda to push.

The only reason I brought it up here is because his agenda has been persistent enough and presented in such a bizarre manner throughout the year to warrant at least a mention to someone who would notice, and because a huge amount of boxing topics are on my watchlist. If the unlucky souls at WP:DR or WP:COI think they handle him, good luck to 'em. Advice appreciated nonetheless.. Close away. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Someone who posts under what looks like a real name, and even if not their real name then a screen-name they have used on other websites, is making themselves a target for outing. However, Googling other users' names and then posting the results on-wiki is never OK, even in such cases. It is not clear how Mac Dreamstate came across the above-linked forum posts, but if a search engine was involved then they should refrain from doing so again.

Mac Dreamstate, the wording of WP:OUT is interpreted as narrowly or as broadly as is seen appropriate on a case-by-case basis, and attempting to interpret anything on Wikipedia talk:Harassment as justifying posting links to off-wiki posts that do not appear to be directly related to Wikipedia (there is no canvassing involved) is not going to end well. Apparently, that policy page is extremely controversial and has gone through more than ten archive pages in the past two years, so it seems extremely unlikely that a "consensus" on the talk page that is not explicitly enshrined in the wording of the policy itself will either cause you to be blocked or prevent you from being blocked.

However, JohnWilkinson's on-wiki behaviour certainly seems disruptive, and (even if there was unprovoked Googling involved) I can definitely see this working out like scenario (1) in the diff I linked above, and I honestly have no problem with that. The outing, if that is what it is, is borderline and the lesser of two evils in this case. But (assuming the above links were discovered by Googling JohnWilkinson's username) Mac Dreamstate should also be issued with a stern warning against further behaviour of this kind.

Just my two cents.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the suggestion that I Googled his name for the purpose of outing—in my staunchest defence, I only Googled the "organisation" he touted in a WP edit summary, namely the "UWBCAFO-I". From there, I arrived at the aforementioned forum posts; note that I refrained from linking to any social media accounts. Therefore if I get a warning, it will absolutely be under assumption and without proof. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary is indeed weird, and I too would have likely Googled it just to try to figure out what it meant. But posting a link to a forum thread you happened across in such a search, especially in a context like the above (clearly meant to create a negative impression of a user based on something they posted off-wiki that didn't mention their Wikipedia activity), is definitely textbook WP:OUT. Whether or not you are blocked or otherwise sanctioned for it will likely depend entirely on whether your assertion that the user is a disruptive SPA is determined to be accurate. I already pointed this out above, though. I know it's not how it's supposed to work, but WP:OUT is one of those policies where the users who violate it usually only get sanctioned if they committed it against a user who was contributing to the project or if they themselves were already on the way to a site-ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearer to me now. If an WP:OUT violation has occurred due to my having posted the forum links, and I get a warning or sanction for it, then I will accept that as an honest mistake I made. However, if a block ensues, then I'll definitely try challenging that through the right channels (requesting unblock via talk page, I think). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 Mac has apologized and explained how he came about the linkage. In light of JW's own statements, I would be inclined to leave it just as a warning and caution Mac to approach an administrator privately about future precieved linkages to determine if they are valid for building context of an editor's PoV or if it should be kept quiet. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to leave it just as a warning and caution Mac to approach an administrator privately about future precieved linkages Did I imply I disagreed? :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:R3tr0 - NOTHERE

Editor is NOTHERE

Please block Baseball Bugs and Someguy1221

Dealt with. (NAC) -- The Voidwalker Whispers 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bye. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] 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. They're both spamming me with abusive emails, showing a picture of my face glued to a pig wearing a Nazi uniform and being dragged to a guillotine by Stalin. Underneath the picture it says "You're an enemy of the people, and a dirty Nazi pig. I hope you die soon." It also states my address and full legal name. Can they both be blocked?Johnny the kid (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Recommend we don't revert this report, but, instead BOOMERANG block, then delete, then rev-del. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Just WP:RBI this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] 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. Umm... should we request CU on the OP? It's clearly a sock of someone. If that someone still has an active account it needs to be blocked, and even if they are already blocked then stuff like the above could be cause for a CBAN. The only reason to just block the OP and forget about it would be if they are already banned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] They've been doing this sort of thing every couple of weeks for months, there might be enough IPs to assemble some kind of rangeblock(s) by now. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Hijiri88. I remember seeing this exact same post maybe one-two weeks ago, but instead putting the blame on MarnetteD and other users. I'll fetch the post. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I found the most recent ones: The grandmaster of the internet (talk · contribs) and 73.162.64.116 (talk · contribs). I hope this helps. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Checkuser note: Johnny the kid and The grandmaster of the internet are Likely. Unfortunately, a range block is not possible here. Mike V • Talk 18:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] It's a troll who's been active for a number of years and has produced probably many hundreds of socks, occasionally via creating an account, but most of them by IP-hopping. He makes this same bogus accusation every few weeks or months. The most recent occurrence was the 28th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Niele~enwiki reported by User:Beshogur (Result:)

Page

Qabasin (edit talk history links watch logs) Kurdish tribes (edit talk history links watch logs) Ezidkhan (edit talk history links watch logs)

User being reported

Niele~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user called me three times "racist" and "vandal". I think this user should get sanctions. This user must read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks article.

1. [262] "with the by anti-Kurdish racist laws in Turkey banned letter Q"
2. [263] "Undid racism-motivated vandalism of currently blocked kurdophobic and armenophobic user"
3. [264] "Undoing a rasism-inspired edit"

Beshogur (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be using an IP to edit (same type of language used in edit summaries), breaking WP:3RR: [265], [266], & [267] --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those edit summaries are pretty bad, and content-wise I'm not a fan of (for example) overly-long section titles that are clearly only included to appease nationalist readers and make reading more of a slog for the rest of us, or replacing legit variant names with what is clearly the same name spelled slightly differently. Or, for that matter, claiming that a user who has received a short block for edit-warring should therefore have their edits to other articles reverted with impunity. That said, the user has a clean block log -- would a warning be enough? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. "Ctrl+F"ing "block" in their contribs brought this up. No one who thinks "This user was only edit-warring with Beshogur, who has also been blocked for edit-warring in the past -- is that really all that bad?" is a valid reason to unblock someone should be allowed to continue thinking in that way and contributing to Wikipedia. Maybe if Niele had a block in their own log they would stop haranguing Beshogur about the block the latter received two weeks ago. I say block for 24 hours since it's the first time they are getting blocked (although probably not their first offense). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Beshogur, you are obligated to notify the user of this thread, using the red template at the top of this page. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and done this for Beshogur. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there is no obligation to use any particular template to notify someone that they are being discussed on ANI. I think what was meant was per the red/orange template at the top of the page. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a warning on Niele~enwiki's talk page, as the edit summaries presented here are personal attacks and are not positive nor collaborative in regards to proper dispute resolution and interaction behavior. If this continues, this user can be blocked for disruption and repeated violations of Wikipedia's civility policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article was in a perfectly stable condition as this [268] for three years, until this edit on 22 August 2016 [269] by an IP changing "is a Kurdish town" to "is an Arabic town", which precipitated an edit war that has lasted up to the present moment. The edit-summaries quoted aren't great, but every single one of you is edit-warring and ethnicity- and nationality-warring, and you are all going to end up blocked if you don't collaborate and discuss and provide sources instead of edit-warring. The only editor who has even bothered posting on the article's talk page is Ferakp. You all should take a lesson from him. In essence this is a content dispute and should be settled on the talk page, with formal dispute resolution if needed. I recommend that an admin return the article to its previous stable state [270], full-protecting it, and having the editors discuss on article-talk until sourcing and WP:CONSENSUS is reached. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the OP mistook ANI for ANEW (look at the formatting). No one's hands are clean. If the OP had actually posted this on ANEW, I would agree that page protection and warnings all around was the solution. But the OP presented diffs of a bunch of edits to different articles whose edits summaries included unacceptable personal attacks and a clear misunderstanding of the nature of our blocking policy. Throwing other users' block logs in their faces is uncivil and despicable. Using other users' block logs as an excuse to revert their edits is worse still. Using other users' having been blocked for edit-warring as an excuse for edit-warring with them is just plain ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Softlavender: I may not have been clear enough with the above. I think you have misunderstood the OP's post (through no fault of your own, mind you -- it was not formatted well). When you say "the article", it is not at first clear which of the three separate articles you are referring to. It is also clear you have not looked at the other diff I dug up of Niele saying that only users on the other "side" should be blocked for edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: "I am reverting your edit because you have been blocked for edit-warring" seems to be this month's "theme" on ANI. Over the course of December 1, I commented in four threads, basically at random, and of those two of them involved someone doing just this.[271][272] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he mistook ANI for ANEW. He simply used the format used at ANEW to report a behavioral issue (edit summaries he didn't like) at ANI. The problem is, he's going to run into a WP:BOOMERANG here because he is the one engaging in nationality-warring, ethnicity-warring, and disruptive-editing against longterm status quo without talk-page discussion, consensus, or citations. In my view, the edit-summaries are pretty accurate except for the word "vandalism"; none of them actually specifically call the other editor racist (although one says "racism motivated" and one says "racism inspired", neither of which should occur in edit-summaries), and the first one only calls the Turkish laws that banned the letter "Q" racist. Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just am not seeing it. Yeah, he comes across as a nationalist, but so do his opponents. Turkish nationalism is not, in my view, as reprehensible and automatically ban-worthy as some of the other overt racism we've seen on this noticeboard over the last few months. Don't get me wrong: it's not a good ideology. But it is only as much out-of-line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy as Kurdish nationalism, Armenian nationalism and Arab nationalism. And as far as I am concerned, when it comes to edit-warring the edit-warring itself (for which he has already been blocked) is less of a concern than his opponents' constantly trying to paint the block as his edits being condemned by the admin corps on content and using it as an excuse to revert his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW (missed this): regarding none of them actually specifically call the other editor racist, the edit summaries you refer to in the following parentheses are pretty difficult to interpret as not calling the OP racist, and the other diff I dug up describes the OP as being known for vandalism based on hate toward other ethnicity in a bogus unblock request on behalf of someone who was blocked for violating his own unblock conditions, because apparently an exception should be applied for when one is edit-warring with someone who is known for vandalism based on hate toward other ethnicity. That sqid, I would not be opposed to a block or other sanction of Beshogur for any actual edit-warring or POV-pushing he has been doing in addition to a short block of Niele so he stops trying to game the system by undoing others' edits and arguing in favour of edit-warring with those editors solely based on their block logs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ferakp, it has nothing to do with me. "Qabasin is a Kurdish town" was just based on self reports. I just changed it to "a Syrian town" because it has not any reliable sources. Even the sources you added were based on Twitter reports. Beshogur (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"with the by anti-Kurdish racist laws in Turkey banned letter Q"

-> I called a law racist, not a person = No personal attack

"Undid racism-motivated vandalism of currently blocked kurdophobic and armenophobic user"

--> I'm calling 'actions' racism-motivated, not a person = no personal attack. Offcourse I'm morally implied to detect racism motivated edits against minorities. This should not have a place on wikipedia.

"Undoing a rasism-inspired edit".

-->I'm calling 'actions' racism-motivated, not a person = no personal attack. Offcourse I'm morally implied to detect racism motivated edits against minorities. This should not have a place on wikipedia.

Please take look at the edit-history of user Beshogur https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Beshogur&offset=&limit=5000&target=Beshogur

Everyone can look at User:Beshogur edit history and see this user is dedicating the last year of his live to target info over the minorities that are standing in the way of his pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals. You can spare a huge amount of decent Wikipedia users valuable time by blocking him indefinitely. Because after multiple blocks and dozens of warnings he will not learn to stop edit warring and he is damaging Wikipedia with his behavior. I'm distressed by so much hate from this user toward other etnicities and minorities and action should be taken ban in from wikipedia because this kind of 'hate-accounts', targeting of other etnicities should not be tolerated. It is important to detect this 'hate-phenomenon' and report it. He seems not learning out it and just keeps going on, trying to attack/block all decent wikipedia-users that stands in his way. (He already managed to block 2 wikipedia-users in the past 2 days because they where carefully when reverting someone making problematic edits)--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one here wants to help either you or Beshogur with your content dispute. Please refrain from making personal attacks in edit summaries, and please read over WP:BLOCK before mentioning other users' block logs in the future. If you cannot do this, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't mention anyone's "block log" (he called the editor "currently blocked"), nor is there any restriction on mentioning other editors' block logs (it's fairly common to do so when there are major infractions requiring administrative intervention) or the fact that they are blocked, although mentioning it about an otherwise longterm editor who is merely on a 24-hour block for edit-warring (as opposed to a blocked vandal or site-banned editor) is not advisable. Softlavender (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender:He didn't mention anyone's "block log" Please read others' comments before responding. This is my third time posting this diff. this [Arbitration Enforcement block] is an immense mistake and highly disproportionate [...] Pbfreespace just reverted edits of user Beshogur, that was just last week blocked for edit warring is unacceptable IDHT, KETTLE and UNCIVIL. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't use the term "block log", and that's only the second time you've posted that diff, and you didn't previously post it in conjunction with the term "block log" when you first posted it: [273]. There's also no restriction on mentioning other editor's blocks when discussing their problematic behavior. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't use the term "block log" I didn't say he used the term. I said he was repeatedly bringing up the OP's block log. You don't need to say "block log" to talk about someone's block log, as is evidenced by the fact that he did. that's only the second time you've posted that diff You are right, and that was apparently only the second time I posted that diff. I don't remember what exactly happened, but it's possible that I abandoned a draft comment that included it, or that this comment originally included the diff, or that I had misremembered it thus. Either way, I apologize for the mistake. you didn't previously post it in conjunction with the term "block log" when you first posted it Again, you are nitpicking the words I used. I was talking about throwing someone's block log in their face as an excuse to be allowed edit war and violate editing restrictions. My not having used the words "block log" is irrelevant. There's also no restriction on mentioning other editor's blocks when discussing their problematic behavior Yes, and? Edit summaries are not the place to discuss someone's problematic behaviour. In the context of the diff in question, he was not even supposed to be discussing the OP's problematic behaviour -- he was requesting that an exception be made to someone else's 1RR restriction/final-warning in the case of edit-warring with this one user because that user happens to have also been blocked for edit-warring. And, again, reverting someone's edits because they are currently blocked, or were at one point in the past blocked, for edit-warring shows a hilarious lack of self-awareness on Niele's part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a law racist? Hahaha so much fun. Since when became laws "racist", as far I know, Turkey is a secular, democratic country. Beshogur (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Everyone can look at User:Beshogur edit history and see this user is dedicating the last year of his live to target info over the minorities that are standing in the way of his pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals." Niele~enwiki, I do agree that Beshogur's edits on Kurdish tribes and Qabasin (articles which have already been mentioned here) amount to that, but in terms of the rest of his edits, no one on ANI wants to sift through a year's worth of a user's edits to find other examples. If you would like to submit more examples, in the form of WP:DIFFs, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another recent example: [274]. User Beshogur deleted the Armenian name of the town claiming that a simiar issue had been discussed on Talk:Erzurum as if on this page some solution or consensus had been reached to delete Armenian names in similar cases. In reality on Talk:Erzurum several users said that the Armenian name should be kept because of the towns Armenian history before the Armenian genocide. If this were some isolated incident I wouldn't care but in the case of user Beshogur this is part of a systematic campaign to delete information about Armenian, Kurdish, ... people on wikipedia. This is just one more example of why user Beshogur is under discussion on "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Niele~enwiki, it does appear (as Darth Mike mentioned above) that you my have edited logged out to perpetuate an edit-war, using the same edit summaries, on the two articles already mentioned here: Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F1B:5796:81B5:DA58:A387:AECC, and probably also here: Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F5E:9768:A5E8:6AAD:EC76:3314. Oshwah, could you give the user a formal warning on their talk page against doing that in the future, if it seems like this was the registered account evading detection? Softlavender (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC); edited 15:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did the edits mentioned above with IP 2003:77:.... To clarify: I'm not Niele, I do not know Niele and I'm not in contact with Niele. I've been doing minor edits here and there as an IP user without having an account. By chance I ran into some anti-Kurdish vandalism by the user Beshogur and found that he is doing it systematically. I have now observed his destructive and malicious behaviour for a while by following his activity. Wikipedia should have the technical tools to separate my activities from Niele's activities. (I prefer to remain anonymous in order not to come under attack by Turkish nationalists.)

2) Though Beshogur is sometimes doing some constructive work in articles concerning Turkish history he systematically erases and distorts information about Kurdish, Armenian and Yazidi people. While I agree that comments like "racism-motivated vandalism" should be avoided, I have to say that that often exactly describes what Beshogur is doing.

3) On the discussion page "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )" there is a list of some 20 examples (as Beshogur pointed out there, in maybe 5 cases he is right, but the other cases are examples of a behaviour exactly as Niele described). If one would go deeper into his edit history I'm sure one could collect 100s of such examples.

4) I find it strange that a user who calls other users "Bunch of idi...s. Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)" on User_talk:Niele~enwiki#Stop_calling_me_racist complains about users who call some of his actions "racism-motivated" if they clearly seem to be racism-motivated.

I think the behaviour of User:Beshogur should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was tagged to this conversation, I would like to add some things. I have to admit that some edits of Beshogur have been nationalistic and he has practiced cherry picking. It's usually difficult to make him understand that there is a talk page and reliable sources are needed to confirm his edits. That's all what I can say.Ferakp (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of Niele:

1. [275] Sockpuppet 1
2. [276] Sockpuppet 2
3. [277] Sockpuppet 3
4. [278] Sockpuppet 4

Beshogur (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above I did the edits with IP 2003:77:.... and I'm not Niele. Beshogur should stop making false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP-hopper: Even though you geolocate to a country that is contiguous to where Niele~enwiki purportedly lives according to his userpage (last edited in 2010), you are engaging in the exact same behaviors as Niele~enwiki, with even the exact same edit summaries. Therefore, you give every appearance of being him. I therefore suggest that you either register an account, or stop targeting Beshogur's edits. Otherwise, I personally believe that you may face sanctions, per our WP:DUCK and WP:TAGTEAM guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New day - new IP (but similar, again starting with 2003:77...). There is no contact or coordination with Niele whatsoever. I just saw a comment "racism-motivated vandalism" and used it as well because to me it seemed that this exactly describes what Beshogur is doing. Recently I haven't been using this term, instead writing "anti-Kurdish vandalism" or "anti-Armenian vandalism" which is more neutral but still raises awareness of what Beshogur is doing. I'm not an experienced user - please let me know which other methods are available to stop a user like Beshogur from systematically deleting content about certain groups of people. With an account there is still the problem that one user could operate several accounts, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:D49E:9A3B:219F:FF9C (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again new day - again new IP (but again similar 2003:77...). Let me add that I am still learning how to use wikipedia. In the last few days and weeks I learned a lot thanks to Niele and Beshogur: I learned from Niele how to confront problematic users like Beshogur and from Beshogur I quickly learned all the essentials (and some dirty tricks) of the art of edit warfare. So it's natural that my way to deal with the user Beshogur sometimes resembles Niele whereas my way to conduct edit wars probably resembles Beshogur.

Let me rephrase my question from yesterday: what methods are available on wikipedia to stop a user like Beshogur from making his problematic edits without going to edit war everytime? What is the recommended way of proceeding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F50:9375:D183:6754:142:AF02 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have sock-puppets and I never used a other account than User:Niele~enwiki and User:Niele (originating from automated multi-languages transfer). Niele is my frontname, and I'm highly valualing always using always my own real name in wikipedia. Can someone please investigate these IP-accounts and prove that this isn't me; so these baseless claims can be burried. I'm working only from a normal home-cable-account from Belgium's Telenet internet provider from the village of Alken, Belgium. Not from other locations and I don't even have a cellphone or laptop to surf from other locations.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also sorry if you're not the IP users but I'm tired about that. Beshogur (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Range block needed - LTA IP editor who reverts Eik Corell

The LTA IP editor who goes around reverting Eik Corell has been active this week on multiple IPs. They seem to be able to change it and come back within 12 hours of each block.

IPs used this week so far: 86.187.162.39 86.187.166.1 86.187.165.193 86.187.169.241

Three of the recent past discussions: here, here and here.

Thanks. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which LTA is this, if you do not mind me asking? I cannot think who it is; I cannot see them at WP:LTA. Patient Zero^talk 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I've used LTA as a general term, as this has been going on for two years or longer to my knowledge. It is not a listed LTA case. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, easily done Ferret. Do not worry! I can see why one would class the IP as an LTA in the same way one might class the UK referendum user (long name; remember him?) as an LTA. Perhaps "troll" would be more appropriate, I guess. Patient Zero^talk 13:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User now editing as 86.187.175.73. They changed their IP within an hour of last block. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: An edit-filter was implemented to counter these edits. More recent activity of theirs here. AccountForANI (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP may be partially aware of this, as I noted variation of the "rv v" edit note being used. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New IP, 86.187.170.193 -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had an edit filter for this. I'll ping our resident edit filter experts that I think were handling this edit filter. @Samtar:, @MusikAnimal: --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈^(Talk) 03:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MA was the brains behind the filter, but I can see they are evading it - I'll have a look at the IPs contribs and try to update the filter -- samtar^{talk or stalk} 13:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The filter was off. I've turned it back on — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it appear to be working? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen any activity from these IPs since the last one, at least via my watchlist. Sounds like the edit filter was off, and is now turned back on, so I think we can close this until they pop up again. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BDSM vandal returns?

185.25.48.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made this edit to the BDSM article; I promptly blocked them, semiprotected the article. Since then, the attack account The Enema (talk · contribs) was created, and 79.152.217.6 (talk · contribs) made an edit "requesting an investigation". All of these edits remind me of the games-playing behavior of the BDSM vandal from a couple of months ago. Could these possibly be related? -- The Anome (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peeta Singh

Peeta Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Peeta Singh and Filpro: Instead of at a project, I'm bringing the discussion here as my previous attempts to reply to the user by referring to policy has been of no avail. It's the same topic and it has been over a month of disruptive editing, for which the user has received ample warnings on their talk page.

The user's edits seem to be advocating for a Sikh Punjabi nationality (POV pushing) on an array of Punjab and Sikhism-related articles based on blatant WP:OR and WP:FRINGE while actively trying to omit any mentions of India, effectively trying to depict the Punjab as their own idea of a Sikh country on Wikipedia. Amongst others : [279] [280] [281] [282] [283]

The user has been notified several times that they cannot use Wikipedia to expressly state that there is a "Sikh nation" or "Sikh nationality" (on their talk page and Talk:Sikh) but they continuously proceed to make such insertions, especially in categories and BLPs. They persist to intentionally omit any mentions of the word "India/Indian" (terminology that was used in the first sentence of such articles for years) while replacing it with "Punjabi" (after an admin stating that they may not use "Sikh"), claiming it to be an ethnicity but then creating categories that declare it a nationality.

Please see Khanda (Sikh symbol), Portal:Punjab and WP:PANJ where the user is blatantly modelling a Sikh Punjabi nation and declaring the religious symbol of Sikhism to be the "emblem of Panjab". Examples of the Punjab-related templates that they have used religious symbolism on : [284] [285]

The user as also removed mentions of India from Saraiki dialect, expressly declared Gurmukhi to be a "Sikh script" in the first sentence and is now attempting to differentiate the Punjabi language from other Indo-Aryan languages by using the same classification as Persian language and removing sourced content regarding Indian culture's relation to the Punjabi language - calling it a hoax/debatable point - something they are inserting in all of the Punjab-related articles.

Their refusal to follow WP:BRD is also frustrating as they resort to an edit war instead of substantiating their additions and removals on discussion pages at first.[286] [287]

--Salma Mahmoud (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Mahmoud, from day one I have sincerely tried to improve Wikipedia but some people have had a problem. I don't know why, but users associated with a particular country want to hide some information. It maybe because it challenged this new sense of nationhood they're trying to create and promote on Wikipedia.

Where the term "India/Indian" is relevant I have added it myself [288] but the term is not relevant in every Punjabi and Sikh related article. Regarding Salma's accusation of "effectively trying to depict the Punjab as their own idea of a Sikh country on Wikipedia", i'm aware of 4 Punjabs on Wikipedia: Punjab, India, Punjab, Pakistan, Punjab, Pakistan, Panjab, Afghanistan and the Punjab (region). The following Portal:Punjab is for the Punjab region, a non-political region of the Punjabi people or as some assert the Punjabi nation. Reliable sources suggest that the greater Punjab region is the historic homeland of the Sikhs. If the "greater Punjab region" is the historic homeland of the Sikhs, then how does their symbol the Khanda not represent their region? It's like saying the Lion Capital of Ashoka does not represent India because it was originally placed atop the Aśoka pillar at a "religious" Buddhist site in Sarnath.

In one video, Jugraj Singh from Basics of Sikhi, a educational Sikh YouTube channel [289] briefly mentioned that the Khanda is a recent invention created to represent the Punjabi and Sikh people. I was going to email him regarding the source of this fact but didn't when I came across the news that he's been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. I'll add that source in the Khanda article when I come across it.

I don't just go removing everything with the term "India/Indian". I only remove content: if the souce is not reliable, doesn't mention the topic or the link doesn't work. For example, in the Saraiki article [290], I even wrote edit summaries with reasons for my edits. Further, reliable sources clearly suggest that the Gurmukhi alphabet is a Sikh script, then whats the problem? The article was like this with three references [291], now it's got a list of reliable references [292]. Have I done something wrong?

User:Salma Mahmoud, check the sources of the "sourced content regarding Indian culture's relation". [293] There is a reason why I've removed it. You accuse me of advocating and POV pushing (even though i'm adding information from RS) but what are you doing? [294]

Here listen to Gurpreet Ghuggi, this is the person your trying to label an Indian. [295], [296] These are people that have dedicated their lives promoting Punjab, Punjabi and Punjabism.

I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia, and if Salma or anyone else would like to watch me do so, then be my guest. [297]

Peeta Singh (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Peeta Singh has been indefinitely topic banned from Sikh and Punjabi related articles, broadly construed, so I guess this can be closed. Bishonen talk 23:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Professor Hewitt again

It seems that a few things were missed in the previous discussion here: See [298] 50.247.81.99 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confused what was missed and why any of it relates to ANI anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Actually are you saying that there are some sockseditors there that need to be blocked? Because that looks to be the only thing in that discussion that would concern ANI. You could of course simply stop editing rather than coming here to ask us to block you because you're violating a block or banediting inappropriately. It would seem to be the "professional" thing to do, especially suitable if you're trying to show of what you learnt. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC) edits at 01:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is Hewitt; it's one of his students which IP should have a long-term block. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies then. I've modified my response to avoid any unfair aspersions. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration of subsection-via-redirect links to less maintainable piped ones

I've been reverting and altering some edits by the (relatively inexperienced) user ILikeCycling. To be fair, this user has finally responded to some of my questions, and I'm still assuming good faith, but I'd like some things clarified for both our sakes!

Clarification

ILikeCycling has been converting links via redirects- including {{R to section}}s- into direct links like so. As far as I'm aware, our policy for subsection cases is that linking via the original redirect is preferable.

In one case, they say:-

But surely Driving Home for Christmas (Stacey Solomon version) is never going to have its own page and so it's just preferable to not have a redirect like that otherwise people who are not editors might get confused.

Can I confirm that my response and understanding is correct? If not, it sounds like this would still be horribly counter-productive from a maintenance point of view, even if within the rules. Ubcule (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken {{R to section}} redirects - Should users be required to make fixes there rather converting to individual links?

Again, with respect to the "Action This Day (song)" edit; it's noticeable in that case that the subsection link was broken (probably because the section name had changed).

So, from a user point of view- and only in the case of that specific link- ILikeCycling's de-redirected and subsection-piped version is still an improvement because it links correctly. Unfortunately, it's not productive on the large scale and reduces maintainability for the reasons given at WP:NOTBROKEN.

Now obviously, the best solution would be to fix (the subsection link in) the redirect itself- something I encouraged ILikeCycling to do.

But... what I want to know is whether the edit above can actually be treated as actively counter-productive (despite being a short-term/local improvement) since it reduces maintainability, and whether we should be able to ask people to *not* do things this way and say that- if you want to fix such broken links, please do so by fixing the redirect, rather than removing references to it?

Ubcule (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question reposted at the Village Pump as it's probably appropriate for that and more likely to receive a response there. Ubcule (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Range block for disruptive IP editor who changes sourced content

I've reported this IP to AIV, where I suggested a range block, but it was declined without comment. The range 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 has repeatedly changed sourced content, added unsourced content, and made other disruptive edits. Examples:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

If you click on the citations, you'll see the changes fail verification. In 2015, Sergecross73 left this message on the talk page of an IP editor on this range. It seems to indicate that this is a well-known editor who is engaging in block evasion, but he didn't include the username, so I don't know who it is. The edits seem to be the same, including the obsession with Sony's name: diff from 2015, diff from 2016. This seems to be the same editor as 2A02:C7D:564B:D300::/64, though that range hasn't been used since earlier this month. There's another range, 2a02:c7d:75d7:9300::/64, which was range blocked by Zzuuzz for a year on 11 September 2016 for block evasion by Callump90. The ISP is the same, but the edits don't quite match up perfectly. The 9300 IP's edits show an obsession with the BBC that doesn't seem to exist on the other ranges I've listed here. Maybe someone knows more than I do, though. Sorry for the pings, but I'd really like to get this resolved. Reporting it to AIV doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything, and I don't have enough confidence that it's Callump90 to bring it to SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The AIV report was not declined, it was simply wholesale removed, by Widr [299], along with three reports that had actually been responded to by admins. Widr, can you please explain your action (I'm guessing it was an oversight)? NinjaRobotPirate's report had even been endorsed by a third party [300]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been an oversight, yes. On the other hand, at the time the report had been sitting there for several hours without any admin touching it, making it more or less stale. ANI is usually a better venue for reports that can't be or aren't actioned withing minutes. Widr (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards to the part I was pinged about - yes, throughout 2015/early 2016, I blocked a large number of IPs by someone who also used a few user names containing the words "Zachary" and "Atlus" in them, so that's what we'd usually usually refer to him as, though he more frequently edited anonymously. He would make tons of minor changes to article that upon spot checking, had a high percentage of being wrong. (Fundamental stuff, like saying Nintendo published Disney video games and the like - undeniably not true.) Any attempts to talk to him about this usually lead to silence, with the occasional outburst of saying "Screw you, Serge!" as the dif above shows - never actually addressing any concerns or defending any actions. So we moved to blocking and reverting on-sight. Eventually, I had someone do some range blocks on him (I'm still struggle with them personally) and he seemed to go away for a bit, but if this is indeed him, then I fully encourage further blocks/range blocks. Huge WP:COMPETENCE issue. There was literally no getting through to him, and he refused to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just recalled one of his original user names - AtlusZachary, where he (inexplicably) lists a ton of his interests on his talk page after I blocked him. They were in fact a lot of places where he'd cause trouble too, and as you can see, he did obsess over tweaking television related articles like BBC and NBC. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The more I look into it, the more it seems to be Zachary. I saw the IP reported above making the same edits as the IP 31.52.4.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was more blatantly acting like Zachary, including getting blocked for bad edits and page moves, and having outbursts on his talk page. I'm blocking the IP for now, as he's still making edits today, but please consider implementing a range block too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is AtlusZachary. He's largely kept away from video game articles as of late so I've ignored him, but he's still adding unsourced garbage and incorrect information to articles after nearly 2 years. He was already range blocked once (or maybe twice) before, and he should be range blocked again. He's very persistent, I've reported well over 100 of his IP addresses in the past for blocks. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I trust 1337gamer's opinion on this too. He has reported Zachary to me an endless number of times, and he's been right about 100% of the time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on AtlusZachary. 86.131.221.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be the latest IP used. Notice the same obsession with Sony's name ([301], [302]) and addition of unsourced film studios ([303], [304]). I think 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 still needs to be range blocked, but we'll probably be playing Whac-A-Mole on other ranges for a while, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too hope someone does a range block, but feel free to report any IPs you expect to be him on my talk page, and I'll take care of it. I've been doing it off and on for months so I don't mind. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ronald Cutburth

User:RAMINDRATELI1

Editor appears to be not here - possible hoax article, calling some religions evil

Frivolous speedy tagging by User:Mission Kashmir III

Mission Kashmir III (talk · contribs) is dropping bad-faith speedy tags that amount to vandalism. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted many of this user's recent edits involving adding CSD tags to articles. They all seem to be using inappropriate criteria. LoudLizard (📞 contribs✉) 14:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have told the user not to make any more speedy nominations until they have read and understood WP:CSD, and warned that they may be blocked if they do. I will keep an eye on them. JohnCD (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This user has been permanently blocked in Commons. I think that he should also be permanently blocked here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rrburke: have you notified Mission Kashmir III of this ANI report according to procedure? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you have in fact. The user has been blanking his talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted their blanking of their talk page. Talk page warnings should not be removed without acknowledging them. Pokéfan95 (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can take blanking as a sign of acknowledgement, see WP:BLANKING. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, this user is just a vandal (and this is why has been blocked in Commons). I can't believe how can be too permisive in the English Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, incivility Crovata

Section blanking despite requests to stop.

BOTFIGHTER (talk · contribs) has been section blanking Grand Theft Auto repeatedly and without any rationale, despite being asked to stop. He continued (almost seamlessly) where 2405:204:d:ac9c:dc8d:dddc:2c1:a43e (talk · contribs) left off. Can an admin please take appropriate action? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've cross-reported at WP:AN3 before seeing this section. Happy for discussion to continue here if thought to be better. Mike1901 (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both venues seem appropriate, but there's a question of WP:NOTHERE and or WP:CIR, as far as I'm concerned, given their incoherent responses on the TP, and two editors involved (BOTFIGHTER and the anon). Kleuske (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to block immediately given the fact WP:3RR has been massively overstepped, but given the concerns of WP:CIR I have opted to see if they can explain why they were making these edits first, even if it is as some rope.. -- samtar^{talk or stalk} 12:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BOTFIGHTER:They promised, and I'm curious. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about the username. Sounds like they're wanting to fight bots, as in ClueBot NG. Which fits in exactly with what they're doing, and makes me wonder if the account was created just for that purpose. White Arabian Filly^Neigh 23:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White A Filly has a point. I coulda sworn having 'bot' in your name is a blockable move. Check the 'Misleading Usernames' section at WP:USERNAME? Pretty sure I saw a few reports sent in by DQBot because they had 'bot' in the username back when Daniel Case ran around there. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 02:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked BOTFIGHTER due to the edit warring at Grand Theft Auto, their username (thanks for the prod there) and a general lack of competence. I'll leave them a note inviting them to still reply to my query on their talk page, as I'd like to hear from them -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]