Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, User:Floydian felt the need to refer to Muhammad Ali by his original name [1]. When called out on this by one user ([2]), his response was this, with the edit summary "Praise Allah, I don't care". On being pulled up again, his seond response was "White liberal guilt alert" with the edit summary "Call the waahmbulance". Since no editor at the page is managing to convey to Floydian how unpleasant his behaviour is in a collaborative encylopedia, perhaps an admin could provide a friendly word? Laura Jamieson (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban dictionary - "wahmbulance" - when someone is crying over something stupid, you tell them that you are calling one of these[3] DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be considered actionable except insofar as what I see as misuse of edit summary. That is just my opinion. I can accept that other opinions could be as valid as mine. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not suggesting a block, just perhaps that someone should provide some sort of clue as to the correct method of interacting with others, since said clue appears absent. Laura Jamieson (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, it takes two to tango. Once the statement "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive" is made, a response becomes likely. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's sweet. Longtime editors should know better. "I've never made any attempt to conform to political correctness nor to avoid offending someone" sounds all manly but is just ignorant; the one offended is Ali, who (duh) changed his name for well-known reasons. Using his birth name, which Ali of course called his "slave name", is typically done by white folk who still can't handle a black man being not just a good boxer but also an outspoken critic of the racism of his time. I don't know if it's straight-up racism, but it's a kind of race baiting. Floydian, it's been a few decades since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance--get over it. And, eh, what's wrong with avoiding offending other people? Isn't that one of the bases of civilized society? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If his father's namesake Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician) were around, he might be a little sad that Clay abandoned his birth name, but would likely be mightily impressed by the changes that Ali helped to bring about. As to racism or offensiveness, it's really just silliness. If he were talking about George Burns, he wouldn't likely insist on calling him Nathan Birnbaum. But those names were both essentially "stage names" - and in America, at least, you can call yourself whatever you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia and racism is founded on ignorance. I hope Floydian now realises his incivility and will now be dropping the argument. Of course, he could just be recalling the barbershop scene from Coming to America (though Eddie Murphy can get away with it as he's parodying stereotypes). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia and racism is founded upon deliberate an vexatious ignorism. I'm sick and tired of the argument that labels you with these traits/terms just because a statement you've made might offend someone. Muhammad Ali (did I spell it right, someone ridicule me if I did not) is Cassius Clay and Cassius Clay is Muhammad Ali. My use of either name has absolutely no influence on any state of affairs. Hence, my reference to white liberal guilt; the idea that we should censor any idea, concept or opinion that could possibly upset someone, even when that person will not and can not ever witness said "offensive" statement themselves. I am parodying stereotypes myself; the difference is that I am not a member of the culture being sarcastically stereotyped. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A response from User:Floydian that you are hearing this would allow this to be closed. The essence of CIVIL (as difficult as it is to enforce) is don't be a jerk and do things that just create friction and get in the way of the work here, and Floydian you are definitely creating unnecessary friction, and doing it on the hot-button issue of race. This is not about PC, it is about professionalism. Are you hearing this? Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That user called me a troll there, after I agreed with him on the Howe nomination. I can only figure that he's trying to stir up trouble, and the OP here took the bait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I fired a shot across their bows. Will be happy to enact a block for any repetition. --John (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A stern warning across the bow? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't been on since this event took place. There was absolutely zero bad or racist intention in my reference to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay, as both names are equally familiar to me; I wasn't aware how contentious it was, figuring it akin to Cat Stevens/Yusaf Islam. FWIW, I like to stir the pot; usually net good results of it. After 13 years here, block threats provide comic relief to my day. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, Floydian, if you prance around with an attitude of "you can't catch me, I'm unblockable" then you run the risk of an admin rising to the bait and blocking you. Stop stirring the pot and do something useful. For example, it looks like David Gilmour is not too far off taking to GA. In future, I would choose your battles more carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that I'm saying I'm unblockable nor is it meant to come across as snarky attitude. I'm simply disillusioned at the politicking that has come to plague many processes here (ITN being a notable one), so I just don't care if I'm blocked; it wouldn't be punitive. As for doing useful stuff, I have two A-class nominations and a Good/Featured topic on the way in a few weeks. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good stuff. I personally can't think of a situation where I'd want to block you, but I'm not like other admins. In my experience, when you get your head stuck into a good GA improvement the noticeboards just fade into the distance. I'm still beavering away at User:Ritchie333/Monopoly myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should matter if someone made a passing reference, including in edit summary, to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay. This apparently began with one reference to "Clay" by Floydian, seen here. Another editor responded, saying "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive".[4] Is it "pretty offensive"? I think that comment is slightly over the top. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What boggles me, is whom did I offend? That user? Ali? Ali's family? Every Muslim convert ever? To BaseballBugs, I meant that more as a tongue-in-cheek poke to what you said; the bane of the lack of tone on the internet. I am a Devil's Advocate, and I have no problem debating against a person who shares my point-of-view if only to bring unspoken points to the discussion. As I stated, this is part of my persona, and I will not change that... nor have I over the past decade. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards. You could have done nothing else and ignored it (my recommendation), but instead you said "call the wahmbulance". Now, that's slightly better than "Fuck you, fuck you and fuck you ... who's next?" but not by much. Drmies' point in particular is you didn't seem to either realise or care that you caused offence, and just came across as naive or ignorant. Anyway, I'll tell you again - if you want to say "fuck you" to anyone who doesn't align with your way of working, you do it at your own risk, and just - you know - lighten up a bit. I think anything else you post to this thread is going to cause more harm than good and make it more likely someone like John is going to hit "block". As the old saying goes, you've really gotta drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud you Ritchie for your excellent comment here when you said "I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards.", we can sense that Floydian indeed like to stir the plot and accuse others of White guilt, seems rampant with people like him hold on Conservative or right wing values. I think he knows how offensive he is but he is using this for no other reason than to start a conflict. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie333. "I wasn't aware how contentious it was, figuring it akin to Cat Stevens/Yusaf Islam" is probably fine in this instance. But you had lots of options on how to handle things once it was made clear it was contentious and the way you did handle it was a fairly bad one. If for some reason you couldn't just ignore it, it's not unresonable for you to learn a bit about it. Just reading the article would quickly tell you that it's not a Yusuf Islam situation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the blame for the kerfuffle lies with the editor saying that "...referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive."[5] That is an opinion, it is stated with too much forcefulness, and "pretty offensive" is terminology of emotions, consequently it is inflammatory. Another response might have been less emotional and more cerebral. A more intellectual response might have included a quote and attributed it to a source: "In 1964, the boxing legend who told the world he was 'The Greatest' changed his name to Mohammad Ali, dubbing his former alias, Cassius Clay, 'my slave name'".[6] Thanks to Drmies for pointing this out earlier in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All said, I'll aim to retreat towards editing articles and avoid noticeboards that irk me, as my tone gets out of hand. Fair point, however: my (partially) conservative views are amongst a minority on here, and still deserve due-consideration. And with all due respect, can some attention be payed to the longstanding crapshow that goes on between a half-dozen or so users (not naming names) at WP:ITN/C? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this user stumbled upon the page upon patrolling for things to edit. noting the violation of WP:SIZE (refer to article talk page), created seperate articles for the sections and moved them, see in here. it went unopposed and agreed on until the time the revert wars began (see subsequent revisions with edit summaries). requesting admin intervention.ping User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi User:TheDwellerCampFAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a coincidence! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the OP has been around for about 2 weeks (if that). Within five days of being here, started this RFA (!) and likes to threaten other users with ANI. Not bad for a "new" editor. On an unrelated note, I think there's a boomerang in my sock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the ping substitute the required ANI notice? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. I concur that FAMASFREENODE is probably not a new user. His or her frankly strange manner of speech ("This user" in place of a first person reference, use of formal grammar in all situations) strikes me as geared towards avoiding speaker attribution efforts given its such an artificial manner of speaking. Whether that's relevant is another matter entirely. In any event there's a WP:ANEW thread on this editor as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: @FAMASFREENODE: I agree. The use of "This user" is very odd, and he/she is clearly a sock of some other user. The user in question seems oddly good with Wikipedia policy, (That's not a indication of sockpuppetry), and seems very disruptive (Combined with the first statement, we seem to have a sock). Take that boomerang out of your sock, Lugnuts, you are going to need it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irony here being that TheDwellerCamp is a freshly blocked sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I still don't trust FAMASFREENODE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fun never stops on ANI... GAB^gab 18:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This comment in particular looks fairly suspect, [here's the link]. Some users are very good at editing Wikipedia when they joined (I read the polices for a month before I joined, and got 2 different messages from people asking if I was a sock), but if someone was good at editing Wikipedia from the beginning, why would they file an RfA? It's not adding up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• IF FAMASFREENODE is a sock (and I concur with the analysis above that raises suspicions), then its purpose is clearly trolling - no sock files an RfA without an intent to disrupt. Considering the report made here by another sock, could this be two puppetmasters competing with each other? BMK (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with these findings. Knowledge of concepts such as WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT, as well as submitting an RFA so early make me suspicious that there's sockpuppetry going on here. Omni Flames (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winterysteppe isn't a typical sockmaster, he was a good editor who tried to fight his wiki-addiction by getting blocked, and makes socks to get his fix. ansh666 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that sounds fairly run-of-the-mill to me, with the single except of getting blocked deliberately. I believe mamy puppetmasters have Wiki-addictions they can't control, and that some percentage of those were good editors at some point. Look at Kumioko. I don;t really care why one takes the step into the dark side, once you're there, experience indicates that there's very little chance of successfully coming back, even granted that the community is willing to extend the chance. BMK (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is still waiting to be notified that there is a discussion taking place about him. :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If FAMASFREENODE is a sock, might the RfA be a nice high profile way to appear a new editor, and so the RfA would be camouflage? EdChem (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: Yes. It would be a clever way to camouflage a sock. But, it probably backfired, as it shows that the user in question had a clear understanding of WP policy, but is editing disruptively. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon: Any progress in determining if FAMASFREENODE is a sock? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately - and I perceive this as a flaw in our security system - CUs generally require an account to check the proposed sock against. There have been numerous situations where experienced editors have recognized the behavior of a new editor as being extremely sock-like, but because they cannot identify which puppetmaster the sock is controlled by, nothing is done. Behavioral evidence ("it quacks like a duck") will be accepted in the most obvious of cases, but not in all of them. It is my belief that the project would be much better served if the "no fishing expeditions" rule was done away with, and also my understanding that some other language Wikipedias have been able to do so, withotu conflcit with the privacy policies of the WMF. I think (and this is only a personal opinion) that the libertarian roots of Wikipedia may be somewhat stronger here then they are elsewhere in the Wikimedia empire. BMK (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked them since their overall editing has been problematic enough to warrant one, especially given the sockpuppetry concerns, which I think are valid. Can someone take a look at this closure they did and either re-open it or re-close it? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It will need to be done by an admin. Or re-opened for a few more days. Consensus was shfting/heavily leaning towards changing the block to indef - and Fam had closed/archived it based on their already being blocked for a week. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll reopen it. It'll be my first time doing it, so if I make a mistake please correct! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me Omni Flames (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick FYI: In a Game Grumps YouTube episode that was uploaded today,[7] one of the presenters made the comment "I wish I had my own Wikipedia page" - as a result, there was a sudden influx of editors at Dan Avidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Leigh Daniel Avidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as having some related editing at Ninja Sex Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Bringing this up here so a few additional editors can scan through the pages and add them to their watchlists. While some of the editors appear to be acting in good faith to try to create a viable page (although still lacking third-party refs), there's also a significant amount of vandalism that already resulted in semi-protection on at least one of those pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article I'd say the subject is non-notable I've tagged the Dan Avidan Article as CSD A7--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the CSD was removed so sent to AFD --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved then? Until of course we get reliable sources about the YouTube video itself asking for an article to be created and the subsequent deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor (Esplace) continues to remove sourced text from the above-referenced article. I have warned him/her about NPOV and 3RR and to seek consensus but I am not sure is he/she will stop. The editor and I both are at 2RR at this moment. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look and get an idea b/c I don't really understand what the editor is complaining about. Quis separabit? 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Mixon is specifically problematic. out of the 4 external links, 3 are dead. "On the other hand, many black Oaklanders, as well as those belonging to other racial groups, seemed largely opposed to such sentiments" This statement mentions racial characteristics which seem 1. out of line. Why not residents or citizens if the link provides such information. 2. "Many" is nonspecific enough to need little verification while still maintaining an illegitimate weight. In other words, what is "many"? The next sentence " a clear majority of those who regularly campaign against abuses of police power also rejected any attempt to attach legitimacy to Mixon's murder rampage" contains the term "a clear majority" which is not clear. It also talks about his murder rampage, a crime for which he was never convicted. In my attempt to explain this, the edit was undone and the other editor gave me a warning for vandalism, which was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esplace (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Point by point...

• Two dead links were found and replaced by references to the WayBack Machine (archive.org). This is a very useful website and I suggest you acqaint yourself with it.
• People who are dead are not posthumously convicted. Your observation that "he was never convicted" is a bit silly. The man was dead.
• Just stating "I'm removing the Mixon events again as the links are dead and it violates the NPOV policy." is not "explaining", though you did voice your objections later.
• Removing an entire section (which is well sourced) is not the way to go. Removing it once is not that bad (WP:BRD), repeating that is definitely a bad move.
• This page is about editor behavior, not the actual content of pages. Your (Esplace) behavior is far from impeccable, but since you stopped short of 3RR and 1RR does not apply, a warning should suffice.

Conclusion: This is mainly a content dispute and stopped short of an actual edit war. Fortunately. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Noted. I saw that some of the links were fixed after all of this happened.

2. You may think it's a bit silly, but murder is a criminal charge. Calling someone a murderer after they are dead without charges being leveled is a bias. Murder cannot be justified, but under American law sometimes killing can be. If we are to maintain neutrality, being aware of biased language is important. This is probably a content issue, but being called silly for paying attention to language is a bit insulting, however.

3. Which is why I didn't revert back to removing all of the content. My second revision was to try to bring the paragraph into line with acceptable policies by removing the more egregious sections about community support which weren't supported in the links provided. Is removing content that is not supported by the supporting material disallowed until someone happens to come across the page and agree? Esplace (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue content here. That's what the talk page is for. Kleuske (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is about [19] where I have been accused of edit warring and of supporting racism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:Adasegogisdi has also broken 3RR at Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. We have a small group of editors, namely [20] and User:StAnselm blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint. -Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When reverting her edits, the WP:FRINGE view is that most Christians would support Jesus Christ the Father, which is a fringe Christian belief and a heresy for mainstream Christians. The WP:OR is using the Bible as source of beliefs expressed in Wikipedia's voice, instead of quoting secondary sources published by Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this here? This sounds like a content dispute and you should follow the dispute resolution hierarchy, and please remove the pictures. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, it is here because one editor is calling other editors "white supremacists" and "racists". Is there nothing that can be done to stop this? StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the pictures as they're part of a content dispute which cannot be solved here. Content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages, and bropught to dispute resolution if they cannot be solved there. Admins rule on behavioral problems, not content disputes.

@Tgeorgescu: In your complaint, you failed to mention that you dropped a ton of templated warnings on the talk page of Adasegogisdi. All you received was a standard edit warring notice, and a hand-rolled notice about racism. BMK (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, if I have dropped them in bad faith I should be reprimanded, but if I have rightly issued them I should be commended. I even tried to explain her that the Bible is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith or bad faith, putting a whole bunch of templates on someone's talk page can easily be interpreted as an attack. It would have been better to write a couple of paragraphs outlining the problems as you see them. BMK (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: I have no preference for either image, what I objected against was expressing a fringe view and indulging in original research. My impression is that each subsequent policy violation deserves a higher order warning template, otherwise why are those templates there? They can be used to convey that an editor has repeatedly violated a certain policy. Wise editors are able to take heed and desist from violating policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because your tool box has a hammer in it doesn't mean you should use it to open the pickle jar. A wiser editor used templates sparingly, and discussion more. BMK (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I can well understand that you might think a warning template or two is a softer response than taking someone to ANI, because it is. Having said that, I see at least seven templates from you on that editor's talk page. If in the future you have to go so far as to issue a second warning template in quick succession, you might also add a bit more relevant text regarding the specific actions in question, and which policies and/or guidelines they violate. And, if you ever feel the need to go to a third template in a short period of time, it would probably be best to take the matter here first, because I tend to think third warnings without any action tend to be much less effective. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to know for the future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is the primary source. And the Bible scholars they are using are obviously white racists and ignorant of the text. "Isaiah 53:2" and "Jesus has bronze skin". And there are secondary sources available: "UPCI" and "namb.net"-Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm seeing the issue here. In reading the text, an interpretation of one way or another is not "racism". It would be best if you not say that the comments are from racists or white supremacists. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked Adasegogisdi for 48 hours for edit warring and breaching WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading their unblock request I'm wondering if a longer block might be in order. Calling editors "white supremacists" definitely is a personal attack, and reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People from the middle east are traditionally considered to be Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a difference, albeit, maybe, a slight one, between being "Caucasian" and being "white". And I have to agree with Bbb23 that interpreting text should not be a basis for being branded a racist. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was me. Bbb23 just did the blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right - so I skwewed up. FWIW, if you ever have to deal with me in the future, you'll probably get used to my doing that. ;( John Carter (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different cultures tend to portray Jesus as "one of us". This is no big deal. See Race and appearance of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, and hardly a reason to call another editor a racist. We have enough true racism in the world without throwing the claim around indiscriminantly. BMK (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• propose an indefinite block for:
  • their unblock request: White supremacist editors User talk:StAnselm and User talk:Tgeorgescu are upholding their views on Jesus and forbidding debate which followed
  • this warning to StAnselm and the same to Tgeorgescu:Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. "Atlantic" Discuss on the relevant talk page and
  • this extremely aggressive post here at ANI.

This editor has The Truth^TM and is not here to collaborate with others who think differently; that together with the lack of competence demonstrated by taking an article in Popular Mechanics as The Last Word on how Jesus looked, is a recipe for endless disruption. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • (Non-administrator comment) Agreed. WP:CIR issues wrt WP:RS ([21], [22]) along with WP:OR (St. Calixtus catacomb image interpretation), unfounded accusations of racism and white supremacism for those who do not agree. Sufficient grounds for a ban, I would think. Kleuske (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I said that above regarding the unblock request. Immediately calling anyone who differs with you a racist or white supremacist is a tell-tale sign you aren't here for the collective good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose indef block - This is a very new editor who has, I think, maybe taken on more than she should chew too early. I might not oppose some sort of lesser sanction, and would certainly encourage the editor to seek a mentor as per WP:MENTOR, as well as make use of the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it might be a bit early for a site ban, particularly if the editor's primary field of interest is beliefs or groups of a broadly Christian nature which might be comparatively underrepresented here yet. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Adasegogisdi you need to find WP:RS with sufficient authority to support your claims. I mention authority here since the subject matter implies there most be many, many RS so we will naturally go with the ones that have the most support (i.e. are widely cited etc). We intentionally limited interpretations of primary sources, so claims like "These scholars are wrong because this primary source says...." are generally not really useful especially with a text as long as and with as complicated a history as the bible. Not to mention if this issue is Jesus Christ rather than "what the bible says about Jesus Christ", the bible is only one source anyway. If you are unable to find sufficiently compelling RS to support your claim, either your intepretation is wrong or it's right but for some reason people have realised yet. Rightly or wrongly, the nature of wikipedia means our articles will mostly stick with the normal view rather than a WP:Fringe view. Nil Einne (talk)

Well, the skin color of the Jesus image was not my problem with her edits, but the patently false claim that most Christian denominations would support Jesus Christ the Father (Patripassianism). Unfortunately, she combined two different claims in one edit, and one of those claims is ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters what the issue is. The point is they need sufficiently compelling reliable secondary sources, not their own intepretation of primary sources. If there isn't sufficient support for their intepretation in secondary sources then they need to accept their view is minority or fringe at the moment for whatever reason and until and unless this changes the article will reflect that and possibly not even mention their view at all. If they are able to find these secondary sources then they should do so rather than trying to prove something based on primary sources or poor secondary souces. This is quite an important point and one people often have trouble understanding since for general research going to primary sources is often encouraged but as an encylopaedia it isn't how we operate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a newbie who did not know the rules. So, I support the indefinite block only if after her block expires she shows no signs of having learned from the block. As I have argued on Talk:Jesus, I find that she has WP:COMPETENCE problems and that she quite easily casts aspersions, but I am prepared to give her a chance if she shows that she has learned from her block. The gist is: it is not error which deserves indefinite blocking, but persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ban and an indef (as of now) - Way too much, way too soon. Bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not relative newbies. Is this bad behavior? Absolutely, and I'm not questioning that. Still, once the block wears off, then I suggest we give her another chance, as per John Carter and Tgeorgescu. GAB^gab 00:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ban and indefinite block This a week-old account. Wikipedia has respected editors who acted out when they first started editing the project. And it also didn't help that they also suffered "Death by template" on their user talk page. That blanket templating would anger any editor. I'm in favor of WP:ROPE and I think John Carter has a good point about having a diversity of editors' viewpoints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ban (for the present). I would have preferred the block to have been for the unfounded accusations of racism rather than merely being for edit-warring, so that a clear message would have been sent. But we certainly don't have enough evidence yet that basic competence is lacking, and with good mentoring and encouragement Adasegogisdi has the potential to become a fine editor. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at their contribs and I don't see any evidence of potential to become a fine editor and lots of evidence for potential for continued disruption. Lots of people come to Wikipedia because they are committed to some view about X and they don't care at all about this place nor how we do things, and that is what I see here - NOTHERE. To be clear, in my view the indef should of course be appeal-able and they should be unblocked if they some show some inkling of understanding that Wikipedia is not a blog where it is OK to flame people and make very strong assertions that have no basis in policy or guidelines. But I can read :) and I see that others are not seeing things this way. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit warring and the charges of racism continue; I blocked the editor for a week, against my better judgment, because there were so many editors opposing an indef block. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• my opinion only I don't think this editor is going to improve their behavior, because everything about their editing here shows that they are on a mission from God. They jumped immediately to these subjects, creating a tract and picking a fight about the lead image. Every time we've discussed that image, it has been a struggle, given the huge range of possibilities and the importance this tends to have for the people who care enough to participate. It wasn't that long ago that we went through changing to the current image after a long discussion. So this new editor comes in spouting a great deal of tendentious nonsense (e.g., how is a Sicilian image from the 1100s based either on a Borgia from the 1400s or a German of any sort?). They can have some more rope, but it's just going to end up with more personal attacks and refusal to participate in anything resembling reasonable discussion. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• After this request - I think the user has demonstrated that they are not going to be able to edit in a collaborative project. I think an indef block is appropriate here. SQL^{Query me!} 22:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, given the behaviour has continued after the block, I have switched to supporting an indef block as well. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also switching to indef: "American racism", "Christ's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Bible, and should not be distorted by white fools who hate blacks", "Editors not discussing racist bias", "This racism is unacceptable", "We have a small group of editors... blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint", "Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article". Enough already. GAB^gab 15:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ban GAB said it above me, "Enough already." --Adam in MO Talk 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef As I stated before I felt that a longer block was in order originally as this editor did not seem to be here to build the encyclopedia. Further edits have proven this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ban - We don't escalate from one week to a ban for a personal attack, do we? Obviously, this might be a short car ride from here to there, but noobs need to be allowed a reasonable chance to adapt. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've reopened this because it was an improper close by FAMASFREENODE, who I've since blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. I'm surprised it took so long TBH! Can we have a sweepstake on how long it is before talkpage access is revoked? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A new (and now blocked for their username) user has posted on their talk page, so I'm curious as to whether or not that's the editor evading a block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose a week- long block (but not a weaker one!). And, pace to Jytdog for the logic of his opening nomination, which I agree with. I think, as someone said, this is bad behaviour, and yes it is almost certainly intentional; but as a relatively new user, it could still be explained by the editor being unused to the demands we make of collegialty (if he's come form toxic environments such as FB debating pages, then this is a totally diferent one. As such, whilst agreeing with the motivation of Jytdog's proposal, suggest than Indef is too severe at this point. A week's block, however, will have the combined effect (hopefully) of removing him from the arena (for both his and WP's benefit- no opportunity to 'make' trouble or for us to imagine it) temporarilly, whilst providing him with enough WP:ROPE for a return to Jytdog's original proposal to be the only logical step for the community. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The user us already on a one week block, due to expire tomorrow, so what are you actually proposing we do now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I should withdraw that badly thought-out proposal and propose to make no other proposals that involve blocking for a week those currently blocked for a week. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel more eyes would be beneficial to our article Rothschild family - there seems to be a history of veiled (and not-so-veiled) conspiracy theory type additions by IPs. Not sure if it approaches the threshold for semi-protection, so I thought I'd raise it here for your input. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monchimarketts (talk · contribs), after making practically no edits since creating their account in February, has over the last 24 hours made over 500 edits, practically all of which are adding pointless or spurious words to articles. [23] [24] [25]. A number are actually wrong, making sentences ungrammatical [26] [27], or change words to numbers against MOS [28]. They're certainly not, apart from a very few, useful edits. It occurs to me that this is probably an account trying to circumvent 30/500 protection without being too obvious? Also, might this be worth looking at in terms of some sort of mass rollback? Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's in order to be an Extended Confirmed user on Hank Goldberg, which has been caned by socking recently and recently had its protection level increased. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right; however they have now stopped their editing spree so let's just wait and see what, if anything, happens next. I would say anyone deliberately making silly edits to meet 30/500 is basically disrupting the project to hat-collect and should be blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the edit [29] they did finally make to Hank Goldberg after reaching 500 edits is worth a block on its own. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After I nominated an article at FAC, Checkingfax (talk · contribs) made a number of large-scale (semi-?)automated edits to the article. This introduced a number of problems, including changing the citation style without discussion (compare my version to Checkingfax's), which is contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Due to the problematic nature of these changes, I reverted them. Checkingfax reverted me (subsequently introducing a variety of other problems to the article), assuring me on my talk page that we were on the same page. This led to a long and frustrating discussion on my talk page; I repeatedly explained that the user had changed my citation style. This they repeatedly denied; it became clear that they simply did not know what a citation style is. A choice quote: "There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout." The user was not keen to listen, and eventually declared that they were disengaging. The user then received firm warnings about respect for WP:CITEVAR from me (twice) and from another administrator. Given that the user had failed to provide any reasons for their edits and was (at that time) refusing to engage, I then reverted to the original citation style. Despite the warnings they had received, Checkingfax has once again tried to force their preferred citation style into the article (and again introducing other problems), even mysteriously citing WP:CITEVAR in their edit summary. This stands on the article at the time of writing. I am at this stage very frustrated, having wasted many hours of my time on this problem (and delayed making changes to the article in line with the comments of FAC reviewers). As such, I am requesting a block; Checkingfax's actions are clearly contrary to WP:CITEVAR, WP:IDHT, WP:EW and, perhaps, given the introduction of many errors unrelated to citation format and a lack of understanding of what a "citation style" is, WP:COMPETENCE. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, I have been there, done that and got the T-shirt. My advice is this - millions of people read Wikipedia day in, day out, possibly including your family, friends and co-workers. Almost all of these do not give a flying toss about citation formats, they want to find factually correct information that is well presented. The only winning move at FAC is not to play and I can think of at least 2 or 3 reviews where things like citation and template formatting have reared their ugly heads and thought "this is not worth my time", walking away from it. I don't think a block is going to get consensus unless Checkingfax has a mad civility meltdown on this thread, so I'm not tempted to do that, plus he does so much work in article space I find it difficult to assess whether or not such a block would be a net negative for the project. Plus blocking Checkingfax won't actually help you get the article passed through FAC. All that said, I'm going to drop a note on his talk telling him to lighten up a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your thoughts. First: While I appreciate that my experience isn't a typical one, I assure you that lots of my friends and colleagues have very strong opinions on citation formatting! More seriously, though: I do not know whether blocking Checkingfax will help with the FAC; that's not my motivation. What I do know is that it will (at least in the short term) stop his/her edit warring, and perhaps hammer home that their actions are problematic (something the user has done her/his best to ignore so far). I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, citation formatting really isn't that big a deal, but we have a problem when someone who literally doesn't know what a citation style is has taken it upon themselves to review citation formatting at FAC and make large-scale, script-assisted edits to citations. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reverted the most recent edit and am about to drop a note on their talkpage. Since at least *two* editors disagree with their citation changes they will now need to seek consensus on the talkpage to make said changes. Suggest this is closed until said discussion is had. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I note that, in accordance with both WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD, the user was already obliged to seek consensus or at least engage in discussion. There was discussion, but it wasn't exactly productive. My takehome message was that Checkingfax did not know what a citation style was, and that he had no interest in learning. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with this observation that you posted to CF, visible on your talk page: "I have tried to explain why you are mistaken. You have now chosen to disengage on the grounds that I am not being "collaborative" or "civil", and that I am "belittling" you. This, of course, is untrue; you are clearly very uncomfortable with being told that you are mistaken, and would rather make vague accusations of wrongdoing." I've seen this happen with this editor, even when an admin, and in this case two admins, try to explain policy or guidelines to him. CF does a lot of rapid automated or semi-automated editing but apparently not a lot of content work so there are many policies and guidelines he is unfamiliar with, and I've seen him get defensive and reactive and edit-war instead of trying to understand the relevant policies or guidelines when he is apprised of them. WP:CITEVAR is very clear in that citation styles are not to be changed without discussion and consensus on the article talk page: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Since I see no such discussion or consensus on the talk page or FAR, and on the contrary everyone including the article reviewers and another admin are backing you up, it should be time for CF to receive a directive to back off, and a warning that if they do not they will be blocked. In my opinion you should restore your preferences as they originally were, and move forward. If there is blowback from CF, then he should be blocked at that point. But I think he should probably be given the opportunity, now that this is at ANI, to voluntarily stand down and desist before a block happens. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The first thing I found on Checkingfax's talk page of note was Talk:Planned Parenthood/GA1 - that really doesn't sound like somebody who does "not a lot of content work" if you ask me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be interested to here Softlavender's definition of "a lot of content work"... Of CF's contribs, nearly 15,000 edits (60%) are in article space. FYI, etc. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you might want to review WP:NOTHERE. EEng 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe they are referring to Checkingfax's editing which tends to the gnome/semi-automated fixes than to actual content creation. Both are in article space but the 'content creators' tend to get picky about the distinction ;) (This is not to suggest their work is not needed or useful, a large amount of times I see them they are adding/fixing refs, a very valuable task. However in this case they are dicking around with citations expressly against CITEVAR) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, automated and semi-automated edits to article space; not a lot of content creation. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie: If you check the amount and nature of his edits to the article [30], you'll see it is not content work. He has added less than 8.5% of the text of the article (mostly citation text, etc.) [31], and most of his edits are of the automated and semi-automated technical type -- filling out refs, disambiguating, etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I had the sysop right, I'd look at the situation, see edit warring, block all edit warriors, and move on. There is a well developed, adequately documented dispute resolution path, this is no doubt known to both editors, and nobody used it. And I don't buy the idea that behavior standards should be lower for high contributors. Didn't when I started three years ago, don't now, probably never will. So no RfA in my future. 2¢ ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ...Mandruss's RfA _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, if you think that I have engaged in edit warring, I'd be interested to hear why. As was explained in my initial post: Due to the errors it introduced, I reverted (in accordance with the BRD cycle) the user's initial changes. I was then reverted; as explained, I then engaged in a very long and frustrating discussion with the user on my talk page. The user said that they were disengaging. Given that they had not provided a reason for changing the citation format, and given the guidelines over at WP:CITEVAR, I changed the citation style back to my preferred version. The user then changed it back, citing, of all things, WP:CITEVAR. Where do you believe I have gone wrong, here? Or was that not what you meant by "both" editors? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my views appear to be inconsistent with the prevailing community views on this, but here's how I look at it. CF's first re-revert started the EW. At that point you could have sought consensus somewhere, but instead you engaged in a mostly one-on-one battle with CF. Then, eventually, you "then reverted to the original citation style", in violation of WP:EW "'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." Thus you participated in the EW. In my warped view. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"At that point you could have sought consensus somewhere" Please tell me what I should have done. Start a request for comment? "Hi everyone; I'm starting this request for comment to make sure that WP:CITEVAR applies. A user has changed the citation style in this article; now, discussion with them has failed. They've illustrated that they don't know what a citation style is, and denied that they are changing it, and now said that they're not going to engage any further. Can I please get consensus to change it back?" I'm sorry if that comes across as sarcastic; I'm genuinely not sure what it is that you're suggesting. I stretched my ability to assume good faith as far as it can go; I gave the user a chance to explain why they had changed my citation style, and then, when they displayed their ignorance of the issues at stake and said that they were disengaging, I reverted- in accordance with WP:CITEVAR, which is the relevant guideline here. And you think I should be blocked for that? Should Only in death also be blocked? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first choice would ordinarily be the article talk page, but it looks like that wasn't an option due to low interest in the article. The next step in my opinion would be to review WP:DR, which would lead you to its section, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help. Multiple options there. But neither the FAR page nor your user talk page seem like good places to seek consensus, since they both lack the necessary quorum for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:CITEVAR (and also creating new errors thereby) isn't a content issue, since formats aren't content. So I don't think WP:DR would have been appropriate. I do agree that keeping all of the discussion on the article's talk page would have been and is always the best policy, even if it seems "cluttery" (it needn't have been on the FAR page, it could have been right on the article talk). Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Wikipedia:Citing sources is a content guideline, I don't see how violating CITEVAR is not a content issue. In any case, every content dispute is about someone claiming that someone else is in violation of some policy or guideline. The purpose of DR is to determine whether that assertion is true or false. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) At one point should I have gone to the dispute resolution page, please? When Checkingfax first made a mess of the article? When (s)he reverted my revert? When (s)he started a thread on my talk page assuring me that (s)he could explain (and, to be clear, it was the other user who chose to start the discussion there, not me)? When it became clear that (s)he didn't know what (s)he was talking about? When (s)he claimed he was not interested in discussing it further? Or some other time? And at what point should I have been blocked, please? I am left feeling that your expectations are unrealistic. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've already stated that my views are probably inconsistent with the community's. That means they are irrelevant. I expected to make the one little drive-by comment and be done. I apologize for wasting time and space. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What or which "well developed, adequately documented dispute resolution path" are you talking about here? We have two guidelines, WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD, both of which were repeatedly violated in spite of repeated explanations and discussions and examples of the problems being created. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reply above might partly answer your question. The main thing is failure to use the tool called consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, I don't think you've looked (or looked closely) at the extensive discussion on the FAR page [32] and on JM's talk page [33], which JR immediately engaged in after CF's re-revert. Those lengthy discussions were in my view attempts to seek consensus on JM's part, and CF seemingly kept changing his intentions about whether he was in agreement or not or what the facts were or what the nature of the issue was. (Ideally, all of these discussion should have been on the article's talk, and this is a good example of why content discussion should not occur on user talkpages, but even so, JM did in my mind attempt discussion and consensus.) Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my problem. This edit from Josh is similar to one of mine where I lost my temper a bit with someone who I thought was doing hit and run editing. The subtle, but important difference, is my edit summary ("if I thought adding a dot would make a SHORTENED footnote easier to type I'd have done it myself") is referring to the content (albeit in a not very civil manner), while yours ("Your "cleaning" and "fixes" have already made a mess of one article, you can stay away from others") is directly about the editor. That makes it difficult to come down one side or the other when considering any administrative action, as it has to be fair to all sides. Blocking everybody is one way of being fair, but the problem with doing it to established editors is you end up with a big stink kicked up from third parties (indeed, I would say the problem is the reverse of what Mandruss says - it's not that we have lower standards for established editors, it's rather you can more often kick a newbie punitively and get away with it!) A 24 hour full-protect and talk page notice (recent example) is one way of doing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user, while I was explaining (or doing my best to explain) why their scripts were problematic, decided to apply their scripts to a related article. That's a display of poor judgement at best, downright provocation at worst. I found error after error in their script assisted edits in other articles; I thought it was fair to assume that there were going to be errors in that one too. My comment were indeed directed at the editor, but I think they were quite reasonable; someone messing up articles with sloppy scripts shouldn't be applying those same sloppy scripts to other articles; especially not when they are at that time engaged in discussion about how sloppy their editing is. Your suggestion that I could be blocked or that the article could be protected is utterly ludicrous, and an illustration of why I hate these noticeboards so much. I am reaching out (in desperation) for assistance in dealing with an incompetent and disruptive editor. I'm getting some help- I appreciate the revert and the warnings left on the user's talk page. But I also have a variety of people talking about blocking me for edit warring and making jokes about supporting each other at RfA because they'd be willing to block me. This is not a productive environment. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie: You're singling out one edit summary, but this situation consists of dozens of edits and lengthy discussions and repeated denial of the situation/facts/guidelines. I don't think one edit summary outweighs that. You've been comparing this situation to your own experience but in this case I think you need to step back and just look at the longterm disruption instead of "what would Ritchie do [or have done]?" Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate there has been frustration over this, probably from both sides, and it's something I emphasise with as it's easy to get frustrated when you have put a lot of work into an article only to find somebody make changes you don't think are particularly required. However, in my view, Josh has come across a little too confrontational; above he's taken exception to being blocked, when I've not said that (I said a block would be unhelpful). ANI isn't "requests for punishment", it's a way of getting administrators to look at conduct disputes and see if they can resolve them so people can get back to work. (alright, it's actually closer to the Slough of Despond, but one can dream...) Anyway, Checkingfax has been told about this thread and I'm awaiting a response; we'll see what happens when he replies. Patience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I appreciate there has been frustration over this, probably from both sides". Yes. The difference is that the other party has displayed ignorance of the issues at stake and an unwillingness to follow the guidelines. "[C]hanges you don't think are particularly required" is something of an understatement when it comes to the edits they have made to the articles I have written. And do you seriously think I am behaving inappropriately by "[taking] exception to being blocked"? I suspect you'd take exception to me saying that you should be blocked, too. (And please don't try to wriggle out of it. You raised the possibility of blocking me, even if only to reject it. And you're not the only one in this thread who's done so.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rightyho, this isn't getting anyone anywhere. Edit warring took place, misused edit summaries happened, and dispute resolution wasn't sought before this drama board was used. Time to step back, everyone. Let Checkingfax have an opportunity to contribute to this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everyone pretending that this is some kind of content dispute that needed a thirty-page RfC to determine? This is a disruptive and incompetent editor. I am out. I am done. I will not comment here further unless addressed directly. It's clear that there is no chance of anything resembling resolution. I'm sorry I asked for help. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well. That seems overly harsh; although it does indicate why you perhaps did not get the 'help' you wanted. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]