| Revision as of 03:02, 10 December 2019 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:03, 20 December 2019 edit undoHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits ANI draft. I'll give MTW another chance to stop this himself before posting this.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Editor repeatedly adding dubiously-sourced material despite multiple editors telling him to stop == | |||
| * {{user|Martinthewriter}} | |||
| This editor showed up last month and reinserted highly dubious content (in based on a source that ]) that had been removed from the article ] almost two years earlier by a consensus on the talk page. He then edit-warred over it while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page (Ctrl+F "personal opinion" ). He threatened to canvas !votes with a biased RFC question, which I him not to do without consulting me but . The RFC ended a month later with minimal uninvolved participation, but most favouring the removal the dubious content and replacement with a fuller and better-sourced etymology section (the simple !vote count was tainted somewhat by two bad-faith editors who showed up because of their history with me, but clearly had not actually looked at the content). MTW then despite it being obvious no one new was coming to support him (literally no one had supported his "version A" in three weeks, with almost everyone new supporting "version C"). My only guess as to his motivation for this move would be to make me and others have to wait another month to restore the consensus version of the article. I , for which action {{user|Edwardx}} (so I can only assume my action was procedurally sound; if not, I apologize). MTW's next action was to restore the dubious content. | |||
| *Tanka prose in 2012 Citing NOTJOURNAL to justify including fringe content because it cited garbage online poetry mags that contradicted academic literature, claiming to have "found" a source that had already been cited and rejected as garbage, etc. | |||
| *Korean influence in 2014 and 2016 Encouraging googling up of sources, himself googling up those sources and claiming to have read and understood them, several of which were highly specialized and technical, and those that were not were garbage sources that he treated as though they were reputable scholarship, talking and talking in an apparent attempt to force a "no consensus" result by pretending to have read and understood the relevant literature and the article in question, etc., and coming back two years later to undermine efforts to fix the article's problems through ] as revenge for the page having been nominated for deletion in the first place. | |||
| It seems like there is no end in sight, so could someone please block the user? Or do we need to have a TBAN discussion? The editor has done ]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Martinthewriter&dir=prev&offset=20191108222422&limit=36&target=Martinthewriter basically nothing on the project for the last 40 days] except troll me (if you read through the discussion it should be obvious that he isn't pushing a consistent POV; he just wants content out when I want it in -- Ctrl+F "etymology" to see how his view changed ''exactly'' when mine did -- and wants it in when I want it out, even when overwhelming talk page consensus, an honest reading of what the sources say, and simple common sense support my view) so an editing restriction seems like the wrong move here. | |||
| *Mottainai (and ''Mottainai Bāsan'') in 2018 Encouraging googling up of "sources" to fix a NOTDICTIONARY problem, then engaging in deliberate obstructionism to prevent an ATD solution, again apparently as revenge for earlier deletion nominations (no valid policy-based reasons were provided, and even if the comments are taken as sincere they show a deliberate refusal to read the proposals they were opposing) | |||
| *List of giant animals in 2018 Pretending to have read and understood a book on Japanese monster movies, or even to be familiar with the topic in general, when clearly he had just Googled up a preview and thrown it at the AFD hoping it would stick. | |||
| ] (<small>]]</small>) 00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *Water roux in 2018 Left an article in the mainspace that consisted of nothing but unsourced content and questionable OR, apparently as a result of an inability to correctly read and interpret sources related to Japanese and Chinese culture | |||
| *Promoting the preservation of hoax articles. | |||
| *Promoting the preservation of fringe and/or hoax articles. | |||
| *Comments like {{tq|''Marrying into the House of Percy seems a significant accomplishment''}} would seem to need no further elaboration on how they are questionable. | |||
| *Repeated citations of ] as justifications for what is unquestionably ]. | |||
| *Repeated citations of ] in order to undermine discussions where the intended outcome is clearly "Redirect, don't merge", which is technically an alternative to deletion but is a valid discussion to have at AFD. | |||
| *Comments that appear to completely miss the point, whether through ] or ]. | |||
| *Citing of ] when the way he is !voting is actually counter to what that policy says, as it has the effect of preserving a unilaterally merged and drastically trimmed page. | |||
| *Evasive dodging of questions (or occasionally creating strawmen) when !votes are challenged. | |||
| **Making silly joke comments while evasively dodging questions. | |||
| *Writing as though he knows more about American comics, Japanese monster movies, Sikhism than editors who edit specifically in those topic areas. | |||
| *Slimily piping a cat link so that it looks like an article link, in order to justify an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Even someone who agreed with him thought this was questionable behaviour. | |||
| *Repeated posting of disruptive canvassing comments at the Article Rescue Squadron's rescue list, often not providing a valid reason for deletion and simply making an off-topic joke with the implication "Here's the AFD -- you know what to do..." | |||
| *Repeated bogus "speedy keep" !votes. | |||
| *Calling other editors trolls for having an opinion he disagrees with. | |||
| *Accusing other editors of engaging in an "incipient deletion spree" for AFD-nominating a page that technically should have been speedy-deleted as a close recreation of a page previously deleted at AFD. | |||
| *Hounding of editors he has conflicted with in the past (and their friends). | |||
| *Altering other editors' messages on his talk page, then blanking them when met with resistance. | |||
| *Misrepresenting sources at AFD by using italics to imply that short essays or book chapters are book-length works about the topic. | |||
Revision as of 00:03, 20 December 2019
Editor repeatedly adding dubiously-sourced material despite multiple editors telling him to stop
This editor showed up last month and reinserted highly dubious content (in one case based on a source that clearly got the information in question from the Misplaced Pages article) that had been removed from the article Mottainai almost two years earlier by a consensus on the talk page. He then edit-warred over it while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page (Ctrl+F "personal opinion" here). He threatened to canvas !votes with a biased RFC question, which I told him not to do without consulting me but he did anyway. The RFC ended a month later with minimal uninvolved participation, but most favouring the removal the dubious content and replacement with a fuller and better-sourced etymology section (the simple !vote count was tainted somewhat by two bad-faith editors who showed up because of their history with me, but clearly had not actually looked at the content). MTW then tried to reopen the RFC despite it being obvious no one new was coming to support him (literally no one had supported his "version A" in three weeks, with almost everyone new supporting "version C"). My only guess as to his motivation for this move would be to make me and others have to wait another month to restore the consensus version of the article. I reverted, for which action Edwardx (talk · contribs) thanked me (so I can only assume my action was procedurally sound; if not, I apologize). MTW's next action was to restore the dubious content.
It seems like there is no end in sight, so could someone please block the user? Or do we need to have a TBAN discussion? The editor has done ]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Martinthewriter&dir=prev&offset=20191108222422&limit=36&target=Martinthewriter basically nothing on the project for the last 40 days] except troll me (if you read through the discussion it should be obvious that he isn't pushing a consistent POV; he just wants content out when I want it in -- Ctrl+F "etymology" to see how his view changed exactly when mine did -- and wants it in when I want it out, even when overwhelming talk page consensus, an honest reading of what the sources say, and simple common sense support my view) so an editing restriction seems like the wrong move here.