So, there's this user. He was trying to correct what he perceived as anti-Kurdish bias in Al Qamishli. He was not in violation of WP:3RR, but could be interpreted as edit-warring, at that article. He was then blocked with very little warning by Khoikhoi. Since then, he's been sockpuppeting to avoid the block. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether the article was indeed biased as he claims, and these ethnic conflicts give me hives, but there was something that struck me as odd. Could someone who knows something about the Syrians and Kurds and their conflict take a look at the contribs and the block and have an opinion? Thanks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the veracity of his claims, if he's socking to get around the block, he's going to be blocked until he stops that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has now been 'infinitely' semi-protected by Khoikoi. I'm a bit dubious about infinite being necessary. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, a little strange. For the sake of appearances, I'd prefer a block notice at User talk:Farhanbavealan of some sort. Notified Khoikoi about this discussion anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a notice on the talk page would have been a good idea. I blocked Farhanbavealan (talk·contribs) and Kurdish land (talk·contribs) because the former was a WP:SPA used only for edit warring while the latter was an obvious sockpuppet. However, I am willing to assume good faith and unblock on the condition that he initiate a discussion about his edits on the talk page as opposed to sterile reverting. I will also assume that he simply wanted to change his username as opposed to create a second account. The article was also protected because the banned user Am6212 was being disruptive. The Suryoyo Sat article was protected for the same reason. The reason it was indef. as opposed to a time limit was because of two reasons. One is that I am simply used to using indef. whenever I protect a page. The second is that since we are dealing with a banned user (Am6212), I wanted to avoid giving him an opportunity to revert immediately after the protection expires. If he had seen the date that protection were to expire on, there is a likelihood that he would have done exactly that. Khoikhoi 02:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin take a look at this when they get a chance? Thanks, Brothejr (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In past days, one group of editors was labeling only conservatives and another was labeling only liberals. I felt that labeling only one side was a violation of WP:NPOV, so I decided to label everyone who could reasonably described as a conservative or liberal (e.g. Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann). I created a section on the talk page to try to reach consensus on whether labels should be used or not.
The other issue is that one editor blanked 8k of content without first sharing his concerns on the talk page. I restored some of the good faith additions that he removed. I am of course willing to discuss shortening the article on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked JCDenton2052(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) 24 hours. On the edit history, he's blown far past 3RR and is dueling all comers on that Tea Party page. Article history here, user main space history here. Feel free to unblock if required with demonstrated consensus on this page here. rootology (C)(T) 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
JC is asking for an unblock, a listing of just a handful of reverts, that alone put him past 3RR are listed here on his talk. More eyes, please. rootology (C)(T) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You have yet to demonstrate that I violated WP:3RR and your claim that I am "dueling all comers" is baseless and a borderline violation of WP:NPA. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Certainly there was clear edit warring going on, but I think the article could use some attention from editors who are more capable of leaving their politics at the door. For someone to try to claim that Bill O'Reilly, for example, is not a conservative or that to say he is somehow pushes POV is ridiculous, and certainly there are plenty of sources to show that teabagging protests were led by right wing groups. JCDenton2052 may have been going about it the wrong way, but I think as far as the content of the article goes his edits conform more to Wikipedia standards than those of many others contributing there. A quick look at the edits on the talk page show tremendously slanted political opinions being expressed and used a justifications for editing the article. We've got someone claiming that the mainstream view that the protests were organized by conservative groups is somehow a FRINGE view and that the whole section discussing it as something debated in the media should be removed. We've got politician bashing. We've got all sorts of nasty stuff going on. More eyes are needed there. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
His edits were better, but blasting up to the 10RR range is not a good idea... rootology (C)(T) 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You have yet to substantiate your claim. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to revert people who removed labels from conservatives or liberals (but not both) without reaching consensus on the talk page. I was also reverting people who were removing content that was encyclopedic, but not favorable to their side (for or against the Tea Parties). JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that his block not be lifted. JCDenton2052 did the same to me, and I reported him only a couple of days ago for accusing me of blanking material without ever going to talk. JCDenton2052 does not understand what Blanking is. earlier report JCDenton2052 then retaliated for my ANI report with a vandalism report against me here. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he needs to be educated about the definition of the term "Blanking" and how to resolve disputes. It looks like you and others need to be educated about WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other content-related policies. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You were repeatedly removing crowd estimates from a liberal (while leaving those in by conservatives) without establishing consensus on the talk page. I would personally prefer to include estimates from conservative and liberal sources (and clearly note the possible bias of the sources). [1] An equally valid alternative would be to leave out all partisan estimates. However, consensus must be achieved on the article's talk page for some solution that does not violate WP:NPOV. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, it's been granted as he indicates a desire to now use DR not edit warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hereafter I'll only make edits to that article once. If they are reverted, I will try to establish consensus on the talk page and failing that, seek dispute resolution. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
An IP has threatened suicide here due to some breakup with some person named Heather. Someone needs to contact the local police. Geolocate states the person is in Goose Bay, Newfoundland. ISP is Aliant. єmarsee • Speak up! 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we typically just WP:RBI for this. I've done the B this time. –xenotalk 19:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not policy, but we usually follow WP:SUICIDE. I'll try calling the ISP.--chaser - t 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm in contact with the provincial police.--chaser - t 23:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, someone should call the police and warn them. If it's serious, that's good. If he's being an idiot, fine, he'll enjoying explaining that one. Anyone local? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
All we have is an IP address, no name, no address, no nothing. What exactly do you want to tell the police? Also what explaining would they have to do anyways? It's not illegal to threaten suicide is it? Revert block ignore. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Oddly enough, it is illegal in some states (not sure about Canada) to attempt suicide. In North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma it is illegal to attempt suicide. So, if they theaten it, more than likely they are going to try. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 22:55
I've got them on the phone now.--chaser - t 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, they apparently have another admin (site admin?) on the phone, so this is resolved as well as it can be from our end.--chaser - t 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you were calling the RCMP, it was me. They were grateful for the info. Thanks Chaser and sorry for the collision. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The RCMP just called me back and they wanted to see the diff (hope nobody deleted it) and they are going to try to contact the person on their talk page while they track it down, so please, let's not jump all over the likely Wikipedia newbie RCMP on that IP's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. This is a good use of a Wikipedia talk page is it? Encouraging police to feed a troll using Wikimedia resources. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I am shocked, Theresa, at your lack of compassion for a fellow human being in obvious distress. My heart goes out to them, yours should too. Giano (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) How do we know if it is a troll or not? Because of the uncertainty whether the threat is real or not, this seems like a situation to IAR. After all, a human life is valuable than feeding all the trolls in Wikipedia isn't it? Anyway, there has been no comments regarding this on the IP's talk page. And IMO it's very unlikely the police will use a Wikipedia talk page viewable by anyone to talk someone out of committing suicide. Chamaltalk 09:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
My heart goes out to the actual victim of the incident. Someone we only know as Heather who no one here seems to even think about. Why should she have to read such aggression against her? I have deleted it. Theresa Knott | token threats
A new account called benshoemen (talk·contribs) is adding nonsensical spamcruft to Susan Boyle. The account hasn't been warned enough to take it to AIV, but the edits mention something called "s c h u m i n w e b" (spaces inserted to get around an automated filter), which I remember just enough about to think that somebody will probably recognize this as a quacker, so I bring it here. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh? Well, that warning will probably serve to give the editor a good laugh, if nothing else. Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't seen Benjiboi's posting when I posted below him or understood the full nature of the situation. I've now blocked indef. Cheers.--chaser - t 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Support block. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In the light of [2] and [3] I renew this case and hope my third attempt will lead to something constructive, after the the first one was marked as resolved without doing anything and the second one was largely ignored. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No attempt at talk page discussion in six months is enough for me. Clearly this user is avoiding discussions and listening to others. If nothing happens following Rivertorch's advice, I would suggest an indefinite block (indefinite, not infinite, being the key term) until the user acknowledges that this is a collaborative project and they cannot just ignore other people and do what they want. This isn't the first user like that and it won't be the last. Harsh but if they will not even put forth the effort to request to be unblocked, I say we move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a real wonder that it lasted that long. The drama began right after they began editing in April 2008 and they got blocked twice in July 2008. As mentioned before, we had a somewhat similiar case with Zonly(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log), that got resolved when they were contacted in their own language. I don't know CU policy too well, but if possible just have a look where they're from. Maybe it's really an issue of language. You don't need to speak fluent English to edit genre fields in musical infoboxes... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 08:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The user seemed fine when they last communicated. The last comment, though, seems to be of the passive-aggressive sort we are seeing right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Help with a difficult user unwilling to disengage[edit]
Resolved
– Cooler heads have prevailed
User:TomCat4680 seems unable to stay away from my talk page despite having been asked three times by me and once by an admin. The editor seems to have taken an extreme dislike to me because I nominated an article he created for deletion. Based on his contributions and behaviour, I believe that this editor is actually a minor, despite the claim on his userpage that he is 28.
The editor has made personal attacks against me here and here, which he later retracted at my request. This and this probably qualify as personal attacks as well. So far, I've been accused of by TomCat4680 of incivility, assuming bad faith, disrupting wikipedia to make a point, accusing people of being sockpuppets, 3RR violations, and probably other things, none of which have any merit. Please see the discussions at Talk:Fuel_TV#Trimmed or User talk:Delicious_carbuncle#Fuel TV.
I'm trying to keep away from the user, but that's impossible if they won't stay away from my talk page. Can an admin please use their magical persuasive powers? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that while I was writing this up, TomCat4680 again visited my talk page to deliver morenastygrams.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::This has nothing to do with the afd. You violated WP:HEY by nominating it because you didn't even give me a chance to expand it like I was planning after I woke up that morning, and are losing; absolutely no one has agreed with you on it. You never put any tags like: expand, refimprove, or put anthing on its talk page as to why you object to it. etc etc. per policy. You just speedy afded it, thinking you are the know all say all master when it comes to determining notability. Just like no one but your sock puppet accounts have agreed with you on Talk:Fuel TV. Admit it. It has everything to do with your unwillingness to reach a consensus as requested multiple times and instead engaged in a 3RR war and got the page sysoped. You are clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by doing this and in turn proving once again how much of a lone wolf you are, instead of a team player. I offered you several an olive branches but you threw them in my face. Why don't you read WP:5P again before accusing me of things. And the admin didn't agree with either of us either by the way, he was just stuck in the middle of it. Tour sarcastic edit summaries don't help either. Why don't you just stop assuming bad faith and realize this petty bickering isn't helping. Oh and by the way I'm 29, not 28. Learn some math. Today is April 18, 2009. My birthday is April 6, 1980. I almost failed algebra and even I can figure that out. If you don't believe me I can send you a copy of my driver's license. The only immature one here is you. I think you're probably in middle school, at least you act like it. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
TomCat...as I just said on the AfD, you need to WP:AGF that the editor was doing what he believed was best for Wikipedia. A nomination at AfD is not a personal insult to you. Indeed, an article I worked on for 3 years (which means it actually lasted for 3 years) was recently deleted - I have yet to even ask to have it userfied yet. Don't rush process. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Adding this: did I honestly just see you accuse a longstanding editor of having socks? Ouch... cardinal rule, either file your WP:SSP or stop throwing out accusations,as it certainly lowers your believability! (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Read his talk page before you determine who's assuming bad faith and who isn't. I sent him a kitten and a cookie to show WP:WIKILOVE and he threw them in my face. Anyways, his afd is failing miserably per WP:SNOW, and the more pressing issue here is the content dispute at Talk:Fuel TV. I have filed an RfC, which has yet to be responded too, clearly showing that I'm open to a neutral third party arbitration. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::Seniority means nothing if you don't follow the rules. He's obviously nothing but a vigilante. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal Tomcat: Stay off the other guy's talk page. Carubuncle + Tomcat: Try really hard not to say mean things about each other. Since it sounds as if you don't have much editing overlap, this shouldn't be hard. I'm not an admin, but i believe that if either of you calls the other a "vigilante" or similar loaded terms (i.e. "vandal" "petty" etc...) again soon, short civility blocks might be in order. Agreed? Alrighty then.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:All I really care about here is resolving the dispute and sysop block at Fuel TV. He's the one being uncivil, NOT me. He's also making unsubstantiated SPA claims against another editor at Talk:Fuel TV and in turn the editor (probably THE most helpful editors in the article's history) was blocked without a fair trail. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
As much as I enjoy watching someone dig themselves a hole, Tomcat, why don't you do what Bali suggests, back off and stick a cork in the orifice of your choice and we call it a day, mmkay? It's Saturday. Saturday is not a good day for drama. HalfShadow 20:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Bali ultimate, feel free to read through the discussion on my talk page. I don't think I've been incivil or even overly impolite in defending myself against all manner of increasingly bizarre accusations (see new sockpuppetry accusation above). I was as patient as I could be, since I'm of the genuine belief that this is a minor we're dealing with, but it became disruptive. I don't intend to respond to TomCat4680 here, but it should be plain from their comments that this is a one-sided argument (which I don't want any part of). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the last time the other fellow edited that talk page was 16 hours ago, and their edit was to clarify in the face of your umbrage that they had meant to call someone other than you an SPA. [4]. Do yourself a favor. Step away.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:I'll never post on his page again after the carriage dispute and sysop block at Fuel TV gets resolved by a neutral third party editor. Why is everyone here ignoring the issue and instead attacking the person and not the problem? DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! TomCat4680 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop calling me a minor. Its only further proving how uncivil you are. Everything you do and say proves it. Put you stick away for God's sake. I'm twenty nine years old. What do you think 4680 means?. You clearly have a lot of issues. Go see a therapist. I swear to God if you give me your email address I'll send you a copy of my driver's license right now. Whatever you do, don't ever go to law school, you'd be the worst lawyer in the history of the profession. You probably belong in a mental institution for your paranoid schizophrenia. No one's out to get you. I just want to get the content dispute resolved at Fuel TV. All you want to do is discredit other editors, CLEARLY disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by this immature name calling and refusal to resolve the issue. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're an adult, act like one. Please. HalfShadow 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
TomCat4680 blocked for 24 hours - violation of WP:NPA just a few lines above. I would not have acted if I believed that any progress was likely, since the accusations are exactly the same as made in the first post to this thread (with a few more choice comments thrown in). However, if anyone thinks that unblocking will facilitate a quicker resolution of the underlying issues then please do not refer to me; you hereby have my agreement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Beat me to it. Hopefully the break will do him good. GARDEN 21:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
To clarify a couple of things - I've already stated in a couple of places that I've walked away from Fuel TV because I have no interest in edit warring over whether a list of red links are included or not. The article is currently protected and the way TomCat4680 prefers it, so I'm not sure what the issue is there. And just to be completely clear, I may be wrong about TomCat4680 being a minor, but that is my genuine belief. I don't say it to be insulting to him (or to other editors who are minors). In my experience 29 year olds don't usually make statements like "I think you're probably in middle school, at least you act like it". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologized to him and promised to never bother him again, and I'll stay away from Fuel TV for a while. Case Closed. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Note; I unblocked TomCat4680 upon review of an unblock request, acknowledging the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, the benefits of a good night's sleep. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
– User has been explained everything necessary in dealing with the content or if he so wishes, how to get the article deleted
Someone should have a look at this edit and edit summary. Deal with as needed. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰echo 06:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a new WP:SPA created by an editor claiming to be Charlie Pierce for purposes of expanding his own article, which he did by copying text (he claims) from his own website. But it is without copyright license grant or sourcing, and in vita / byline form rather than encyclopedic. When reverted he got belligerent and stubbified the article. He's hostile and clearly upset, but I don't see the reaction as a legal threat despite using the words "defamatory and libelous". Anyone at his level (experienced columnist in New York Times, Boston Globe, etc.) is most likely a solid person who would work in good faith if only we explained what good faith is. Perhaps someone patient can engage him and explain how Wikipedia works regarding sourcing and COI, encourage him to point out any inaccuracies or other problems on the talk page, and maybe even work through how the article could be improved and expanded. I'll be happy to help out if we can get things calm and on track. Wikidemon (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I left the user a note about WP:COI. Apparently it wasn't big enough since someone else has since left half a page on the issue. lol - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰echo 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, he sent me an off-wiki email demanding the article be deleted. OTRS? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰echo 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes Allstarecho (talk·contribs) if you are in contact with this individual already you could suggest the person contact OTRS with their concerns. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm in contact with someone.. he emailed me.. but there's no proof that he is the actual subject of the article. I replied to his off-wiki email about our policies on blanking pages, verifiable 3rd party sources, BLP, etc. and informed him that I have removed the line about him being Roman Catholic (since that seems to be the cruxt of his anger) as it was unsourced. I also encouraged him to use the article's talk page. And of course the final option, I pointed him to WP:OTRS. So consider this closed. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰echo 09:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's really Charlie Pierce, then I'm the mayor of Bangor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Above, the impression is given that Mainsouth used something like the expression "defamatory or (potentially) libellous". However, (s)he was only quoting the entry by Barry m in the very first entry at User talk:Mainsouth, so based on that it is very silly to suggest a "possible legal threat"! - Hordaland (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Linkspam like this can be reported to WP:AIV, which usually gets quicker action. I've filed a report there; you shouldn't need to do anything more this time. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
On the surface this seems like it's only a content issue however at least two editors are tag-team edit-warring and the duck test suggests offsite campaigning is also taking place with at least one SPA and possibly a sock or two. I will try to be brief:
Julie Bindel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a UK feminist activist and regular columnist of the Guardian. In 2004 one of her columns was rather disparaging toward transsexuals and an activist organization, London Transfeminist Group[6] has seemingly opposed her ever since with arguably little sucess but one big protest at an awards ceremony in 2008.
Zoeoconnell (talk·contribs) is certainly a part of this activist group and even wrote the press release for the protest and served as the media contact[7]. This editor and ZoeL (talk·contribs) have been edit-warring to preserve some rather, IMHO, negative POV material on the BLP article primarily sourced to blogs and Indymedia. Zoeoconnell has also installed themselves as the goto editor on the talkpage despite COI and disregard for policies. All attempts to remove and reword the material have been met with, reverting. To thier credit every other change I've made except to this one section have stuck.
As it was certainly a stalmate and they were tag-team reverting me I started a RfC on the talkpage showing what I saw as using only reliable sources and doing so in accordance with NPOV and BLP policies. This unearthed a third Zoe, Zoe.R (talk·contribs) and spa georgiagrrl (talk·contribs). They all prefer the previous version which they assert was approved by admin user:CIreland who I've invited to participate.[8] Zoeoconnellhas since started removing a {{fact}}[9][10][11][12]; harassing/threatening/imtimidating (whatever you wish to call it) myself[13] and another editor.[14] They have also stated that an admin approved using the prior version and they weren't willing to concede much of these issues unless an admin ruled they must.
Here's what the article looked like prior to my editing there with the POV section encompassing more than half the short article. Every change I've made outside that section has been left alone. I've posted on the BLP board but it seems to be quite backlogged and was about to take this to the RSN board but really this is been a farce and I need some suggestion how to get the negative POV material that is poorly sourced off, get the blogs and Indymedia off and try to keep it from being re-added. -- Banjeboi 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The rest of the problem should be worked out on talk pages as needed. If the new accounts are indeed different people, they can use the talk page like everyone else. Is there any other admin action you think is needed here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
A warning regarding removing the fact tags would be nice and, unbelievably, a stern note regarding negative content has to be well-sourced and blogs/Indymedia are unacceptable. Otherwise it seems I've have to take each one to RSN which seems a waste of community energy. As is, it looks like every phrase will be have to be picked apart to ensure it conforms to policy. If there is an more efficient way I'd sure love to know it. -- Banjeboi 23:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi has repeatedly failed to back up claims about source (E.g. claiming Indymedia is not a suitable source without saying why) despite having numerous changes. Suggestions that the matter should be referred to the appropriate noticeboard have been ignored - instead, they've come here and we've ended up with a page block. I believe I've demonstrated a willingness to engage in discussion on the talk page but this has been ignored. I don't believe a page block is in anyones interest at this point - it's just going to restart in a months time unless the reliable sourcing claims are actually backed up. There are plenty of alternate sources, but without knowing why this editor believes these ones are inappropriate, we can't select other ones. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The relavant policies were linked repeatedly and another editor even pasted why blogs are not reliable. Indymedia is certainly not reliable to our standards - it is an open publishing site while WP:RS requires an established mechanism for fact-checking and accuracy, which these sites do not have. Completely innappropriate for a BLP. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Then the appropriate place to make those assertions is on the relevant talk page with escalation to the relevant noticeboard if you feel there's been a problem. This isn't the place to produce new evidence/statements regarding sources - this is the first time you've made the "open publishing" statement. There is an earlier discussion about the selection of sources Talk:Julie_Bindel/Archive_1#Proposed_rewrite_-_part_1 in the talk page archives that you've been pointed at - we can find others but at the moment all we're getting is counterclaims with no backup, allegations of sockpuppetry, attempts to reframe good-faith attempts to resolve problems and prevent edit-warring as "harassment" etc which makes me very reluctant to engage further with you at all. Do you feel that a one month block on this page is really going to achieve anything at this point? ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd note that I'm actually in favour of removing the Livejournal link because I don't believe it's appropriate - so I'm actually with the other editor you mention on this score. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This page is not the appropriate place to carry on discussions about the content of articles. Please carry on that discussion on the article talk pages. As far as any further official action, the only request I see is that Benjiboi has asked for a warning. There seems to be no need for that, since the party he wants warned is participating in this thread, and as such, is fully aware of the issue. Now, is there anything else you want the admins to do here, or can I mark this one resolved???--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have requested that Benjiboi, as they are in a minority, ceases to revert from the consensus version of the article and refer any problems to RSN or similar. Is there any way this can be enforced? ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Zoeoconnell has continually blocked removal of controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and even insisted they wouldn't remove any of it until an admin intervened - so here we are. Please explain on this admin board why on this - or any - BLP we should violate our policies on BLPs, RS and NPOV. I invite any admin to review the content that is currently protected in place to see if my concerns are unfounded and indeed much or most of it should be trimmed away. I have been met with resistance on these issues and Zoeoconnell's conduct and staements of unwilling to follow policy unless intervened by admins is the only reason I was compelled to seek assistance here. -- Banjeboi 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Violation of policy is disputed. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Local consensus can't overrule policy. In order to settle the dispute about policy, try the WP:BLPN. If new iterations of the same policy dispute keeps arising, head to dispute resolution. Come back here if that doesn't work. DurovaCharge! 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The consensus isn't that what's there is OK - it's that there has not been the level of policy violation that Benjiboi is claiming, which is trying to remove all critical material whatsoever about the article's subject and replace it with the subjects own words. This happened when Benjiboi attempted to unilaterally replace with their own version a section on the article that had been extensively discussed and a consensus reached. Where there are possible cases of violation this is under discussion on the talk page with the other editors. Benjiboi is even evasive about how policy is allegedly being violated and in a couple of cases which sources are violating, which makes referral by anyone else to RSN or BLPN troublesome because we're not even certain what we're referring. There are now sockpuppet and harassment allegations being made by this user to boot. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I should have been more clear. The dozens of times when I mention that the blogs should be removed, I should have said the blogs that you keep reinserting should be removed. The bullying tactics violate civility policies but I'm immune to those as you can see. The sock algations should more rightfully be meatpuppet allegations as it's painfully obvious off-site canvassing is at play. It's good though as it helps identify eveyone involved and perhaps how that consensus evolved post-protest that you helped on. I've rewritten dozens of articles in this exact fashion to bring them in line with sourcing and neutrality policies and this is a first for me to have someone boldly declaring they wouldn't comply with BLP unless an admin made them. Stunning really. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You have repeatedly failed do explain why sources like indymedia are not acceptable though. ZoeL (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You are again mistaken, above I wrote - but I'll paste it here just to again be clear - it is an open publishing site while WP:RS requires an established mechanism for fact-checking and accuracy, which these sites do not have. Completely innappropriate for a BLP. Hopefully that will put that one to rest. -- Banjeboi 12:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Banjeboi has provided a list of BLP problems here. Since BLP issues are a legitimate exception to m:The Wrong Version, would an administrator please review the list and edit the page accordingly? I have checked out the article's sources and agree the list has merit, and David Shankbone has also posted to article talk in full agreement with Banjeboi. This negative information should remain off the page until/unless better sourcing is forthcoming and/or a consensus of uninvolved editors agrees to reinstate it. Thanks, DurovaCharge! 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please hold off until other parties have had a chance to respond in detail and check your facts more thoroughly - David Shankbone has not posted to talk at all since this was put up and some of the claims made there are random at best, such as casting doubt on the credibility of documents published on the official site of an organisation they refer to. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Upon checking, there is actually already an admin, Rd232, who has recently come in and is actively (In the last 24 hours) involved and who doesn't seem to see the issues that have been presented by Benjiboi as quite so problematic and is trying to facilitate discussion which Benjiboi seems not to want to be involved in. They've started up a new talk section on outstanding issues as they see it (Which is a much shorter list and up for discussion and editing of the article where necessary) but Benjiboi has also not contributed to that section. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually Rd232 pointed out WP:SYNTH violation and (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation of sources. His/her sole contribution to the page is here.[15]DurovaCharge! 05:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes - this is somewhat narrower in scope than Benjiboi's claims and appropriate adjustments to the wording of the article have already been proposed. We can't do this with Benjiboi - they do not want discussion. (See talk page archives, but there's a lot of it) ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
BLP really isn't a subject where please hold off until... carries weight. If and when uninvolved consensus agrees that adequate sourcing has been supplied, the statements may be reinstated. DurovaCharge! 04:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
However, one editor making repeated claims of POV/BLP/RS issues that they will not enter into discussion, not take to RSN/BLPN and that have not had any agreement from successive rounds of new editors being involved should not be grounds for immediately removing all negative material about the subject from the article without first carefully examining the evidence. This is just being used to push one particular editors view on the subject. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my mistake, it did end up on BLPN - I'd thought that discussion had taken place elsewhere. My mistake. Nothing came of it though - I guess some of the new editors we got were from there but none seems to support Benjiboi's view to any extent. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Which I have already done so, and agreed with. Zoe, I've read both the talk page and the article in full and there are basically two policy-compliant solutions: seek an administrator's edit to the protected page, or file a request for arbitration. This has already been through formal dispute resolution, and we take our BLP policy very seriously at this site. This is, as I have already assured you, not an attempt to keep everything negative off the page forever. Please be reasonable. DurovaCharge! 05:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussing changes on the talk page and then seeking an edit based on consensus - be that an admit edit to a protected page or otherwise - is basically exactly what I'm after and what most of the editors involved have been after since the start of this whole thing. ~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, withdrawing the request in good faith. DurovaCharge! 07:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I'm on the fence about the National Student Union stuff but the rest has got to go. And this is all accompanied again with claims that I'm not willing to discuss yet here I am again, discussing. And Zoe O'Connell et al will simply argue more about how an admin last year sided with their consensus and really blogs are fine, etc. ugh. So the negative material stays until we get enough people who are willing to engage however many Zoe's appear? This is the same odd behaviours in effect on the article. I'm not bothered if we report Bindel kicks puppies if it's true but we have to stick with reliable sourcing and all our other policies. < boggles > this is an uphill issue here. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Zoeoconnnell's earlier statement of intent to reinsert the material as soon as the protection is lifted does not seem promising. But at this point there will certainly be people watching the page. Using material from blogs for the edits being discussed is such a clear BLP violation that any repeat of it should lead to blocking. DGG (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
– Edits oversighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A new WP:SPA has twice posted the prison mailing address of Bernie Ward, a well-known radio personality now serving time over a child pornography conviction, in Ward's BLP article. The latest addition[16] includes a claim that Ward "would like for his mailing address to be public". I reverted and asked them not to re-post until we've decided whether it is appropriate. I'm concerned that this is a technical violation of privacy, and might invite letter that would cause consternation for Ward or for the prison. However, since it is a prison, privacy and mail work differently than for typical people. So our options go anywhere from tolerating it, saying it's okay but not right for the article, all the way to oversighting the article history to remove the address. Any thoughts? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't be allowed. It's either a violation of privacy or its a convicted child pornographer trying to use wikipedia as a way to get in touch with people on the outside. Either way, no way.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, the address is for the federal prison's P.O. box, which is certainly not as bad as a private residence. However, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I would remove it. At best, the article could mention the name of the prison where he is incarcerated. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- it's not a means for publishing contact details, as the only logical purpose of such details being published here is for him to do business. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(addendum) And as to oversighting, might as well send a request off anyway; it's a BLP, and it's very logical to consider these details potentially dangerous, if not to the subject, then to the mail screeners at the prison. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Jza84 abusing his admin position and engaging in Wikihounding[edit]
There is a content dispute at Association of British Counties between User:Jza84 and myself. Jza84 has used his admin privileges to block the page with his preferred version. Additionally, this user is hounding me. I have made a small number of edits recently and he has engaged in a mass reversal of them, even including clearly non-controversial components. Here are some diffs: [17], [18], [19],[20]. Blacklans (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I actually do see a little bit of merit here. Jza is certainly protecting his preferred version (I'd prefer "The City of X" as that's good grammar) Sceptre(talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Freely admit this. But guys, I'm slightly bored of this, respectfully, and in a terrible mood. I've the support of several users (just look on my talk page). This user is also breaking fundamental and simple rules on standard English and citing sources.
Am I protecting my preferred version - absolutely - in the interests of our project and our readers though, not in the interests of an editor who's misunderstanding what this is all about and damaging our standing. --Jza84 | Talk 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Assume I have no idea about the subject of the article or why the edit was problematic(it is safe to assume that) and explain it to me please. Is this about content or grammar? Chillum 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There are towns called Lancaster, Bradford etc, within larger areas called "City of Lancaster" etc. These articles are on the smaller (town size) unit but Blacklans doesn't understand that, and thinks that because he can find references to a "City of Lancaster" in the sources, that the towns covered by the articles are cities themselves. From an American perspective, think of it as confusing New York City with New York State; one is within the other, but they have different statuses. As per Malleus, Jza, Nev1, Majorly, myself on the talkpage – all of whom are very experienced in UK geographic articles - Blacklans is just plain wrong. – iridescent 22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have explained to Blacklans that his edits to articles such as Lancaster, Lancashire, are not based in fact and provided sources to support my assertion. His response was "The sources are irrelevant". I think he is now being deliberately disruptive. Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
For reference, here is my full quote "The sources are irrelevant. You simply haven't grasped what I'm getting at, even though I've spelled it out elsewhere. Yes, I know about the local government status of these cities, and I agree with you to a certain extent, but there is no reason why we shouldn't refer to these cities as "cities". Try driving into Durham. You are greeted by "Welcome to the City of Durham". Now we can probably accommodate your local-government-centric view, and my pragmatic view, by an agreed set of words. It worked at Durham so we should use that model elsewhere. What do you think? "Blacklans (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)OK. It's a little confused here though.
Blacklans believes Carlisle is a city. It's not. The (wider) City of Carlisle is a city (of course). Blacklans seems to be an advocate of the Association of British Counties, i.e. he probably feels aggrieved at the sweeping changes to centuries of geographic tradition in England that occured by way of the Local Government Act 1972.
The LGA1972 abolished Carlisle's city status in 1974. ABC people still think of it as a city (different) article by way of tradition, and that the City of Carlise is only a title used for local governance - it isn't. It's law, and it's verifiable.
It's like saying Oldham is a metropolitan borough in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham - its bad practice. And Blacklans keeps inserting this without diligence. He probably wants Carlisle to say its a City because it has honorific value for his settlement - but it's not the reality of the situation and its effectively a scaled down version of nationalism and WP:SYNTH.
Further info on my talk page. --Jza84 | Talk 22:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's like confusing Quebec with Quebec City(Canadian version)? Chillum 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably closer to the various meanings of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in that they all describe the same city but at different scales. – iridescent 22:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Almost, but imagine Quebec was originally called Quebec City, but was abolished, and a new, larger, more buerocratic Quebec City was created, and the original Quebec lost it's honorific title. Then we're almost there. --Jza84 | Talk 22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I filed this complaint to draw attention to the aggressive actions of User:Jza84 and not particularly to debate the content of the disputed articles. Jza84 has his opinion, given above, supported by some like-minded editors who follow him around. We can take up all the above discussions at the Talk pages concerned, but over the last few weeks Jza84 has popped into Wikipedia, reverted my edits, and popped off again, without bothering to discuss the edits - not even in edit summaries. I agree with some of what he says, but there are ways and words we can use to accommodate all views, and the reality of the various situations, but Jza and his followers are not interested; they force their POV with, in the case of Jza especially, an unnecessary hostility. As an admin, should he be protecting articles in the way he does? Blacklans (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Blacklans has made statements that appear to be examples of an association fallacy combined with personal comments directed at some perceived (yet false) quality of Jza84, Nev1, and myself (i.e., that we and possibly others in different places could be the same editor solely on the basis of us sharing the same considered opinion about the matter referred to here because we pay careful attention to the reliable authoritative sources.) I find it sad that he thus starts to complain here, since it necessarily means this poor behaviour on his part must now be raised to more public scrutiny than myself and others probably intended it to be. The relevant diffs are here. If any action were to be taken against Jza84, I feel it would be unfair to do this without taking some action against Blacklans, and I feel there are issues of what might appear to be the more serious breach of wikipedia principles here. (I note he is beginning to make similar suggestions in the above comment now.) DDStretch (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've spent the better part of the past half hour looking over a bunch of this, and near as I can tell Blacklans is the sole editor supporting a particular position. Rather than a conspiracy to edit war, what I see is a fairly broad consensus supporting a particular version of the articles in question, the version that JZA protected. Perhaps, at the outside, JZA should have asked for another admin to do the actual protection, but I don't necessarily disagree with the end result, so I don't think there is any real issue here. What I do see is that Blacklans appears to be throwing lots of shit against the walls, and hoping some of it sticks. What I find somewhat disturbing is the rediculous sockpuppet accusations leveled against JZA and Nev1 etc. When it became clear that wasn't going to work, it looks like he came here to try something else. I don't see anything more to it than this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that's a fair summary. Had I been in Jza84's position I probably wouldn't have protected the page for the reasons you say, but there's no doubt in my mind that the real fault here is not with Jza84 but with Blacklans, for persistently going against a hard-fought consensus about city status in the UK. City status isn't given to towns, it's given to local authorities. Rochester, for instance, was once a city, but its local authority neglected to renew its status during its last local government reorganisation, so it's not a city any longer. --MalleusFatuorum 01:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Lucky for us nobody got into the London, UK situation; at one stage the City of London was a component of London Town, which was absorbed into the city that is known as London - or Greater London, which was largely contained within the now defunct County of Middlesex, with some areas within Surrey, Berkshire, Essex, Kent - and incorporated previously distinct towns and villages... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The situation (geographically) reminds me of 3 specific instances in Ontario: the City of Toronto, the City of Ottawa, and the city of Fort Erie. The first 2 are 2000's-era forced amalgamations. In Ottawa for example, you can drive from one end to the other and while you're officially passing through the City of Ottawa, you will go through Orleans, Gloucester, the City of Nepean, the City of Kanata, etc. The mayors and councils of those communities no longer exist, but you can still have your mail addressed to "Kanata, Ontario'. The amalgamation is still a sore spot, but people continue to identify with their local community, so the pre-2000 structure continues to exist. Effectively, "City of Ottawa" functions like a county or region, although the subordinate communities contain no official political structures anymore. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I've obviously come to the wrong place because for the most part the comments here have been about article content and not about the disruptive behaviour of User:Jza84. The content issues are now, to a certain extent, being addressed on the Talk pages. However, let me hold up my hands to an error of judgement - Jza84, Nev1 and DDstretch are probably not sockpuppets and it was wrong of me to suggest that they might be. Nevertheless, they work together to push their POV and often tag-team to further their agenda. Jza84 has a history of aggressive behaviour, sometimes against newcomers. There was a particularly egregious example last October of which this diff [21] is part. Examination of Jza84's Talk page and archive throws up numerous examples of his bullying, intimidation and general nastiness towards editors who dare to question his assertions. Jza84 does, however, contribute some good material; I have spent some time today looking through his history. However, useful as he is to Wikipedia, in the long run I suggest he's a liability because his attitude does not lend itself to co-operative editing; good editors will leave as a result. Furthermore, he definitely abuses his position of trust as an Admin; this episode is a clear example. Finally, and because most of the contributors here seem only to be concerned with the content dispute, take a look at my edits to Association of British Counties and Jza84's reversions. Then have a look a the ABC website [22] and read the first line of the home page (the website is referenced in the article). Did my edits deserve a "revert without comment" and subsequent claims about infringement of policy at the hands of Jza84: I think not! Why did he not engage in discussion at the Talk page? Maybe because I've crossed swords with him before - here [23]. Blacklans (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I see no disruptive behaviour. What I do see is an established and respected editor (certainly by me) correcting mistakes you have deliberately introduced into articles, mistakes on issues that have been argued and agreed over by consensus. I've never had the slightest issue with Jza84, and frankly your complaint about the ABC article is ridiculous. You'll probably accuse me of being married to Jza84 now. There isn't a tag-team, or a claque, or anything like that. There's right, and there's wrong - and I'm sorry but you appear to be in the latter category. Find some WP:reliable sources that support your position, and perhaps you'll move across to the former category. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Jza84 is an editor I have the greatest respect for, administrator or not. I am certainly not anyone's sockpuppet, and I haven't always agreed with Jza84, but I am in no doubt whatsoever that in this case he was right. Although as I said earlier, in his position I would have requested another admin to impose the protection, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that his action had a positive effect on the encyclopedia, in limiting the propagation of clearly misleading and incorrect information. WP:IAR seems to apply in such cases, at least in my mind. --MalleusFatuorum 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So, having now withdrawn the previous attempt at mud-slinging, we see new allegations being made here. The first one Blacklans supplied involved an editor (Mister Flash) who was encouraging a newly-registered user to include clearly incorrect information into an article, against article guidelines and in a similar area (UK geographical and administrative areas) as the one Blacklans is concerned with (see here, here, for the edits Mister Flash were encouraging, and which were incorrect, and here for the later corrections. Note that the new editor makes statements that seem inconsistent with respect to whether Woolston is in (ceremonial) Cheshire or Lancashire and has been since 1974: if he or she were a local parish councillor, they would know the referenced details that were subsequently added, which they took exception to, as their content would be part of what a parish council would be dealing with routinely.) In a particularly uninspiring exchange by other administrators who did not take enough time to understand the nature of the problem to understand why Jza84 took the action he did, the action Jza84's action was reversed, and, it could be argued, the reversal has encouraged further disruptive editing in this style to continue. The editor concerned (Mister Flash whose contributions are here) has since taken the opportunity to pop up to make disparaging comments about myself and Jza84 on previous occasions when he or she deems it possibly advantageous to do so (see here for example.) Both he/she and Blacklans seem to wish to go against consensus by refusing to accept that administrative boundaries in the UK have changed. In the case of Mister Flash, as I said, this led to his/her encouragement of the new editor to change the content of an article so that it then contained incorrect information. Experienced editors on UK geographical subjects experience periodic actions of editors, some of whom are single-purpose accounts, and some of whom support the pressure group: Association of British Counties (who have engaged in vandalism of road signs around the UK) who mount attempts to alter articles as if the administrative changes that happened as long ago as 1974 did not happen.Of course Association of British Counties is one of the articles Blacklans is complaining about, above. This latest attempt to smear Jza84 should be resisted strongly in my opinion. DDStretch (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that in this edit on Jza84's talk page, Blacklans is once more overstepping the mark in making unforunded allegations about editors who, having examined the reliable sources, have a consensus with Jza84 about this matter. He or she would seem to now be becoming disruptive in continuing to make such allegations and almost bait Jza84 on his talk page. I would like to suggest that some uninvolved administrator take appropriate action. DDStretch (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As should his attack given in the link I have now corrected in my previous message. DDStretch (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is probably the end of that particular discussion. – iridescent 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So, what, if anything, is being done to prevent further disruption by Blacklans? DDStretch (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well first I have to say that I agree with Malleus Fatuorums comment, Jza84 is a highly respected and trusted editor here; but I think that everyone agrees that Jza may have been hasty in protecting the page himself, though it is clear that consensus was with him. I would say this discussion should be over (on the Admin Board) and should continue on the articles talk page. As to Blacklans, he may have disagreed with the protection but I don't think there was any harm in bringing this to the admin board. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've enjoyed your comments, and would be delighted if you'd contact me about a new nation project (a constitutional monarchy) we are working on. Our address is [email protected]. Your advice could be quite helpful.
Yesterday, Tycoon24(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was blocked for edit warring and 3RR on the article Tea Party protests, specifically for at least five insertions of the turnout estimates provided by a partisan source, Pajamas TV. The inclusion of this data has been repeatedly removed by multiple editors. After his block expired today, he immediately returned to the article. His first edit was to insert a section with an edit summary that clearly showed his particular POV ([24]), and his second edit was to insert the Pajamas TV turnout information yet again ([25]). As yesterday, I will be taking no admin action as I was involved in editing the article, so am bringing this here for others to review. Black Kite 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't realized "multiple users" were concerned over the legitimacy of Pajamas TV until now. Also - do you have a real reference to "the second" or "first" issue you are referring to? I in no way showed my particular POV in any edit I have added to the Wikipedia page that you are referring to. Both of your links reference the same lone issue regarding Pajamas TV. If what you mean by my POV edit having regards to Ron Paul, how is that my point of view? Please go and read through the Ron Paul Elections Wikipedia page and you will see that all information I got was from there. So I believe you are stretching a bit on the POV issue. The other thing, regarding Pajamas TV, please read the [Talk Page] for the Tax Day Protests. You will see my comment under the section for Pajamas Media. There are only three comments, so it would have been impossible for me to know or verify that "multiple users" actually disagree with the source. According to the Talk Page, only one dislikes the source while myself and another user agree that it is a valid source. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The Pajamas TV data has been removed by at least three editors, caveats attached by others and had "verify" maintenance tags place on it by yet another, but you have reverted back to your preferred version every time - given that, I would have thought it was obvious that multiple people disagree that it is a reliable source. As for your first edit, the edit summary mentioned "today's wasteful spending", which is why I referred to it as POV. Black Kite 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I added to the discussion page my opinion on the matter. For now we can leave the "estimating crowd numbers" to fivethirtyeight.com, which is a source also admitting to doing exactly what PJTV is doing - estimating crowd sizes. Seems like a double standard to accept one source but not the other in this case. I know I'm not alone in this thinking either, but if the Wikipedia Power seems to reside in users with partisan opinion against PJTV, then so be it for now. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that fivethirtyeight.com is only an estimate as well, but at least it links to local reliable sources giving their estimates. PJTV not only has come up before in numerous discussions about whether it is reliable, but it also has a partisan interest in the events, and its turnout estimates are based on aggregating figures from their own reporters who in many cases were participants in the events themselves. When these issues are considered, it should be fairly clear why such figures should not be quoted as reliable. Black Kite 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have emailed the photographer (Dan Stijovich) to try and confirm that they aren't that WP account, which is possible (please do not block the account until we can confirm that). In the meantime, I was reviewing contributions by ANigg. Another image pair popped up: File:AH-1Z_NAWCWD.jpg and source here. In that case, there's a veeeery slight modification - the Wikipedia image has a 2-digit nose ID number (05 vs 005) and there's a yellow reflection on the windscreen missing on the WP image. I think the WP image is the modified one, but haven't pulled them into photoshop or a similar tool yet to try and validate that.
I'm going to be busy for the next 12 hours. Can I get some assistance reviewing ANigg's image contributions ? In particular, if these appear similar to images on The North Spin website.
FWIW, tail number's also been altered in that second comparison pair. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
… and there's a "veeeery slight modification" in the first pair, also. It's a small red triangle beneath the forward rotor. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
… which duplicated File:USA Lakota.jpg (which itself lists a different source). Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
And another: [27] matches File:UH-1Y China.jpg. The original is copyright Kevin Whitehead, and in this diff ANigg describes it as self made and provides a name that is neither Kevin Whitehead nor Dan Stijovich. - Bilby (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - correct that. Superficially the same, (same angle, location and time), but not identical photos. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I really should run all the tests before commenting. I layered the photo ANigg claimed over the one by Kevin Whitehead, and they are identical in angle, distance, location and time of day. The very minor differences are removals from the Whitehead photo, presumably in Photoshop. So I'd call it as a definite copyvio - ANigg can't really be both photographers. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be artifacts in File:UH-1Y China.jpg where you can see the manipulations, where the red streamer from the tail rotor has been morphed to the background shade, and the cables above the horizon exiting the laft of the frame. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the streamers threw me off for a bit, but then once they were combined in photoshop it was easy to see what was going on. - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
[28] (Photographer Tony Silva) looks to be File:USCG 1.jpg. I think that is all of ANigg's photo contributions identified... Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a block appropriate, then? He's been around since March 07, he should know better. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that nobody informed him that there was a discussion at ANI; I've now done so. Ironholds (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help. No responses to emails yet, leading me to presume this is not the photographer (as the issues above indicate). Final request for clarification left on the users' talk page, will take up admin actions in reasonable time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted your page history as an extension of good faith that you would stop being a disruption by repeatedly removing the WHOIS data from this page. You immediately returned to continue the same disruption, despite the fact that I, as a gesture of peace, asceded to your deletion request ~j32
...Good faith? Peace gesture. WTF? Y does jayron think that he did 173 a favor? 173 has the right to request the deletion. No 1 was holding a gun 2 j32's head making him answer the deletion request. Look @ j32's edit summary :o yea? What is j32 getting excited from blocking others? That isnt what wiki is 4. Now j32 has blocked 173 4 1 month, incorrectly saying 173 is editing war. What edit war? After the deletion 173 blanked the page, which 173 is allowed 2 do. The page was blanked only 1 time so where/when was the edit war? Per this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. It says quote :
Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter, and it is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops.
that even ips r allowed to edit/delete/revert/blank their page. It also says that repeatedly re adding that which has been deleted is antagonistic. 173 was helping me out & I dont want this bs on 173. Thanks. 70.108.88.137 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
{{whois}} tags are not supposed to be removed from IP talk pages. Your friend was told this, and continued to remove them from other IP addresses as well. Additionally, this IP appears to be a sock account of previous users who have done this. Please learn to use proper grammar in the future. Matty (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Whois templates are there to signify to whom the IP is registered should abuse reports need to be filed against repeat vandals who abuse them. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 06:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that you're being treated poorly because you're using an IP address to edit, OR if you don't like the fact that you ISP is visible when you edit as an IP address, how about signing up for a userid and be far more anonymous?? (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
matty, jeremy : 1)173 says: Ask them for a link to where it says that. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space it says that ips may remove it & that continually re adding it is antagonistic. It also says here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings that
Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages.
Furthermore @ the bottom of everypage is this :
[WHOIS · RBLs · Traceroute · Geolocate · Tor check · Rangeblock finder · Global Blocks] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] ,
thus all any person has to do is click and they get the info they seek on the ip's ISP.
2)I didnt remove any info from anyone else's pages. After the abuse I received when attempting to help I told my friend I tried but you're right they're are being unfair assholes, so I'm stepping back. Since Mar30 I have only edited my user and discussion pages. I am not a sock. I was attempting to help a friend.
3)What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL? Noone will call him on his rudeness and delusions of grandeur? He acts as if the deletion as something so fantastic that he did, when in truth has he not someone else would have.
bwilikns: No thanks. Isnt 1 of wiki's basic tenets anonymmous editing. Registration isnt required. & even if I was registered it wouldnt stop j32's inappropriate actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.88.137 (talk • contribs)
Firstly, the WHOIS template is not a comment. The spirit of "allowed to remove comments" refers to the ability of users to remove comments they don't want to see (although removal can be implied to "I've read it"). The WHOIS template allows users to quickly find out information about the IP address which could be necessary. There's also the argument that that page technically doesn't "belong" to the person behind it - what if that user changes IP address or ISP? While users are given a broad range of leeway with regards to their userspace, some things still are frowned upon - and here, I believe you've seen that there's enough agreement that IPs should not be removing the template. x42bn6TalkMess 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In the majority of cases, you are correct. Any registered user may delete items from their personal talkpage. Of course, as an IP editor, the talkpage for your IP address is shared by anyone who eventually uses that IP address, which means it truly is not your personal talkpage. In many cases, a specific IP address (or range of IP addresses) has been "problematic" in the past. In that case, the WHOIS data has been added as a necessary tool. It may not have been you, merely someone who used that IP address (just like the police might have concerns about a certain rental car - it was used by many people!) As such, it becomes improper to remove the WHOIS data from the page, just like it would be improper to remove a block notice while a user is, indeed, blocked. It in no way violates your privacy, or is problematic as long as you remain an IP editor. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The rule allowing the removal of comments from talk pages should not be extended to IPs. They don't own their IP, they are just using it. What is more they need X warnings and a final warning before they can normally blocked. We can't have anonymous editors removing warning templates. They can always create an account if they want a userpage of their very own, but IP user pages are not assigned to a specific user. Chillum 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. IP addresses do not own the IP address talk page. If they set up a user account, they don't "own" that talk page either, but they have much more flexibility. They don't have to set up a user account, as noted, but by not doing so that also restricts their privileges. It's their choice. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have always been in favor of NOT allowing anon IPs to edit wikipedia. More often than not, the result is usually vandalism. Yet since there is no rule against an IP editing, we cannot stifle anyones ability to edit any talk page (or removal of content).--Jojhutton (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, the large percentage of IP address edits are either junk or sockpuppetry. There's also a fair number of useful edits. But it means that anything on my watch list edited by an IP gets my "special" at tention. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Does it make a difference that this appears to be User:Lilkunta, logging out and using multiple ips to avoid his block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Either way, that IP he was using is blocked and properly labeled {{IPSockCheckuser|Lilkunta}} as such. Momusufan (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
For anyone looking for more information on this situation, a similar thread at WP:AN has been started to discuss usage of the abuse filter on this set of IPs as a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lilkunta/Archive. MuZemike 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to deal with this one, hopefully if he sees that his edits are actually against policy he might stop. If someone could help me out that'd be appreciated, it's getting kinda annoying to explain the same thing over and over to him. Matty (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is time to propose a community ban on Lilkunta (talk·contribs) due to the excessive abuse coming from this set of IPs and tremendous disruption made on the mainspace as well as ANI. Thoughts? MuZemike 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:BAN, and I quote "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned" the ban appears to be already in effect. Additionally, there is a discussion over at WP:AN which are discussing ways to use the Abuse Filter to curtail this users particular pattern of disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that. The AN post seems to focus more on the technical means of stopping the disruptive editing, while this ANI post, well, focuses on more of the social aspect. That's why it seemed to make more sense placing this here than over at AN. We can wait and see what the abuse filter accomplishes, but I'm skeptical however. MuZemike 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Full Support: User is clearly disruptive, shows no willingness to cooperate and give excuses for his actions. Removing WHOIS templates is wrong and he should know this. Also I think that part of policy at WP:BLANKING where IP's can remove warnings should be amended because an IP does NOT belong to anybody whereas a user account talk page belongs to that user. An IP goes to someone else eventually. Momusufan (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this ist the right place to ask, but User:Stlunatic071 insists on changing the country of birth of the football players Edin Džeko and Vedad Ibišević to Bosnia and Herzegovina (which didn't exist at the time their birth) instead of SFR Yugoslavia. This is against WP:Proper names and consensus of WP:FOOTY (for example here). Nobody denies that they are Bosnian now, but even after explaining this to him [29] (by me and other editors) he insists on his point of view [30], [31]. Can anyone tell me what to do in this case? --Jaellee (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Tell him about Wikipedia:ARBMAC and that he doesn't stop, he'll find himself blocked because people have been disputing much more stupid points in that region for much too long? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You know what? We're going to the talk page and talking about it. That's it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
For a long time there has been a slow edit war between Grockl(talk·contribs·global contribs·logs·block log) and everybody else. Grockl is a SPA pushing the POV that pulsating nasal irrigation is wonderfully beneficial and all other methods of nasal irrigation are essentially inefficient. For important further information on Grockl see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockl/Archive and [32]. So far I have seen Grockl as the main problem. Since I alerted WikiProject Medicine and the COI noticeboard, Grockl has been slightly less obnoxious.
Grockl's main opponent is static IP 67.170.1.167(talk·contribs·WHOIS), a Comcast user from Mt Vernon, WA, with a history of outing Grockl as a certain medical doctor who lives in the same large city as Grockl and is known for a brand of pulsating irrigation devices.
Now there has been an escalation due to unacceptable posts by 71.227.174.7(talk·contribs·WHOIS), a Comcast user from Seattle (60 miles from Mt Vernon). Per WP:DUCK this is the same user as the Mt Vernon IP. [33][34]
Is no admin interested in dealing with the IP that left "Hi I'm Grockl, a massive homosexual." on Grockl's user page? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That IP has received a final warning. I've semiprotected Nasal irrigation due to IP vandalism, and notified Grockl that he can ask at WP:RFPP for his own Talk page to be semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
– User:Law reverted to the default signature immediately upon learning of the specific issues brought to light in this discussion. —David Levy 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here's the sig under IE8, using an example from the editor's talk page. The size of this image should be 288px, which is the actual size.
A while ago, there was this conversation about an editor whose signature was disruptive because it was too big. Now, there's an editor whose sig is so small it's almost unreadable: Lawshoot!. I had to hover my cursor over it to see what it was. A direct request to the editor to fix the problem was turned down -- would someone care to advise the editor to alter the sig so that it can be more easily read? Sigs aren't supposed to make identifying the editor more difficult. The editor is currently standing for admin, so I'd like this to be cleared up before he or she is presented with the mop. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Reads ok for me. --John (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'm having no problem reading it – are you using an odd browser or a very small screen? For me, the font size is displaying at the same size as (for example) that in Pedro's sig, which he's used for years without any issues. – iridescent 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing odd - IE on a laptop. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Pedro's sig, that's actually not the case. They're both small, but Law's is a superscript, which is rendered smaller than small regular text. Same with small and subscript. Compare: Lawshoot! and Pedro : Chat Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)At least one admin has a sig that doesn't link anywhere, thus breaching WP:SIG and making it hard for editors to communicate with him. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Duncan: I'm aware of that situation - but at least you can read that sig and know who it is. (Besides, I think the argument in favor there had to do with long precedent. But I would prefer this specific discussion not get sidetracked.) Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually can't see it (I use the blackscreen gadget), but this as custom sigs do not appear to have to be compatible with Wikipedia gadgets that's not all that unusual. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It reads well in Opera 9.64 --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've just checked under Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari, and it seems as if IE is the only browser that has a rendering problem with that size of type -- it looks quite reasonable under the other browsers (so I'm not surprised that a lot of people haven't complained). But since IE is used for about 60% of online activity... Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine and readable in Internet Explorer 7 and 8. seicer | talk | contribs 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I disagree. It does not look good with IE7 under Windows Vista. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you bring this up on ANI? What immediate, administrator action is required? He already replied on his talk page that he'd modify his signature if there was consensus; so far, you are the only one to chime in that it is too small, and thus the complaint revolves solely around you. seicer | talk | contribs 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I made my request for admin action in my initial post above: "would someone care to advise the editor to alter the sig so that it can be more easily read?" Every complaint starts with somebody.
Incidentally, why would the editor need a "consensus" to solve a problem brought to their attention that is easily solved by the editor? Unless one thinks that I'm just an asshole complaining for the hell of it, wouldn't a more reasonable response be "Sorry, I wasn't aware of the problem, the sig is of no real importance, so I'll fix it?" Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So, if one person complains, then it must be valid and must be fixed? Fine. I find your "t" and "c" in your signature to be far too small. I demand that you change it. Not doing so will be considered disruptive to the project. seicer | talk | contribs 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that you're just being obstreporous rhetorical and pointy, but if you actually do find the "t" and "c" hard to read, please drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll be glad to adjust them -- although the talk and contributions links aren't nearly as important as the sig, which identifies the editor. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Works fine for me (Safari and Firefox on Mac OS X). I advise you to use a different browser. TonywaltonTalk 17:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I'm using the browser used for 60% of transactions on the web, you can't wave your hands and tell me to get another browser. That's just silly. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that everyone should use a browser other than Internet Explorer, but that isn't a realistic expectation. There's no valid reason to have a signature that's essentially broken in any major browser (though I'm sure that Law was unaware of the issue). —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is disruptive in any way. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Having a signature that's practically unreadable to a large segment of users isn't disruptive? (As noted above, I'm sure that Law was unaware of this.) —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as a big deal. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Having a fancy signature definitely isn't a big deal. Maintaining its intended functionality always should come first. —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine in all of my usual browsers, but when I load it in Internet Explorer, it's virtually unreadable. —David Levy 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks a mite small in IE, but not to the point of disruption. You really ought check out Firefox, it's world beyond IE. Unless you can't, for whatever reason. –xenotalk 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, as I mentioned above, I have Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari and even an old copy of Netscape, but I use IE as my default because it's the browser used by the majority of people, and the one that a casual user of the Internet would be most likely to use. I want to see Wikipedia as those people -- our readers (i.e customers) see it. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This is my hopeless plug for an end to custom signatures. Thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Gwen - I love playing around with them, but I think that you are correct - there's really no need for them. All sigs should appear in a standard manner.
I will now mount my horse and tilt at that windmill over there. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I evangelize Firefox to everyone who'll listen, but it irks me when people respond to complaints regarding rendering issues by telling others to make the switch. There's no valid reason for a signature to be difficult to read in any major browser, period. The fault may lie with Microsoft, but the solution is to adjust the signature code.
Note that Law has not yet been advised of the issue, so this should not be interpreted as a criticism of that user. —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I normally use Firefox, but I loaded up IE7, where the signature is a bit small, but not disruptively so. At least it links to his userpage; I find users who refuse to link to their user or talk pages to be far more disruptive than those who have small signatures. FWIW, I run my screen mode in 1280X1024 and medium text size in IE7, on a 19" monitor. Horologium(talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a 15" LCD with a resolution of 1400x1050, and I'm literally unable to read the signature in Internet Explorer. —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
SO let me get this straight, the user said essentially "You're the first to complain, I didn't know there was a problem, if others have a problem, let me know and I will gladly change it without further fuss" and your first inclination is to start a WP:ANI thread and call him disruptive?!? Please, let me use User:Law's own words here: "If it is, i'll change it. I'll be happy to revert back to the the default. I will truly do so. In fact, it may be a problem, so I will bring it to another forum. I don't want to be obtuse about it. Thanks." I've never seen someone brought to ANI for agreeing to fix a problem. Goodness gracious... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I see no evidence that Law is aware of the problem. I'm going to explain it (if no one beats me to it). —David Levy 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
David, Law was informed of this thread at 17.01 UTC today. He does not appear to be currently editing. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant that I would leave a note on Law's talk page explaining that there is an issue relating specifically to Internet Explorer (which I just did). I see no reason why Law should have to wade trough this questionable thread to be advised of that simple fact. —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Jayron: I'm not going to respond to a synopsis framed in that manner. I simply do not understand why a user, especially one who wants to be an admin, wouldn't accomodate a reasonable request, that's easily done, from another member of the community. After all, a sig is not big thing. It's not like I'm asking the user to change his or her name - it's just typography. Being able to read the editor's sig using the most popular browser on the Internet seems quite reasonable to me. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, there's no evidence that Law is aware of the IE issue. —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I was gonna say about his sig on his RfA, but not due to the letter size matter at all. The sig looks very small to me in my browser (firefox) too, but not unrecognizable "with efforts". The sig only consists of a little bit boldy "black texts" and has no background color nor a frame, so I happened to missed his comments several times (eg. T:TDYK). The sig is blend with texts, so makes his comment inconspicuous indeed. But does the sig breach the policy? Nope--Caspian blue 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC
Oh, in IE 7 (I tested it) and IE 8, the sig looks much smaller. The complaint seems legitimate now.--Caspian blue 19:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
How many people are going to write that (without elaboration)? Are you using Internet Explorer? —David Levy 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That "example" picture being used is misleading because signatures always appear next to a timestamp which makes them stand out. Nevertheless, I would advise Law to embiggen his sig a bit, just to help those of us who are still using IE, for whatever reason. –xenotalk 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've changed to an image showing an example from the editor's talk page. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, still would make one squint I suppose. –xenotalk 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that it is a perfectly cromulent signature? AniMatetalk 18:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It's incredible how well-developed our coverage on The Simpsons is... I did not know they popularized the word embiggen! Cromulent, no, not quite, given the new IE8 example which is even worse. –xenotalk 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks mine to fe. HalfShadow 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I can only read "Half" of HalfShadow's. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I also find the signature slightly hard to read -- I'm using Firefox on Linux with the DejaVu fonts as the characters run into each other slightly -- especially the a and the w of "law". I also would find it easier if the font size were larger. [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks ok to me, no problems reading it. We can't fault the user for anyone's own bad eyes/age/computer issues. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰echo 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Again, the signature looks fine to most of us not using Internet Explorer. Have you viewed the IE8 screen capture?
2. Indeed, we shouldn't fault the user (as there is no evidence that Law is aware of the IE issue). —David Levy 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine to me, but I think accessibility trumps taste issues. I've worked in the third world, and I have absolutely no room for dismissal of people with behind-the-times computers. The people most in need of Wikipedia have the shittiest browsers. Write for them. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[applause]
Thank you! I can't understand why anyone would regard the ability to have a fancy signature as more important than other users' ability to read it. —David Levy 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
↑What he said! And ↑↑him too! DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
At least on Firefox, you can adjust the standard text size. The relative size of super- and subscripts might depend on the standard font. Maybe changing the standard font is the best idea in some cases, because all super- and subscripts would be affected, not just those used in Wikipedia signatures. (There are some sigs on WP that are really hard to read, but super- and subscripts is a standard functionality in all browsers that should result in readable letters.) --Cs32en (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow. All this fretting over something that's just so meh. Seriously. As far as I'm concerned, there are several more-distracting sigs in this thread alone. —Travistalk 20:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Law's signature isn't distracting; it's difficult or impossible for many users to read. —David Levy 20:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for being obtuse and firefox-centric. I'm really sorry that my sig cause any problems. I've gone back to the default. Law (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least I learned a couple of technical terms from this case: embiggen (above) and littlefy (here). :D —Travistalk 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheese...I hope my sig's ok ... I would hate for there to be a "technical" reason for opposing me in RfA (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Same here - I use superscript for my links after the ID part. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 05:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I request that Ludwigs2 and his proxies--if any--be banned permanently from editing Dignity.
Ludwigs2 has made many edits to Dignity since November 2008. His edits have consisted of moving sentences, rearranging paragraphs, deleting text, and composing an introduction. At this point, all that remains of his edits are some deletions and the introduction. Ludwigs2 has never contributed any referenced information to Dignity. I object to the introduction by Ludwigs2 because I find it inaccurate, unreferenced, sophistical, and incoherent. I object to his deletions because I find them frivolous.
I find that any discussion with Ludwigs2 is futile. He does not care if he is disruptive.
Wikipedia has blocked Ludwigs2 five times for disruptive editing (See [35].).
I see this all the time: strict rationality being used as an excuse to be crusty to others. just doesn't fly with me. real rationality has a sensitivity to context, and to its own limits. --Ludwigs2 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
”
Ludwigs2’s statement tells me—burdened as I am by strict rationality—that he is too highly evolved to be editing a simple article like Dignity. His “real rationality,” with its indifference to fact, reason, references, and good writing, is not a good fit for such an ordinary and scholarly subject.
PYRRHON
22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A few points: 1) This is a content dispute. For content disputes we have WP:DR (which isn't particularly good), not ANI. 2) After a quick glance at the talk page and the reverts it seems to me that you are at least as wrong as Ludwigs2 in the content dispute. 3) When you report someone to ANI, you are supposed to notify them. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hans, thank you for your response. I have placed a notice on Ludwigs2's talk page. Please identify about what it is that I am wrong.
should we move this discussion somewhere more sensible, or continue it here? Either way is fine with me. --Ludwigs2 02:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to know if this is the place where banning is discussed. If the admins would rather have irreconcilable differences settled through WP:DR, then the direction to bring such applications here should be changed.
Usually, serious attempts at dispute resolution are prerequisite to calling a difference of opinion irreconcilable. But unless there are specific policy violations, it probably doesn't belong here. DurovaCharge! 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, heavens... I suggest we close this thread and move it over to dispute resolution where it belongs. Pyrrhon, I'll go ahead and start something up there; I'll leave a link on your talk page. --Ludwigs2 04:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Would an admin kindly put a semi-protect, say for a week or so, on Employee Free Choice Act. Disruptive edit warring from several IPs all in Milwaukee, Wisconsin ( 129.89.24.99 , 129.89.24.98 , 173.89.48.219 , 129.89.32.101 ) . Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I Semi'd it. The correct way to respond to a request like this is to take action on it, then inform someone how to navigate the bureaucracy. If you don't want to take action, help them make the request in the other forum. Please don't just punt requests away. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the correct page Looie496--duly noted for future reference. (Aisle 6 is the bottled juice aisle, no? whatta mess, lol. :) I appreciate your taking care of it, Protonk. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
IP addresses keep adding obvious BLP violations. Semi-protection until after the 2009 Indian General Elections will probably be needed to stop it. Priyanathtalk 02:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
– New move proposal made on talk, discussion continuing there
User:Stevertigo has moved Presence to Presence (Led Zeppelin album) despite there being a clear cut consensus on the Talk page to let the Led Zeppelin album stay as Presence. MegX (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just from a look at the disambig page,there are a lot of things that use the term presence. Under the circumstances, it makes sense to change the title to something more specific. HalfShadow 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The consensus vote was to keep it the Led Zeppelin album. On wikipedia we work by consenssus. MegX (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Multiple sockpuppets of yours swayed any consenus Theresa Knott | token threats 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a clear cut consensus to keep Presence the Led Zeppelin album, see [36]. User:Stevertigo moved it without taking it either through Requested Moves or leaving a message on the Talk page for discussion. MegX (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A consensus of LZ fans? It's not that this album is that important with its less than 1,000 views a day - even in LZ terms it's at the bottom line, only short above Coda (yeah, it has the better cover). Re-open the vote and let's see what happens. I'd say move the DAB page there. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The vote was held for 7 days and legitimately done and open. I hardly would believe this was c losed for only for LZ fans. There seems an effort by some editors such as the recent Queen and Pink Floyd tour AfDs, to attack classic rock bands.MegX (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether the album is kept at the original page or not is secondary at this point. We currently have a blank page and no links to disambiguation anywhere. Fix that FIRST, then worry about which page will eventually go where. Exxolon (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously a consensus vote legitimately held isn't good enough for some editors. I really fear for the future of wikipedia. It seems a minority are trying to bully the majority into their line of thinking. MegX (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Multiple use of socks clearly makes the vote illegitimate Theresa Knott | token threats 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The question is: Who knew of this vote? Only the people that have the page on their watchlist, plus some organised at WP:LZ? Sorry, but if I think of "presence" the LZ album is not the first thing that comes to mind - and I have this album. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 05:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It was listed on the Requested Moves page and the Presence article and Talk page and advertised as such for 7 days. What did you want, the move advertised on your perosnal Talk page? Let's be reasonable here. It followed correct procedure. MegX (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved the original page back into its place. Having a blank page was silly, and having a redirect was also silly - either have an article there, or have the dab page there. ViridaeTalk 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. TNXMan 16:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I will just add a comment here, because I just looked at a sockpuppet report involving these IP addresses. While I do not approve of whomever is behind the use of these IP addresses (which are on a dynamic ISP) edit-warring on the various articles involved, I note that a goodly number of the edits that were made are entirely correct and should not have been reverted in the first place. It takes (at least) two to edit war, and the named accounts who continued this edit war are equally culpable. If I had made many of those same edits, I daresay that I would not have been reverted. Reversion should only be done after careful consideration of the content being edited, and should not be done in such a knee-jerk manner. Now we have poorer content, and an anonymous editor who's been politicized. Risker (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous IP's constantly adding spamlinks for their warez to Keystroke logging. Use of widely different IP ranges makes action against the spammers tricky. Please semi-protect the article. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Added to spam blacklist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - one more with the same issue: Registry cleaner Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
– nihil hic videre -C.U.T.K.DT | C 08:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I get a ruling on this? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰echo 06:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If they want to take the time to add those to all the pages, I see no problem in it. As long as it is correct. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 20, 2009 @ 06:50
Beginning about a quarter of a year ago around January 2008, an anon IP editor has repeatedly inserted 2 names into the article which are non-notable, harrassing and attack edits. The article has been protected numerous times but everytime the protection is lifted, he keeps coming back and inserts the same names.
The IP ranges looking at the history are 58.178.128.0/17, 58.179.128.0/17, 210.50.192.0/17, 211.26.224.0/19, 211.27.0.0/16, 202.138.0.0/16, and 203.134.128.0/17. I tried to figure out the ranges, if i'm wrong on some of them, please correct me. All IP's trace back to Primus Telecom in Australia. Also the article has been semi-protected for another month. Since all these ranges have been virtually one in the same person, should the article continue to be protected, or keep the protection and block the ranges? Looking for input on this one. Momusufan (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Whomever it is adding the same two names also makes requests for the article to be unprotected for the specific addition of those names so it's not as if the users aren't savvy to some extent. I'd say it's something for the abuse filter given content never changes. treeloradda 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I saw that unprotect request, Chaser made a good call denying that request. Never thought about making an abuse filter out of that. That sounds like a good idea, someone should consider making a filter to stop the additions of those two names. Momusufan (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It also might be worthwhile going through the IP addresses and hitting them with {{isp}} using both arguments- I believe that and related templates serve as a much better deterrent than warnings and blocks alone since it suggests something beyond blocking (hint, hint). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that right now. :) Momusufan (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still open to somebody creating a filter to stop this vandalism. I doubt when the protection ends, it will stop completely. He will just keep doing it again and also make those frivlous unprotect requests. Momusufan (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Markacohen blocked for now for edit warring over the links, but ironically makes a very good point in spite of the fact that he failed to go about it the right way. Another country can ban whatever content they want, distasteful as it is, and as this material clearly is. However, the laws we follow here for what is "legal" to link to is United States of America law. So, Markacohen was right about that 100%, that still doesn't excuse edit warring or calling people Nazis. Good block, and yes, links to this sort of nonsense hate material are allowed, if they meet the appropriate local requirements we have like WP:RS and WP:EL. We don't follow German, Swiss, UK, French, or whomever's law here. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm talking about Markacohen (talk·contribs) and his insertion of links to the Leuchter report on that item's page. Countries like France, Germany and Austria forbid access to revisionist sites and do legally pursue Holocaust denial (cf. the sentencing of Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, Horst Mahler, David Irving). Now, i have warned the user ([38]) but to no avail, and he doesn't seem to be considered as a vandal as of yet. I mean, what we are talking about here is a very serious legal offence in some major countries, so something should have to be done, doesn't it? Regards, --RCS (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really, unless the links themselves violate WP:EL. Our servers aren't in France, Germany or Austria, and we aren't subject to their legal systems. If we had to follow every legal system at the same time this would be unworkable. Ironholds (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Granted, but we are talking Holocaust denial here, which is quite a sensitive subject, if i dare say.--RCS (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that doesn't matter. We don't censor particular articles based on the fact that some people might find them "a bit iffy", and I say that as a Jew of Polish/Lithuanian descent. Ironholds (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This issue is long resolved I believe, and there is no policy against violating laws in countries other than the United States. Half of Wikipedia is probably illegal in one country or another. Per WP:NOT#CENSORED, we do not censor material on Wikipedia. Although individual editors must deal with the country where they happen to be, Wikipedia itself is subject only to US (and Florida) law. In the United States it would be considered an unconstitutional restriction on free speech to outlaw writing, reading, hosting, or linking to material simply because it denies the holocaust. Assuming the link is not to a WP:COPYVIO site and is otherwise appropriate (per WP:EL) it is fine per Wikipedia policies. Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is Holocaust denial illegal in the Netherlands? Because I'm sure some of the WMF's servrs are there. Sceptre(talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't illegal in the Netherlands, and that's irrelevant anyway. Please try to be more constructive Sceptre. C.U.T.K.DT | C 08:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What the fuck? It's actually a relevant question. Sceptre(talk) 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If the foundation wants to take a position on whether or not we should remove external links they may. absent that, I'm uncomfortable doing so based on the prospect of European legal action against the foundation. Though I could wager that the links themselves may violate EL and will also say that external links in all articles should be used sparingly and proportionally. Protonk (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I would caution Markacohen's inclination to liberally add these links. It is fundamental that fringe theories such as a Holocaust denial cannot be construed as fact - let's not spoonfed them to the reader by being a directory to denier materials. WilliamH (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As a Jewish-American born and raised in the United States of America let me step forth to clarify and bring well thought out lucidity and truth to the issues at hand here and then hopefully from this point onward we can try to be intellectual adults (without weaselishness (a new non-judgmental word is born)) about these very important issues and not descend into the primitive ways of our ignorant human ancestors which often lived under closed minded dogma, as was the case in Europe when the Christian Church was in power for so many centuries and forced its dogma on humanity. Now the Christian Church is no longer in power or declining in power (thank goodness), but there are new forces emerging out there with some degree of power which attempt to force their dogma on humanity, these are the people with little power who censor additions in wikipedia or others with greater power who pass dogma laws in their respective countries preventing the open intellectual discussion of topics in their countries - Dogma. Let us move forward in our self directed evolution as a world human species and rise to a higher level of consciousness, hopefully far above these unenlightened primitive ways of our ignorant close minded ancestors. Let us step forward and say there are no Dogmas and Taboos, we as enlightened humans have the freedom to discuss all topics even the ones which are very emotional, sensitive and could possibly hurt the feelings of some people. Let us step forth and be intellectually brave and courageous, and not cowards.
The Ad Hominen attack in your accusation of Vandalism directed at me, when I have not committed any Vandalism is unacceptable and shows your lack of knowledge on how things work on Wikipedia. Putting in relevant and factual information in articles pertaining to the specific article topics is what wikipedia is all about. Your accusations of Vandalism because I put specific relevant links in an article about the relevant topic is an Ad Hominem personal attack and reflects your own personal emotional biases against allowing links to the relevant pseudo scientific information. Maybe because you don't want people to be able to have access to these materials and debunk these pseudoscientific materials. Your own personal biases are lack validity and merit.
Now Let me explain in deeper details, the wikipedia servers are in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) and FLORIDA, which are bound under the United States and Florida Constitution which recognizes FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States is FREEDOM OF SPEECH. What Freedom of Speech means is we have intellectual freedom to explore all topics whether controversial or taboo - including topics which are not allowed to be discussed in other countries because of ignorant unenlightened dogma laws which prevent open intellectual discussion. Thus, with the knowledge that Wikipedia is located in the United States, Wikipedia is not subject to the anti-intellectual dogma laws of other countries, like member states of the EU for instance. So your statement that there can not be links to Revisionist web sites is 100% False, your countries have their own ISP blocking these materials anyway, which is sad and pathetic.
We in USA dont tuck our PP's between our legs and run away the way they do in Europe, and I dont mean that as an Ad Hominem attack, but that's how I view it when people try to prevent access to information or pass dogma laws preventing the free intellectual inquiry into historical events. You see we in America we strive to not censor people and ideas, because our great founding father Thomas Jefferson said there is No Truth with which I fear. When you censor research and information into historical events, it means you fear it, you're afraid of it because it possibly proves you wrong.
We don't censor Revisionist material on Wikipedia or in the United States, we bring it forth, we shine the light of truth, research and science on it, then we debunk revisionism as pseudo science. This is how it works in my country, in your country maybe you revert to the old primitive ways with your pathetic dogma laws, in America we have no such ignorant pathetic dogma laws for the most part, we shine the light of truth on the pseudoscience and the people researching it gain greater truth and depth.
So allow me to debunk your first statement that Revisionist Material in Germany, France, etc... so that it can't be published on Wikipedia. You are patently incorrect in this thinking, Wikipedia is not subject to Anti-Revisionist Laws which exist outside the United States, so this will represent my debunking of your statements and hopefully you will stop your irrational behavior as a result of your incorrect view and thinking about wikipedia. Markacohen (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
And the links are to hate sites and totally unnecessary, as a Google search quickly finds the report. If you actually know anything about the First Amendment, you know it doesn't apply to Wikipedia. See WP:Free Speech. Also read WP:AGF if you don't want to end up blocked for personal attacks. What User:WilliamH says is correct, this is a fringe subject and Wikipedia is not going to be a directory for hate sites. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the desire to keep adding these links, eg here [39] - also (not aimed at this editor, a question to others) what is our policy about identifying people's religion -- and, as a separate question, adding people to religious categories? I'm asking because of this edit: [40]- personally I think that unless religion is clearly relevant (an article on the Pope could mention it I guess), then certainly a person shouldn't be in a religious category - nor in an infobox (a creation of the devil) and certainly not without unequivocal evidence that they practice that religion. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just warned him for 3RR. And, his user page now says "There seems to be a nazi element in wikipedia trying to make sure the pseudoscience is not linked to so it can't be readily debunked,". I am trying hard to AGF here, and hopefully someone else will do something about his user page, but calling editors' Nazis isn't tolerable (and ironic). Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
CEASE AND DESIST - YOU and your lackeys keep deleting relevant links and information which is specific to the article, stop trying to use some kind of pathetic red herring excuses to prevent relevant links from being in the article. The links I added to the article are specific and pertinent information valid for the article, and hundreds of thousands of other articles out there which might be considered "fringe" have specific and relevant links added to them and are not deleted. Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge and The Hitler Card has no merit on wikipedia and is a pathetic disgusting excuse used by you and your lackeys to vandalize my relevant and valuable contributions to wikipedia. Markacohen (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that Mark is in breach of 3RR after completely ignoring Doug's warning and may now be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. On a side note, as the editor responsible for 90% of Leuchter report, I never thought I'd see the day when I would be labelled a neo-Nazi. Unbelieveable. WilliamH (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
On another side note: If Markacohen is jewish, Henry Ford also is. Just a thought. --RCS (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Now he's called me a neo-Nazi. [41]Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this movie before. Blocked for 48 hours. Protonk (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Not my favourite ending to a movie, but hey ... it's not the first time I've been disappointed. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. He's asking for an unblock, saying that "in the future, I will go through the normal resolution procedure when people vandalize pages you work on by deleting valid information from them." How generous of him. Meanwhile, what do we do about his User page which, besides saying a goal of his is to have the keyword pseudoscience included in the pages of holocaust deniers, which is fine by me, & that their works are always linked, which is not, says "There seems to be a nazi element in wikipedia trying to make sure the pseudoscience is not linked to so it can't be readily debunked, I will be closely watching those revisionist areas to make sure they can't prevent the light of truth to debunk pseudo science and pseudo history."? Given the recent drama around a certain editor calling people anti-Semites, do we just ignore this or? Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Eh. I don't really like the hyperbole and the escalation but we have to be careful not to apply our policy on personal attacks to comments that aren't directed at persons. E.g. if I said "Everyone at wikipedia is a fascist" that's not terribly collegial but it is not a personal attack. If I said "Protonk is a fascist", that would be a personal attack. I'm sorry if this sounds remedial but I want to nose the thread away from reacting in that direction.
As for the unblock request, someone will come by and judge it on its merits. I'm going to school after a little bit so I will note here that I am ok with an administrator reversing that block without discussion it with me first, provided they are sure I messed up or that he has obviated the reason for the block (I'm not sure he has). Protonk (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Not an admin (especially considering my current RfA), but I don't think that he quite "gets it", and that a couple of days rest might be a good idea. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone take a look at the editing of User:Bearrocksmoon with regards to the above article. This is a WP:SPA (edits : Special:Contributions/Bearrocksmoon and clearly lacking a WP:NPOV with this article and attempting to inject their own biased opinions into it. This user has also issued a "warning" for reverting such edits to another user [42]. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article removing WP:NOR and unsourced and poorly sourced info [43], then I left a note for the user on their talk page [44]. My edit to the article was reverted by the user [45], and I warned the user about WP:3RR[46]. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This guy doesn't want to give in! Cleaned up [47] and reverted [48] minutes later. Is it time for a block? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What can be done about the article? It is currently in a mess with the WP:NOR, unsourced, POV etc statements included. I do not want to revert as that would take me to 3RR, but would this be classified as a content dispute, as the edits are clearly violating several policies... Can this user's edits be reverted without fear of 3RR reprisals, with escalating blocks for Bearrocksmoon if he/she continues to ignore policy and reason? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment by Nouse4aname, but would appreciate it if another administrator acts here, as I stepped in initially to (try) to clean up the article itself, and warn Bearrocksmoon (talk·contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 24h. Should this be marked as resolved? GlassCobra 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The user is requesting an unblock... Cirt (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Declined, and reblocked for 72 hours (along with another user) as they are evading. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I keep trying to clean it up based on the few sources available, i think this editor clearly has an agenda here and possibly uses ips too so if someone could watch it. Also therew is a current request for comment on the talk page. --neon whitetalk 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Xtinadbest has repeatedly created and recreated Wake Up Call (most recently as Wake Up Call (Hayden Leslie Panettiere song) and Wake up call) and Falling Down (the unsourced album, not the film, also called Falling down (Hayden Panettiere album) and Falling down). Although I'm doing my level best here, I'm finding it very difficult to assume that these odd names were good faith, rather than attempts to circumvent prior deletions. The user has been warned a number of times, but I don't think I can really ask for a single opinon at AIV for a second warning block on this. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for a week, although I think a report at AIV would definitely have been appropriate here. If he/she starts up again after the block expires, feel free to let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
– But next time, RFPP is the way to go.--Fabrictramp
Hi. I'm in an edit war over at Jeremy Bowen with an anon editor. I think I'm in the right (of course) but would ask that the article be protected (not semi-protected) to prevent either of us from getting blocked. Thanks. Then, it would be nice if someone came and helped mediate as the only other inolved editor is only involved peripherally. GDallimore (Talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You should probably take this over to WP:RfPP, and then ask for a third opinion. If I can, I'll try and help out myself, but you should start a discussion on the talk page.--Iner22 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've given up talking since it's getting nowhere, which is why I'm now looking for help. I'm already at 3R, but will keep on going through that barrier since this is a BLP article. GDallimore (Talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Full protected for one day. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try the BLP noticeboard again for some assistance, although I posted here because I'm hoping for more active third party intervention. GDallimore (Talk) 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
For those who didn't find themselves blocked from editing just now, NawlinWiki(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) has once again messed up an Abuse Filter and inadvertently caused widespread damage to innocent users. Fortunately this time nobody was de-autoconfirmed, but every editor for a period of three minutes just now found themselves temporarily unable to make any edits. This is the third time since the filter was activated NawlinWiki has caused this sort of damage; the first on March 19, where a filter de-autoconfirmed somewhere around 200 users; the second on March 27, whereupon User:Werdna issued NawlinWiki a stern warning to be more careful in the future.
AbuseFilter is a highly dangerous tool that (obviously) has the capacity to stop all edits to the project. NawlinWiki has been asked to test filters using the components provided in the software before making them live, and has either failed to do so or done a poor job of it. This is the third such instance of that mistake that has led to severe problems. If NawlinWiki is going to continue to make problems like this with the filter, his access to the tool needs to be removed. I am more than ready to remove that access myself right now. The only reason I haven't is because such a removal would undoubtedly end up here anyway, so let's get the drama out of the way now so we can get things done. Hersfold(t/a/c) 02:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
How can we not have a vetting process for new abuse filters? RxS (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. I caught the mistake myself (after a minute or less, not 3 minutes). I thought I had tested it. I'm willing to self-impose a month-long ban on myself from editing the abuse filter and will promise not to do *anything* there without testing in the future. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What exactly did you do to test it? Hersfold(t/a/c) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Werdna's prescription at the end of the above-cited warning was "requiring your filters be reviewed by other users or discussing your write access to the abuse filter." Can we pursue the former with an eye toward avoiding the latter? I'm assuming testing didn't include review by other users, but I'd like to hear from NawlinWiki about what they did first.--chaser - t 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You probably have a unique perspective on this, do you think we could use some sort of approval or vetting process? RxS (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I tested this change against the edits from the General Tojo sock User:Sea Reen, and it picked up the offending edits but not the two dummy edits Sea Reen made to his user and user talk pages. That indicated to me that it wasn't catching all edits -- but obviously, I now realize, I should have tested it without a username specified (to check it against all recent edits). That, and the fact that I was adding an entry to an existing filter rather than creating a new one. What I wanted to do is now in the separate filter 146 in log only mode and seems to be OK so far. All that said, I do understand the need for a consequence, and I'm certainly willing to have my filter edits reviewed before making them. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
NawlinWiki, do you understand why that failed? I am disturbed that you made essentially the same logical error as you made on the 19th. In either case using the batch testing interface against normal edits — which should be a routine step in filter editing/testing — would have shown that you were matching way too many edits (approximately 40% of all edits in the current case). Dragons flight (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the OR operator | improperly left one side of the entry as universal. And yes, as I said above, I do understand that any future change (even to an existing filter that's been working properly) must be batchtested against recent edits by all users. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You should never be testing a filter on Disallow/Warn, or any other setting. Change the filter and set it to log only. Check for bad hits. If all is well, then turn back on warnings, or disallow, or whatever. Werdna mentioned this as well. There is really no excuse not to test filters before turning them on. Prodegotalk 04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why should it take three times for you to realize that? Three times is enough. I support removal of the tools. Frankly, we should demand that everybody go through Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Requested and give it a period of time for review. I doubt there's anything so urgent that having another pair of eyes won't help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should make that like a BRFA process, where even members of BAG need to get approval of their bots by others. Seeing that we have some pretty experienced AF editors already, that would probably allow to reduce such mistakes by all editors, not only NawlinWiki. SoWhy 10:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So, can we consider this an official, last warning for NawlinWiki? --Conti|✉ 13:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say yes, in addition to the voluntary 30 day self-imposed ban. --–xenotalk 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait, this is the third time? And this is the same person who repeatedly broke the title blacklist, stopping all page creation and moving? NawlinWiki, your personal vendetta against Grawp is not as important as everyone else's ability to actually edit the fricking encyclopedia. Please stop messing with things. Gurch (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal vendetta against Grawp??? Every admin should have a 'personal vendetta' against blatant vandals, for pity's sake! Does anyone propose that Grawp is a good-faith editor? I applaud the constant hard work that Nawlinwiki does to protect and improve the encyclopedia, and I see more than adequate contrition and intent to avoid any future mistakes. Enough of this. My heartfelt congratulations to those who have never, ever made a mistake in using ill-documented software. Edison (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Noone should ever have a "personal vendetta" against a vandal. Emotional involvement is precisely the kind of thing they tend to crave. C.U.T.K.DT | C 11:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that NawlinWiki takes any bout of page-move vandalism personally, which results in him doing things to stop it without considering how they would impact non-vandal editors. --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of his mistakes seem to have been errors in regular expressions and misuses of weak typing, neither of which can really be called "ill-documented". Gurch (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The big mistakes, yes: he implements things without testing. However, looking at the history of the title blacklist, there are three brief edit wars over which is more important: blocking pagemove vandalism, or permitting normal editing activity. There are also an average of three times a month where a blacklist entry was added that would generate significant numbers of false positives, without rising to the point of widescale disruption. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that there even has to be a debate about which is more important does not bode well for this project. I am sick of the "us vs. them" mentality here, the abuse filter is the worst example of it yet. Gurch (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
More generally, we do need a vetting process. Are the people working on these more or less the same people who work on bots? DGG (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The ability to edit and create abuse filters is one that administrators can give to themselves. Nawlinwiki is a very clear example of why that's a bad idea. --MalleusFatuorum 22:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This is precisely why I don't bother with userrights, either giving or revoking - I fear I'll dick it up. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is certainly a huge cause for concern. This is an EXTREMELY dangerous tool in the wrong hands, and it should only be available to the most trusted - ie those who we are certain will not abuse the tool AND won't make mistakes. I am woried that potentially NawlinWiki's personal issues conflict with both these points. I'd endorse a removal of the tools and a vetting procedure for future granting of these tools. C.U.T.K.DT | C 11:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You folks might want to weigh-in at the conversation at WT:ABFIL regarding just bundling it with the sysop userright. Last I checked it was a little past the post on acceptance for bundling. However, I don't see the immediate urgency here to create a process when there's been only a handful of fuckups and, as far as I know, only one admin has been responsible for more than one of these. Just accept the 1 month editing ban, and if he screws up again, take the right away. Just because he has the ability to re-grant it to himself doesn't mean he will. –xenotalk 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Npovshark's persistent tendentious editing on Europe[edit]
Europe has been for a long time a stable article in which editors have worked by tiny increments to improve the sections on history, economic history, maps, and so on. It is amongst the top 200 most consulted articles on this encyclopedia. Occasionally editors have disputed border or transcontinental countries, but ambiguities because of possible differences in definitions have been carefully sourced, discussed and annotated. Npovshark(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), a recently arrived editor, whose main previous contributions have been to British National Front and Nazi Germany and their talk pages, arrived at the talk page of Europe with a drama-mongering complaint about the article [50]. He since withdrew this unsourceable comment about religion and European identity. Over four days he has tendentiously disputed the principal map, which he has attempted to delete a number of times; the map, overlaid with links to states and seas, was carefully prepared by User:Ssolbergj over an extended of period of time, having obtained consensus. Npovshark has not respected etiquette on the talk pages and has not provided sources when requested. I realize that he is inexperienced.
However, this is no excuse for making a huge undiscussed change to a stable article which can be seen in the following recent diff [51], where, incorrectly claiming consensus, he completely rewrote the lede, which has been constant for years. In this change he has unilaterally created a separate status for various states mentioned in the main article, justified in the lede "because of differences between the populations in terms of historical, political, cultural and legal and philosophical traditions." The states recategorized in the main article are Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey. (No citation has been provided for what seems to be a very clearly expressed WP:POV.) I reverted this edit, which he restored [52] with a personal attack in the edit summary. Normally people tinker with one or two words in the lede, but they do not make wholesale changes of this type, falsely claiming consensus. I hope this highly disruptive editor, who is edit warring with false claims of consensus on a central WP article, can be strongly cautioned and blocked if necessary. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that this problem, hopefully now a non-problem, can be solved by adding more sourced scholarly material to the article. The historical evolution of the term "Europe" as a continent from antiquity to the modern age of plate tectonics has been extremely well chronicled in the academic literature. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is really neccessary for me to respond to the above, it is mostly sensationalist. I tried to delete a controversial map, but I immediately agreed that it was one heck of a nice map visually, and I changed my position. Since then, I have been trying to work on how to include it in the proper, NPOV context. Lately, Mathsci appears to be interested in working with me on this, which is good. Still, while the only other respondant at the time agreed with me on the map's lack of neutrality (That map only fulfils one specific definition of 'Europe', so in a way it violates WP:NPOV. It is a well-made map though, perhaps it could be modified to allow multiple definitions to be observed? Hayden120 (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) Mathsci wrote "You removed it because of WP:DONTLIKEIT, which is not how WP articles are prepared."
As for my rationale about separating 'undisputed Europe' and 'extending into Europe' into two categories, I never said "historical, political, cultural, legal justifications..." were the grounds. So no, that is not my "very clearly expressed POV"; in fact, the part about "historical, political, cultural...etc" was actually lifted by me from the German version of the Europe article on wikipedia, an article I found to be much more neutral. I told this to Matsci, and he dismissed my claims and made me feel stupid. I also told him what was better about the german version, namely its neutrality, and he said the English version was better, essentially because it was larger and had pictures. Also note that the German version separated Europe into European and extending into Europe, so no surprise where that came from. Furthermore, I followed the source that was used for the chart and...guess what? It split up the countries, too. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, et. al. were included in groupings for Asia. So that alone was a fairly obvious problem in the article: claiming to use a source and then portraying something contrary to what that source says. I pointed this out, but Mathcsi said nothing about it and proceeded to revert again.
Generally, the above User has had a tendency to jump to conclusions and this is reflected here on this dispute page (where he is putting forth his own pet theory about my decision to include "historical political, cultural"), but it is also well reflected in the talk page of the article. In addition to that, it is plainly easy to see his aggressiveness on that same talk page, which I have commented on several times, in the hope of inducing change. As for my alleged personal attacks against him, to claim there was such a thing is completely unfounded. I expected he would write something over the course of one day, or at least have the courtesy to say he would get back to me later. I was waiting on a response regarding my changes, and what I got shortly before he disappeared for a while was a summary which compared his interest in editing to what he conceived to be mine (a complete lack of good faith, which I mentioned shortly after Matschi first responded to me). Mathsci was overly unwelcoming of any criticism towards the article in the first place, using hostile language to more or less discourage my involvement in the article. He seemed to think that the article's high view count and long-standing status proved it was nearly flawless (hence what he wrote above, about "tinkering" being acceptable). Actually, the article was loaded with problems! As for consensus on all of them, I never "falsely" claimed consensus or claimed consensus...and it would have been hard for me to do, considering only two or three people frequently visited the page, including one Turkishflame, who was even more determined not to discuss changing the article, coming up with vague excuses not to. What I ultimately hoped to have take place is make the changes and, if they were objectionable, have a discussion about what was wrong with this. This never happened, but I am hoping it happens now. I think Mathsci also sees now that the article needs work.
It would be good to see the article develop it this direction, I agree. Considering the focus is supposed to be on cultural and political, I think this would be a great. I am hoping Mathsi can act more civil towards me, and I will also try to act more civil towards him.--Npovshark (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) The tendentious editing is continuing without consensus. Npovshark, without providing academic sources, is insisting on the separation of the countries or states Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey in the table in the Political Geography section where they appeared with careful annotations. The description he added to his new table was unhelpful, unsourced and WP:WEASELy. The way to edit this article is to find sources and then use them: there are plenty of books and academic articles on Transcaucasian countries, European Russia, etc; equally well there seems to be no reason why Cyprus and Malta should be treated differently. I spent the second half of yesterday painstakingly researching/sourcing the history of Europe as a continent, which I carefully added to the article. I did not know ahead of time what this would involve (I'm not a historian); I simply added a summary of what was in the two academic texts. This seems to be the only way to proceed in editing this hopefully neutral article. Mathsci (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me add that you have also inserted your edits without prior approval, not that I really took offense. The point is the version with the table changes had a few other changes, and it was easier for Matsci to insert the tables we've had (for now) than it would ahve been for me to go back through and note every grammar change, re-wording and minor alteration I have made thoughout the page. We are now working with the proofread version, and although he has reverted to the old grouping table within this version, I will not change its content until we are in agreement.--Npovshark (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
With some dismay I note that - because of all my incremental edits to the history section of Europe, in company with User:Hemlock Martinis and at a late stage User:FT2 - I seem to have edited the mainspace article more than most. The recent edits to Definition were carefully sourced and aimed to be informative and completely uncontroversial. To give Npovshark credit, his comments or misgivings prompted these additions, which did not push any point of view and hopefully clarified certain inherent ambiguities. I have suggested Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography as a better venue for discussing wikipedia conventions for listing countries. Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This puppetry was recently discovered Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JamesBurns. During the time that I was discussing an article with this user's puppets on which we disagreed he did a couple other things that should be noticed. Under his primary account name he started New delete processes on April 11 for only two articles both of which I created (both are now deleted). I'm not concerned about the articles themselves, it is being stalked. More importantly he then created a puppet that mimics my account. [53] Please compare this to my own user page. Furthermore the only edit he performed with this User ID was vandalism. He's blocked now. Is there more that to be done, or is blocking it? - Steve3849talk 09:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What probably needs to be done is for us to go through all of his edits and those of his socks and identify those that may have lead to a wrong consensus conclusion in debates. A lot of work! Theresa Knott | token threats 10:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
But there are some problematic discussions here. "The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (AfD discussion), for example, was eight sockpuppets opining to delete versus three editors opining to keep, resulting in deletion.
I believe I've taken care of all of the active discussions in which there was sock puppetry. It's a large task now to go through the old AfD discussions listed at User:Paul Erik/AfDs affected, the list in which at least two of JamesBurns's puppets appeared. Any suggestions on how to approach this? Present a list at DRV? Approach each closing admin one by one and ask them to undelete and start a new AfD? Oh, and to answer your question about potential stalking, Steve3849, we'll hope that blocking will be enough. The IP ranges that JamesBurns uses have been blocked for a year by one of the CheckUser investigators. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 12:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made a start on these, striking out ones that ended up keep or no consensus, are still ongoing, would've ended up with the same result without the socks, or have other issues (i.e. an unsourced BLP of a very minor musician). Looks like a lot of these will probably end up having to be relisted, to be honest. Black Kite 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a parade of abuse here, of which the votestacking is but a part. There's taking other editors to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for not using the correctly gendered pronoun, when the sex of the account may have been a complete fiction in the first place, through things like this, to edit warring BLP violations into Lindy Morrison using two of the sockpuppets, to the extent that the article's subject herself (Lindymorrison (talk·contribs)) had to make an OTRS complaint to get the article fixed.
And I haven't even been through the entire article-space and talk-space contributions histories (let alone looked at other namespace contributions). Two of the accounts have been highly active in parallel for at least three years. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I shouldn't take the impersonation personally, Steve3849, by the way. This is not the first time that this person attempted to impersonate someone else whose articles xe wanted to have deleted. User:Marvin Cee was a significant contributor to the now deleted Lucifer Rising (album) (AfD discussion) article. The sockpuppeteer impersonated xem as User:Marvin Ceee. (You've tagged the wrong userpage, M. Erik.)Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, thanks Uncle G. I corrected my mistagging. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Although this is a no brainer, do we need a vote on a community ban? That way if he comes back we can block him on sight. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if no administrator is willing to unblock... Cirt (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I need an outside view before I indefinitely block this guy, generally for being a pain to deal with. Basically, a few weeks ago, User:Theserialcomma reported him again to ANI for trying to archive Talk:Darren M. Jackson (there had been no discussion on those sections for months). I started a discussion there, where Theserialcomma settled on being ok archiving the discussion, so I did. Instead of leaving it alone, Diamonddannyboy decided to get into personal arguments here, for which I warned him. Back and forth with insults by him at my talk page and finally this nonsense. He was last blocked for disruption in February at that page and I think it's time again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged the IP. Someone may wish to have a word...? C.U.T.K.DT | C 08:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a bit tricky to distinguish between IP socking and forgetting to log in, and in general in this case I think it is the latter - noting that the diff is a tad odd, as it is hard to argue that you're barred from editing while editing. :) Perhaps he was confused? - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it. He appears to be upset but I can't see behavior worthy of a block. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an outside view, but my impression from watching this is that neither editor has behaved completely appropriately (as seems to be the case with most edit wars). That aside, in the past Diamonddannyboy has been helpful, although he's been frustrated at what he saw as large scale changes to the article he started. I'd see an indef as overkill for what has been fairly minor disruption, that could have been solved with a compromise some time ago. - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the socking I'm most concerned about. C.U.T.K.DT | C 08:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not his first time, so I'm not particularly shocked at this point. If someone wants to give him a warning he might take seriously. Frankly, it's not like he has a great history of civil conduct here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
My experience of Diamonddannyboy is that he does listen, so while yes, he did sock in the past, that was 12 months ago, so I'm still happy to AGF. As mentioned, I've tended to see this habit of his as failing to log in - he generally doesn't seem to hide when doing this, (even stating in edit summaries who he was), and his IP didn't edit when his account was blocked. But it is a difficult distinction to make, and in general I'm happy to defer to people with more experience on socking issues. - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit: link fixed) according to the block log of his ip, he's supposed to be blocked for 3 months. i'd assume if you block someone for 3 months, them logging into an account and resuming editing a few days later would constitute a block evasion Theserialcomma (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(Never mind, got there another way). It depends what Toddst1 meant by the block. Presumably he knew of the account, yet chose "anon only". Theresa Knott | token threats 09:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
True. I was going by the block of his account - he didn't edit from the IP while his account was blocked in February, but I now realise that it says nothing as the IP was blocked as well. This, of course, is why I defer to others on socking issues. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Not that I'm an expert on socking by any means, but as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with logging in to edit on a blocked IP if the IP's block was not directed at you? Afterall, that's what soft blocks/accounts are partly for right? Does anyone know if the IP block was specifically targetting him? C.U.T.K.DT | C 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The edits the IP made in that period were the archiving edit war that Diamonddannyboy was involved in. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Right ok, so technically that is block evasion, as the original block of the IP was designed to target his behaviour (I'm not sure I would have agreed with 3 months though). That said, there is a clear difference here between someone who forgets to login, and someone who switches accounts to deliberately evade a block - I'm pretty certain the latter does not apply here. Any block evasion in my opinion has been fairly inadvertant. Bearing this in mind, and judging by the edits (which could be far more serious imo), I don't believe indef is necessary here, given the user does have a history involving some constructive editing. I think a short block (days/weeks perhaps) would suffice, else a stern warning at least. But I'm not admin, and like I said earlier, no expert at these things - just an opinion. C.U.T.K.DT | C 10:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I see pretty obvious block evasion here. I would normally advocate for a longer or indef block here. I'll let the group decide. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I really am not happy about indefinitely blocking a long term user. This is what we have the arbcom for. As for sock evasion, I don't know. Since he has made it pretty clear that the IP was him, and since his user account was not also blocked, it kinda feels like putting a cake in front of a two year old, telling them not to eat it, then stepping outside the room. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I tend to agree with Theresa - something like this requires a broader discussion. I recommend taking this to arbcom. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I recommend waiting for a bit. Bilby states above Diamonddannyboy does listen so I'd like to see how he responds to my advice on his talk page. Actually, come to think of it, we are required by the AC to do it before they will take the case. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It depends a bit on who approaches him, or how he's approached (as with most of us, I would guess) - hopefully things can be settled again. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The February ANI was over his WP:OWN at Darren M. Jackson, and his revert-warring with other editors about his plan for archiving the talk page, which seemed bizarre since there was very little on the talk page. I see that Diamonddannyboy is not currently blocked, but Theresa Knott is having a serious discussion with him on his user talk. Passing the issue to Arbcom will slow them down even more, so why not see if Theresa can get him to agree to concessions. How about a negotiated topic ban of this editor from Darren M. Jackson and its Talk page? If the negotiation goes nowhere, I suggest a normal pattern of block escalation. One month seems like the next obvious step, given this is a long-term behavior problem and there is no diplomacy coming from his direction. He has used socks to evade blocks in the past. Perhaps Theresa can get him to agree to use a single account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
There is some serious edit warring going on on this page that needs addressing urgently, while no 3RR rules appear have been broken, everyone certainly needs heads banging together. I have compiled most of the obvious reverts below, while there are other edits which are "kind of" edit warring, but rewording. I know at least one of the users has recently been blocked due to edit warring. Maybe a sensible idea to protect the page for a few days.
It looks to me like this all relates back to the RFC on the Susan Boyle article relating to the issue on whether or not to include the YouTube link. Perhaps someone didn't like the way things were going at talk page here, and decided to just change the WP:EL guideline. Either way, I agree, it should be stopped. — Ched : ? 00:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose a revert to the last "good" version before all of this war started, protect the page for 2 days. Get everybody to sit down, have a cup of tea and work out an adequate consensus without edit warring, possibly a couple of short blocks may be a good idea too. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Full protected for two days. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Everyone" certainly does not need their heads banging together. Please be respectful. 2005 (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
For reference for others, while I was trying to figure out the history of the disputed content a couple weeks ago, I put together a record of the relevant changes to the disputed wording which can be found at User:Barek/sandbox/EL. I just updated it today to show the additional changes over the past two weeks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This guy is going around damaging every film infobox he can find. He's been warned numerous times on his talk page, but to no avail. This doesn't really belong at AIV, so I'm bugging you folks with it. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the first ANI thread of this name. \/ posted one earlier, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for one day. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Mhazard9 (talk·contribs)
This user has recently made a number of edits to two articles I watch, Franz Boas and Cultural Relativism. The edit summary always indicates that the intention is to "clean up" language but all I see are edits that make the language more obscure or confusing, unclear or imprecise. I checked the user history and saw that s/he had done the same thing at the article on code switching. Then I read the user's talk page and saw that a couple of other editors have expressed concern regarding other pages. All of this leads me to suspect that this is a classic disruptive editor, hard to tell at first because a pattern emerges over a range of articles. But I admit this is a subjective judgment and while I believe strongly in eliminating disruptive editors, I also know many are quite rightly cautious about applying this label to editors. Honestly, maybe this person is acting in good faith. But it seems to me to be a puddle of poor prose slowly spreading across varous articles. I'd appreciate it if other editors checked this user out, comparing his/her edits across a range of articles, and tell me whether my concerns are ill-or well-founded - and keep an eye on him/her for a while, or suggest a course of action ... Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Notified Mhazard9 about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Chaser's response relates to the fact that Mhazard altered Sirubenstein's message. Since we can't be having that sort of thing, I have taken the more active approach of reverting back to the original form -- adding this message to alleviate confusion. Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You reverted? [82].--chaser - t 05:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I see some of this, but adding some diffs to your statement above would be helpful so that whoever is looking at this (me now, I guess) doesn't have to re-do the same detective work. I saw nothing actionable after a glance at contribs.--chaser - t 05:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Chaser, I direct you to the edit diff you produced - namely, the way Mhazard9 edited my comment. Folks, I think you are all misinterpreting Mhazard9's act. You seem to think it is a naive newbiew mistakenly editing another person's comment - the mistake being that we edit one another's work all the time, except when it is on someone else's user-page, or someone else's talk, and this is a common newbie error. I do not think Mhazard9 made that error. I think Mhazard9 was mocking me and the report of disruptive editing with a precise example of the disruptive editing to which I am calling attention. Mhazard9 added a few words to my comment. I am bolding what sh/e added:
I'd appreciate it if other editors checked out this user, comparing his/her edits across the range of articles s/he edits, and tell me whether or not my concerns are ill-or well-founded
My point: the changes do not change my meaning at all and thus appear innoccuous. But they do add unnecessary words. This is what Mhazard9 is doing in every edit i have looked at (and there is no point in my providing edit differences, just go to the user contributions; every edit I have seen does not fundamentally change the meaning, but does add unnecessary verbiage, or makes the phrasing more awkward. One edit would not be a big deal..But it adds up. It adds up at one article, and it adds up over many different articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at a few of his edits, & can't find anything actionable at this time: as long as their edits are still intelligible, we don't ban people just for being lousy writers. My guess is that Mhazard9 has just finished reading Strunk & White or Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", & has decided to rewrite articles according to the insights he had after reading -- which obviously have some problems. Although there's nothing that an Admin can do at this moment -- beyond helping Mhazard9 with his writing skills -- Mhazard9 may be worth watching in case his skills don't notably improve, especially in consideration that he hasn't responding to this thread beyond vandalizing Slrubenstein's post. -- llywrch (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is basically what I was thinking but failing to articulate. Don't hesitate to bring something more actionable to my talk page, Slrubenstein. I take a dim view of his edit to your initial comment in this thread, so I'll give future malfeasance particular attention.--chaser - t 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually wrote something coherent? Wow! There may be hope for my writing skills yet. :) -- llywrch (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It'd be worth looking at 64.105.84.97's edits too. The edit summaries are worded exactly the same, and they frequently revert anyone who removes whatever overly-wordy crap mhazard added, or just plain re-add it.Terrifictriffid (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tarc (talk) has repeatedly deleted information presented from reliable sources. I'm referring to this edit, here: (1). Can I please get an administrator to look into his personal issue with the reliable source that I am using? Please remind this user that his opinion is not acceptable as a reason for deleting source. He might dislike the source but the information presented in it is reliable. Unless Fox News is no longer considered a reliable source, I am undoing his deletion and re-adding the information which directly correlates to the Tax Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks as if you pulled two separate things (call for cuts and Tea Party protests) and conflated them to make it look as if one was a consequence of another. The source doesn't support that. In fact, the source reports at great length about how Obama sees this as just the beginning of the cost-cutting measures. Frankly, I cannot see how this has anything to do with the Tea Party protests. I note that the Fox News source mentions them, but that is not surprising since they effectively sponsored the event. The second part of your addition is just Glenn Beck's opinion on this matter - and that doesn't have anything to do with the Tea Party protests either. It seems like Tarc's edit was legitimate. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. AN/I is one of the last stops for editing disputes, not the first. I have edited and explained the edit on the talk page, so if you have objections, then continue to try air them there. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please delete my userpage? The contents of past revisions are being used to harass me in real life. Videmus OmniaTalk 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
User:AureliusBP has twice now attempted to call me on the telephone (my request that he not do so and his response are on his talk page) and he has now threatened legal action against me on my talk page. This is all over an article about a game he produces which I've nominated for deletion. Am I in the wrong here? Any suggestions? Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Err, how did they get your phone number? (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Blocked per WP:LEGAL; how did he have your phone number? 'Cause if someone from wiki called me, I'd be deeply disturbed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't need a phone call to be "deeply disturbed"...and not just by the actual threat. Good block FisherQueen, but I hope that this does not escalate the communications towards Wyatt Riot ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is a concern... but it's one that will have to be dealt with through the phone company or law enforcement, unfortunately. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, everyone (and especially FisherQueen). I'm assuming he googled me or something. At first I had no idea who it was who had called me, and then I noticed that he signed his real name on the article talk page. I've never seen someone that upset about my editing! Anyways, thanks again! Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Due to the split, this appears to no longer be getting much attention so giving a poke. Continued issues with Dream Focus increasing his incivility and personal attacks in both AfDs and the AN/I thread. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Dream Focus continues making bad faith accusations and personal attacks[edit]
(edit conflict) No progress has been made since the topic was split. In fact, the only things that the split has done was to take the issue off the radars of other admins and embolden Dream Focus in making more personal attacks and bad faith accusation in the WP:ANI split. Dream Focus is now calling editors engaged in article cleanup he disagrees with "bullies"[83], throwing around the term "deletionist" as a pejorative,[84][85] and alluding that other editors are engaged in a deletionist cabal.[86][87] (For the record, I've never called myself a "deltionist" and find the term insulting.) No action was ever taken on his previous personal attacks and bad faith accusations, as previously documented, dispirit a proposal.
I'm bringing this back to the main page per User:EEMIV comments that the discussion is devolving. [88] --Farix (Talk) 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What nonsense is this? Copy over the entire argument then, don't just start it over again because it wasn't going your way, and you weren't getting the response you wanted. And Collectonian and Sephiroth both called themselves delitionist on their user pages, it not meant as an insult. DreamFocus 19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Everyone please click on the edit histories he has, and tell me if you don't find this laughable. Do the edit histories he links to back up his statements? DreamFocus 20:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree this subpage could benefit from some new, uninvolved admin eyes. pablohablo. 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think a block is going to be effective in this case, and I think any other admin action would be even less appropriate. Hence, this isn't the right venue. Probably a user conduct RfC is the way to go. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
... This either shows a pattern of behaviour, or a pattern of community misunderstanding. Blocks and bans won't do. I concur that RfC is now likely the only way to explore the issue, and hopefully find a peaceful resolution that benefits the project as a whole. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you keep a record of how many times TheFarix has brought accusations of something up here or similar places, and what the results were for them? That would show his pattern of behavior. He seems to do this quite often. DreamFocus 23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I always figured that when a discussion trails off it wasn't a sign that we should flare it back up again. I suggest that we archive this and move on. It is no longer a matter for AN/I, whatever path is chosen for future DR. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Politis (talk·contribs), a long-time user, has recently gone on a spree of classical harassment/wikistalking against me, following me around with comments like the following that unfortunately contain some rather ugly real-life overtones:
[89],
[90],
[91], [92],
[93],
[94],
[95]
(He's also been following me around to articles to revert me, like here: [96], [97],
[98], [99]).
This is now seriously getting on my nerves. Can something be done to switch this off? Fut.Perf.☼ 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. Some of those are troubling, though I think that a few of the first batch may be your being on the lookout rather than any real malice on his part. Of the bunch, this is the only one that sticks out. Protonk (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's the whole pattern over the last few days, where he has been almost completely concentrating on following me around. I found today's comments on Yannismarou's talk page the most ugly, together with the sarcastic ones afterwards. Add to this that I'll have this person against me in an Arbcom case soon. At this point, I seriously want him to shut up. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I should have been more clear that I didn't dig too deeply, just looked at the diffs you presented. I also didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't make a more complete case that he was harassing you (or whatever we call it now). Protonk (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This diff alone, which Protonk pointed out, is entirely unacceptable from any perspective, and I applaud your calm presentation of it, Fut.Perf.; if I had been on the receiving end, I would have felt legally and socially threatened at the least. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's on the edge of NLT. I'm not keen to block folks for marginal legal threats given the kerfluffle over the last marginal NLT block. But maybe he can be convinced to retract it. Protonk (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above diffs are unacceptable. We have certain social rules, and nobody should cross it. I think Politis should be blocked for sometime. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Clear harassment. Block. Sceptre(talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I analyzed the edits of Politis, and he has some positive edits.[100] He should be blocked only if there is a clear consensus to block him. More input is needed from other editors. AdjustShift (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking from experience, harassment concerns tend to go over positive contributions. Seven featured articles and twice as many good articles didn't really mitigate stuff for me... Sceptre(talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Politis made concrete allegations against Fut. However, he failed to back them. There is thus indeed room to block him. On the other side, I would like him to be given a chance to defend himself. We should listen to him before blocking, in order to give him a chanve to prove what he said. He made serious accusations against Fut (which I do not repeat in case they are false, but you can check the differences), which either are serious breaches of policy by Fut either despicable lies. I also confirm that he has done positive edits, and that he is usually one of the politest users I've ever met. But, of course, if he is indeed making accusations without any eveidence to back them, he should be blocked.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't about evidence or no evidence. It's the fact that he has been spreading smears about my off-wiki personal and professional life, and that's something he simply has no business talking about in any shape or form, backed up or not backed up. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Concerning his comment in my talk page, Politis said that it has nothing to do with your off-wiki life, and that it was not personal. This is maybe not the truth, but I'd really like to listen to him, because he is accusing you of doing the same thing against him. Honestly, when I read his comment, I couldn't realize it had anything to do with your off-wiki life. If it did, of course it is very serious.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me Yannis, but you must seriously work on your reading comprehension skills then. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I am more interested in my writing skills. Thanks you anyway for your advice.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: AdjustShift- it doesn't surprise me that Politis has a decent editorial track record. If he didn't, I'm very sure he would have been indeffed as a result of that particular diff. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If it is really what Fut says, yes I'd agree with you. As I said, when I read the comment, and I was asked by Fut to block him, I hadn't realized there was anything off-wiki personal in the comment. I regarded it as an ironic comment of general character. When I visited my talk page again, the thread was deleted by Fut, and I had to check the differences to find the continuation of the discussion, and see that initially Politis refused it was an ad hominem off-wiki outing comment, and that then there was an exchange of serious accusations by both editors for outing. It is exactly the seriousness of all these accusations that make me say: block him, but try to listen to him first (in case he has to say anything in defense of himself).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It may be of your interest or not, but I thought it was my duty to mention that Politis has announced his commenting today on the ArbCom case Fut mentioned above (and where I am the filing and an involved party as well).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. He had better be very careful then, because, independently of off-wiki stuff, if I see him making unfounded allegations of on-wiki misbehaviour against me one more time, like the claim that I deleted some evidence or something, made below, then I will seek to get him sanctioned just for that alone. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see my user page regarding my philisophy on wikipedia and how I view my contributions. How does a non-experienced Wiki user (such as myself who is hopeless with the wiki technology) defend him/herself. I have repeatedly (since 2006?) begged, argued and reasoned with Future Perfect NOT to include racial characterisations of users, especially of myself. I did this on wiki and by emailing him. He has repeatedly ignored those pleas. Yet, he is the one who told me about the risks of 'outing', then he went straight ahead to parade my (presumed) ethnicity!
He cannot help himself identifying users with their ethnicity or making ethnic comments that I interpret as racially motivated. He cannot stop using the ‘f’ word and other offensive words. For this, I believe he should loose his administrator status, he should be banned from editing some articles and allow him to edit where his good self can shine (we all have positives)
I have also argued that he should stop intimidating people, abusing them verbally, etc. Arguments do not work with him. Could it be because it offends his bully nature? I really do not know and could be wrong. But if someone IMO bullies, the editor/user who is bullied needs some support. I try to offer that support, even if I disagree with that editor’s edit.
I am not too sure what ‘following around' means. Probably what FP is doing with other users, including with myself, following all their edits and intervening where he believes it to be necessary? In wiki there are people who keep meeting across some articles. We have joked about this. I respect him for 'following', he obviously does not with me.
Apologies for not being wiki expert with the technology. But again, how does one defend oneself agains an administrator who understand the art of writing, defending, deleting track of debate, compiling links (no disrepect intended for such skills)?
If anyone has any questions, please go ahead. I have a busy schedule but will do my best to answer.Politis (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Politis, please provide diffs for what you say (each claim you make against User:Fut.Perf., so as to substantiate them), and answer in particular to the outing accusation made against you.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What are these racist comments you allege Fut Perf. keeps making? If this is more drama about being called "greek" (!!!), you're cruising for a bruising. yandman 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
For an assessment of Politis' sense of reality, see, this [101], which came immediately before the notorious [102], and was in response to mine here: [103]. Basically, I was calling a notorious former Wikipedia vandal (who had been harassing both myself and Politis, ironically) a "weirdo", and he jumps at it and accuses me of racism against minorities. Other than that, yes, all his complaint is that I called him a Greek. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yandman, please read again my comments. I would not say 'racist' (at least I hope not...) He identified, for instance, a whold group of voters as Greek and under derogatory terms. He eventally deleted the evidence (s I said if being technically incompetent with wiki weakens one's argument, what is going on?).
I am not aware of trying to out anyone. Users who also communicate by email may allow some things to slip in their exchanges in wiki. My user box clearly states in the opening: "
This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.
If that is what I did, then apologies but please point it out where the attempted outing took place. But I insist, FP keeps identifying people racially and that, I am afraid, is unacceptable. In fact it actually forced me to make enquires how to initiate Wikipedia policy specifically to make it a ‘bannable’ offence. Politis (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This and [this are mainly your comments in question, Politis.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Politis, apples and oranges. Threatened outing is serious business (also see below). •Jim62sch•dissera! 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. For the first comment, "Such behaviour in Europe would have an 'academic' expelled from his institution but in Wiki it can have currency." Reasoning behind the comment. Wikipedia aspires to a large extent to be of academic relevance. Students use it,academics use it, the media uses it. Its criteria for users and editors are, to a large extent, of academic standards. Therefor, all us users/editors exert 'academic' skills - we are, in effect, playing an academic role. But the behaviour of some users/administrators on wikipedia, would have them reprimanded if they were real academics in the real world and esepcially in Europe. Who is an academic amonst us? I really, really do not know, not even their user page is 'proof'. Wikipedia is an anonymous site. All I know is that we are held up to maintain academic standards.
The second comment was, "if I become convinced that there is racism by any known or unknown persons on wikipedia I will try to express those concerns decently, legally, publicly and outside wikipedia." Reasoning behind the comment: As I said, it is important to be decent and legal. If there is suspicion of racism in wikipedia, it should be investigated. No people are mentione because it is not specific to any one person, it seems to be systemic in wikipedia that we feel we can get away with some things. I would like us to put an end to this. But then one user, FPatS takes it personally and 'declares war' on it. Why? To silence me? To prevent me from stopping people making ethnic generalisations? I do not know, but I had no one in mind. Politis (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
So, if I correctly understand you (because my comprehension skills are questioned above), you deny that you attempted any kind of outing (or that you threatened outing) by the above comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Yannis, that was a cheap shot: you're correct that you need to hone your writing skills -- there's a definite Greek syntax to your English (and I'm not saying that because I know you're Greek, but because I know Greek and can "read" the syntax).
Politis, see resp below by Yandmam, and stop self-identifying in a public forum. •Jim62sch•dissera! 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we introduce a wikipedia clause whereby no user can make ethnic references when asked to, that no user can bunch groups of users under an ethnic tag. That Future Perfect refrains within reason from identifying users ethnically. That users should be banned for using the 'f' word and other such words. And any other solution that presses the pause button on this debate. Politis (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
"Don't put user boxes on your page identifying your nationality" might be a bit of valid advice. If one self-identifies in a public forum, one can't tuern around when someone else points out that self-identification. •Jim62sch•dissera! 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me repeat this one last time: Saying you're greek is not a bannable offense. It's not even any kind of offense. It's common sense. You've got a bloody logo on your user page saying greek is your mother tongue, and you edit pages related to Greece. If you complain about "racial persecution"/"identifying users ethnically"/"ethnic references" once more, [...] yandman 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The only reference I see that Politis "is a native speaker of English" (that could place him anywhere between Hawai to New Zeeland via Gibraltar, Nigeria and Hong Kong, and that he speakes French and Greek at near native level.Politis (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Politis, the issue here is not to introduce any clauses. If your accusations against User:Fut.Perf. concern anything else besides the fact that he called you a Greek, please tell it. If you have anything to say on your comments I pointed out to you before (are they misinterpreted?), please do so. If the answer again is "no", then we have a problem.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said, some text has been deleted by FPatS. It has nothing to do with being called a Greek (as such, it could mean I belong to a US college Greek fraternity), but the context and the background to that context, both on wiki and by email. How do you access it? And how does a non wiki expert line up the technology to match the comment/concern? I will do my best but promise nothing. Politis (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A "US college Greek fraternity"? Politis, you obviously haven't attended a US college/university, where the phrase "Greek fraternity" evokes an an image closer to Animal House than a college society devoted to promoting Greek language & culture. -- llywrch (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yannismarou. I deny I wanted to out anybody. If that person had not made such (a habitual?) fuss then we would all have more time to spend on editing wikipedia. In fact, I fear that I was targeted on the pretext of outing.Politis (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
He's still at it [104]. This is incredible. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to understand how the comment presented by FPS on the Macedonian Dynasty etc fits into this debate. Politis (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
And he has English listed as his Muttersprache. A bit disconcerting. As for his "racialist" bit, just dismiss it. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll block him, next time he does it, for making threats, wikistalking, and harassment. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Why would a Greek person be offended if someone called them Greek? I don't get offended when someone calls me American. Also, saying 'the f word' is not (and will not be) bannable. Wikipedia is not censored. Your WP:Wikistalking is completely unacceptable behavior.-- Darth Mike (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got to agree with Hiberniantears, Politis' behavior is unacceptable and I will block if he continues it. MBisanztalk 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with MBisanz and Hiberniantears, this is getting pretty ugly and needs to stop now. Dreadstar† 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Per no legal threats, until he retracts it, or am I the only one that read the part of that diff that mentions legal action?— DædαlusContribs 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If he's referring to this one, while I agree that it may be blockable for incivility and possibly threats of off-wiki stalking, it's not clearly a legal threat... the word "legally" here may refer to the manner of action (i.e., it was legally conducted) rather than the type of action. It's just ambiguous enough. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Mendaliv, I was talking about my own identity. I expect to declare one day that I contributed to wikipedia under the user name Politis. Politis (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that to be true, I mean, how else could you take: if I become convinced that there is racism by any known or unknown persons on wikipedia I will try to express those concerns decently, legally, publicly and outside wikipedia.. Legally, publicly, outside of wikipedia. That sounds like a legal threat to me.— DædαlusContribs 05:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
When I take a walk, I cross the street "decently, legally, publicly and outside wikipedia". --NE2 07:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that reading the referenced comment as a threat to take legal action is a misinterpretation. My take is that he is saying that he will use legal methods, not that he intends to litigate. Big difference. Also, the use of "decent" doesn't connect with a threat to sue someone. Let's WP:AGF unless overt and clearcut threats are made. There is no WP:LEGAL violation here that I can see. Neutral on all the other issues in this thread at this point. — Becksguy (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Real-life "legal methods", if pursued outside Wikipedia and related to a contributor's real-life identity, would still constitute harassment under Wikipedia's standards. These are not "legal threats" in the NLT sense, but they sure are an attempt at intimidation by means of off-wiki action. Note that the posting has to be read together with its edit summary: "Outing will come". Fut.Perf.☼ 07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My one and only point above was that the referenced comment, per se, didn't rise to the level required to violate NLT. Thank you for agreeing with me, FP. Outing is a different issue covered under a different policy. And I agree that the edit summary does appear to be a rather unambiguous threat to out an editor. And I find that very troubling, as I find any intimidation and harassment attempts or threats. So I totally agree with that part. — Becksguy (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I read it as just saying he wouldn't do anything illegal. StickyParkin 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I stated that FPatS had deleted a thread. I think I have now found that thread and withdraw that comment. I blame that particular confusion on the convoluted nature of wikipedia and my own limited skills. Apologies to those affected by that mistake.Politis (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Asking for a follow up on an administrator's action for IP block please[edit]
Resolved
– No action required as IP is not presently engaged in vandalism. Per WP:BLANKING users, including IPs are permitted to blank their talk pages (with only a few exceptions) and should not be reverted if they do so. –xenotalk 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This user was given several warnings by other users, including last warning for vandalism. Then this user removed the warnings from his/her page, which I thought was not allowed unless the messages were personal attack (now I know one can remove it, but this is not why I am asking for a follow up). So, I politely asked the user not to do it unless it is a personal attack, but I did not report the user, because it was not a vandalism! Then I noticed that this user, actually did vandalize his own talk page, which was for the fifth time (excluding my friendly warning to him/her for removing messages) and then I reported this user to be blocked after giving another warning (the fifth warning). But it is imazing that administrator Edgar181, has compeletely disregarded the following vandalism 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 by this user, including the last warning and has simply gave this reason for denying the block (decline - removing warnings is acceptable) which has nothing to do with my request!
Removing of messages is fine, but this user had final warning, and even vandalized after the final warning and yet the administrator failed to even comment on such vandalism! Not that, this administrator, simply removed all the warnings including the most recent warnings! Why? The vandalism of this IP user includes vandalism of a living person. Ignoring a block report is simply unprofessional. Again, my point is not about warning removal, but a follow up please and also, reverting the warnings back. Kind regards. --Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Removing warning messages from one's talk page is acknowledgment of them. Doing so is not vandalism. We typically don't block anyone unless they've had a "Final warning". If the final warning was bogus, then we typically don't block.
It's typically not OK to remove {{schoolip}} tags or {{unblock}} requests during the block. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way this is not vandalism - it's a WP:NPA which is not OK, but neither is WP:HOUND which is what seemed to have prompted the response. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The final warning was not a bogus! Please look. Every warning was properly given.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Please re-report the user to WP:AIV if they begin vandalizing again. Today they have not (see WP:BLANKING). –xenotalk 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Whoops - you're right - the final warning just wasn't considered recent enough. No final warning was given within the last 24 hours. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. This is my point. I think there should have been a clear comment by that administrator about a decline not just something that has nothing to do with my report. I have nothing against him, he probably had a bad day. But I have a request, please revert those warnings so that other users can see the most recent warnings given to this IP user. Many of this user's edits constitutes vandalism, those warnings should be there in his talk page. Kind regards--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLANKING. If an AIV report is necessary, note in the report that the IP has blanked the warnings, including the final warning. –xenotalk 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I read! This policy does not prohibit users from removing messages or warning messages from their own talk page. It does not say that someone else is allowed to removed the warnings from another use's talk page with out any reason! does it? Even this administrator's reason was a repeat of this rule.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The warnings from the 19th were blanked by the user and the warnings from the 21st were inappropriate because they were warning him for removing the warnings. Please move on. –xenotalk 23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but one can simply delete those two warnings and leave the rest. This is against the policy that you just mentioned. What do you mean move on? Come on! This administrator removed all the messages that are supposed to be removed only by that IP user. Even if those warnings were given by mistake, I don't think one can remove it. I think that page should be reverted. Either give me a reason or do not ignore me please. Thanks --Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, inappropriate warnings should be removed by anyone. Again, please move on. If the user vandalizes again, there is no need for a warning, simply report to AIV and note that they have already received a final warning. They have not vandalized today, and while they did call you a name they were probably frustrated because of being reverted on their own talk page. Belabouring this point to keep warnings on the IP's page will only lead to further disruption by the anon. I have added a note to the talk page confirmimg that further disruption will result in a block. –xenotalk 23:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but you perhaps think I am bringing this issue here because this IP user has called me a name. No. It is because an administrator with so much experience has failed to comment correctly about a report. Please do not divert from the subject. If you want to support another administrator just say it but based on WP:BLANKING no one, except the user can remove the warnings. Now you say that there are two warnings that were inappropriately given, fine, remove those and revert it back and let the user do what ever he/she wants to do. The action of this administarator not only is not professional, but based on WP:BLANKING unlawful, for blanking someone else's talk page. Perhaps it is lawful and I have not been told so. Kind regards--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't say what you think it does - it does not prohibit the removal of inappropriate warnings by other users, it simply permits the removal of warnings by the warned user. As far as I can tell, a blank page is what the IP wants, though I've left them a {{welcome-vandal}} template. The administrator's denial of the report was spot-on: you were trying to have the user blocked for making edits allowable per WP:BLANKING. There is no need to become frustrated about this situation. Now that you know about the blanking rules, you will be better equipped to continue your good efforts in combatting vandalism. –xenotalk 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your welcome message. It is good. We should let the IP to decide. Thank you. Kind regards--Parvazbato59 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for your continued efforts in cleaning up vandalism. –xenotalk 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If someone would take a look at the history of this article and judge whether it needs to be put out of its misery, I'd appreciate it. Someone's playing silly buggers. Skomorokh 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted a ton of vandalism that was still present in the article. It may still be eligible for WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of deleted material, however. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Mendaliv and Someguy1221 for looking into this. Skomorokh 01:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody take a look at the contributions for Luis Napoles (talk·contribs). He has been edit-warring across multiple articles, was reported [105], and continues warring. Probably best for this one to get some time. Grsz11 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping that this forum will help with a situation I've encountered today. User:Overpush created an SVG version of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) at File:WSDOT.svg. He uploaded the image on April 4 and replaced the previous PNG version of the logo in the article. The PNG was tagged as an orphaned, fair-use image on April 6. I stumbled upon this change and reverted it. Under WP:Logos and WP:Non-free content, SVGs aren't allowed. Fair-use images should be of the minimum quality necessary. SVGs are raster images and they can be rescaled to any size and retain their quality, meaning they aren't acceptable under WP policy. This is the rationale why I reverted the changes in the article.
Today (April 20) my changes were reverted, meaning that the SVG version of the logo was re-placed on the article, and the PNG version was tagged for deletion. I've reverted and redone the tagging, only to have it reverted again. I commented at the user's talk page [106] to offer an explanation for my actions. He replied with [107] and reverted the article and image tagging again a second time for the day. I reverted a second time with a more in-depth explanation at [108]. This was reverted again with this comment [109] on my talk page, which was removed by User:Rschen7754, who also reverted the article and image tagging in favor of the PNG. Rschen has also warned the user here: [110].
In scanning through Overpush's contributions, I've found many, many other logos for state DOTs and other agencies created in the SVG format, tagged as fair-use with rationales. I don't know from my cursory glance if this has resulted in any correctly-formatted fair-use images being deleted as orphaned images by the bots. Please help me deal with this situation. Even though I consider Overpush's reversions in violation of policy to be vandalism, I don't want to risk the appearance of 3RR. Any advice and suggestions is appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Overpush seems to be aware of and to disregard this discussion. He blanked your courtesy notice on his talk page pointing to this thread and immediately made the same edits to WSDOT again, with an edit summary consisting solely of "m". Time to follow through on Rschen7754's warning with a short block? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't think you could have explained yourself any better to Overpush. Obviously, they don't get it and aren't going to follow our guidelines. Perhaps a short block is in order to give the user a chance to read over WP:NFC and WP:LOGOS. -- Darth Mike (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
His last set of edits is 4RR on the two images and the article. 1) early today, 2) in response to my first reversion, 3) in response to my last reversion and 4) now in response to Rschen's rollback. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone notified him of 3RR? You can't just block without warnings. List the SVG image for deletion. Where does it say that SVGs aren't allowed anyways? Point out the specific section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFC, Policy 3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." SVGs by default are resolution-independent by their nature. WP:USRD only creates PNG-formatted road sign graphics for fair-use images, but SVGs are created for all others, as an example. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
A low-resolution rendering of a relatively high-fidelity map of the world Better recheck your own quote, resolution isn't the whole story. As you mention, "resolution" is irrelevant to a vector graphic, which leaves fidelity and bit rate. A low fidelity SVG is one that doesn't contain detail beyond that required to render at a low resolution. For example, File:BlankMap-World.svg contains a huge amount of detail, most of which is not even visible in the thumbnail to the right; a version redone to include only the details visible in that 200x101 thumbnail would be low fidelity, even though the curves would not be jagged were it rendered at 2000000x1010000. BTW, WP:USRD's shield design guidelines state that all shields should be in SVG format. Anomie⚔ 04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the brightest bulb on images, however, I don't see that SVG is a dis-allowed format, even in the portion of the policy you quote. I understand what you're saying, but neither policy prohibits this format from being used. IMHO - this appears to be disagreement with images.
Yeah, since when were SVG fair use images specifically disallowed? There's certainly an ongoing dispute pertaining to this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't an SVG of a logo that we created be a derivative work? Can we really make our own version of something then call it fair use? Or does the lack of creative input make this not an issue? Chillum 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works discusses the issue in detail. As far as I can tell, the summary is that the lack of creative input may well make it a non-issue; and if not, the SVG is affected by two copyrights: the copyright on the logo itself, and the copyright on any original contribution added by the creator of the SVG. Note that this goes for user-created png versions of logos too, and the "render the SVG as a PNG" "solution" occasionally applied by anti-SVG editors. Anomie⚔ 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Editor/IP spamming links with which they appear to be affiliated[edit]
Resolved
– Editor/IP blocked by another admin. MastCellTalk 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a clear case of EL spam to me. I'll block and warn. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. The IP locates to a public library, so a short block there (few hours) would probably stop the problem. MastCellTalk 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You added {{pg}}. Presumably you intended some other template. Algebraist 01:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
AH! PEBKAC. I just realized as well... it's supposed to be pn for page number template. Sorry for sounding the alarm. Thank you! --CyclePat (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm here, by any change does anyone know the template I'm thinking about, which adds the page number at the end of a reference that is used very often. Kind of like this.[1]:54-3. Best regards. --CyclePat (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
{{rp}}? PG really should be a redirect to a page template of some kind. If anyone wants to AWB all the political graveyard pages...--chaser - t 05:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with bots, but is it normal for them to do this much damage? To my untrained eye, it appears to me that User:Citation bot does not fully meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Bot policy. It is not harmless, and performs tasks for which there is no consensus. I am in discussion with the owner over one particular bug, but it's the sheer number of bugs that I would like to flag to the administrators' attention.--Yannick (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That 'bot performs a useful task, but a very complex one, and it does do weird things at times. See [111]. I'd suggest that complex bots like this one should have the code under version control, with publicly visible code, bug tickets, edits identified by version, and some way to undo in bulk edits done by a specific version. This isn't just some macro; this thing is a serious part of the Wikipedia system and needs to be managed as such. --John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If any admin can close out this case, I'd appreciate it. The original article was rejected as copyright vio, so I created a new page, which should pass muster, at the Morgan Ogg/Temp page.
This should be discussed with the person who placed the copyvio tag, Dank55. I see you'd already attempted it, and he/she has responded. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
– IP has stopped, no point blocking now since Kuntan will have a fresh IP when they next strike. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This edit appears to be an IP admitting to socking. I had already tagged the IP as a sock of User:Kuntan based on this edit. Is this quacky enough for a block?
There is more personal abuse in my user page by a puppet of User:Kuntan which User:This flag once was red has already reported. So also he is continuing to vandalise the SUCI page. Immediate attention requested from admins.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The IP seems to have stopped for now, and I suspect Kuntan will have a different IP when s/he next surfaces. Marking this as resolved for now. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I am unable to participate in the vote to select the future copyright terms for the Wikimedia projects. I click on the box to be redirected to the voting site, but instead I get a scripting error, as follows:
Internal error
From Wikimedia Elections
Jump to: navigation, search
Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.
I've tried several times, no change, the error is still there. Please advise.
--Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Try this direct link to the voting website. If the error is still there, perhaps try temporarily switching browsers. Calvin 1998(t·c) 03:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tried both netscape and IE, home and work, the error is still there. Is it due to a browser error, or is the server having problems?--Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Author attempting to replace wikipedia articles with extracts from his book[edit]
Forgive me if this is a little awkward: I haven't managed proper night's sleep in weeks. I'm taking steps to fix this (needed to get a new bedframe) but...
Robertredfern (talk·contribs) is (evidently) Robert Redfern, author of a book called "The Miracle Enzyme", advocating that people take a nutrtional supplement.
He is edit warring rather badly to replace the article Serratiopeptidase with an extract of his (presuming this is Robert Redfern, otherwise this is strict copyvio) book, as credited at the bottom.
His book, it would appear, is a lengthy advertisement for the product. It lacks an encyclopedic tone, and ignores the studies showing it doesn't work.
At one point, Robertredfern, disliking studies that went against Serratopeptidase, went in and instituted a smear campaign at the article on the journal: [112][113]
If AIV doesn't block him, then someone from here definitely should block him per WP:REALNAME. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
He's been blocked for a day by John Carter. Tune in tomorrow … Deor (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
He could be blocked indefinitely as a promotional account. WP:BLOCK#Disruption-only notes that some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely and includes in its list accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.. Just sayin'. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been in contact with the subject via e-mail after placing the block, and I indicated to him the correct ways to deal with situations like he is currently in. It is my hope that he takes the suggestions to heart and abides by them. We'll all find out soon enough, I guess. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This is more of a notice than a report, but given the issues on the Obama pages I thought I should proceed carefully. Grundle2600(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), after countless warnings, continues to fill Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama with accusations of censorship, refusing to acknowledge the "truth" about Obama, etc. The editor is ignoring and sometimes mocking demands to stop. As a least intrusive option I have been collapsing various discussions where it is clear that his proposals have not gained and will not gain consensus, after those discussions start to degrade. I have also asked the editor to take a break from working on the article, which the editor has not done. There are not very many options, but thinking this through, if neutral admins cannot help I think I have to be very firm here in the role of an article patroller. The editor is not a party to the Obama ArbCom case, and this is an instant problem, not something where we can wait weeks for a ruling. The other option, ignoring the matter, would mean abandoning the article and letting things degrade. Any help or guidance appreciated; otherwise I'm proceeding as I think best. Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I will take a look at this - I need to read the talk page and probably some comments on user talk pages - and then talk to the editor in question (not sure what I'll say yet, but I'll let you know). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I spent some time reviewing this and agree that there are some real problems with Grundle2600's editing on the talk page in question. I left a detailed note with a warning and a bit of advice for the editor. I'd like to leave it at that for now and hope that we see a shift in behavior in the near future, but if these problems continue a block or temporary article ban would be warranted, so don't hesitate to report future problems here or to contact me about them about on my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon has no business asking an editor he disagrees with on content to take a break from working on an article. Wikidemon is NOT authorized to "be very firm here in the role of an article patroller". Wikidemon is a party to the Obama arbcom proceeding and one of the main offenders. Reminding an editor to focus on article content rather than other editors (as I've done) is fine, but Wikidemon's aggressive behavior including accusing that editor of making personal attacks when there weren't any in the diffs he provided is totally inappropriate and added fuel to the fire. Wikidemon continues to post warnings and to act in an uncivil way instead of engaging the editor in a collegial manner and working with him. While Wikidemon works almost exclusively on political content where he advances a very clear partisan point of view, the other editor has been writing lots of great articles and trying to add well cited content. A topic ban is needed, but not for the editor Wikidemon is harassing. If Bigtimepeace wants to reign in the personal attacks and inappropriate behavior I suggest he review the Barack Obama talk page and the List of topics related to Barack Obama AfD that has been hijacked by personal attacks and incivility. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Like clockwork - I come to AN/I, I get attacked again. CoM has already voiced these accusations before ArbCom, which is competent to deal with them. I wish CoM would not harass me with them here again because this report is about an unrelated matter and seems to be resolved. If CoM does not agree with the way Bigtimepeace or other administrators[114] have resolved matters with Grundle2600, and instead wants to encourage Grundle2600,[115] perhaps CoM should address those administrative decisions directly rather than using me as a collateral target. Because I am yet again accused, I feel I should answer if only to say that the claims are false and utterly misrepresent my edit history.Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
this and possibly this constitute a legal threat from user:Nattypazmino12 who I've now blocked. This is the first legal threat I've handled as an admin so if another admin wants to run an eye over it feel free to do so, and if appropriate amend my action. ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That second bit of evidence might be deleted soon, BTW... --Dylan620Efforts · Toolbox 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block - with or without the legal threats, the user wasn't on the road to constructive editing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. The legal threat is just the "you will hear from my lawyer" in the first diff, the second diff being pure invective. Overall, well worth a block - sometimes I wish our interface made it easier to specify multiple block reasons, which I think would have been more correct in this case). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget that underneath the pulldown menu you can manually type in the reasoning. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I frequently do - type, not forget :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Bosniak (block requested for resumed personal attacks)[edit]
It is becoming increasingly clear that User:Bosniak is not here to contribute to the construction of a neutral encyclopedia but to push his own nationalistic point of view by whatever means necessary, including falsifying information, harassment, abuse, and intimidation. As his previous, relatively short blocks (up to two months) have failed to remedy his behaviour, I suggest he be blocked for a longer period (say, up to a year). —Psychonaut (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I recommend not taking further action in this case. There are multiple parties on each side pushing buttons. If we block Bosniak for a long period we have equal misbehavior from Dr Trifunovic and another user which would require long blocks, and there's a BLP issues discussion on the article about him right now that he really should be allowed to participate in. After the last by Bosniak I left him a strong warning and he stopped further escalation at that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to look at the bigger picture here. This isn't just about the two most recent incidents, but about a pattern of persistent abusive behaviour stretching back to 2006. The user has had eight WP:ANI reports, fifteen blocks or block extensions, and more warnings than I can count. To claim that User:Bosniak "stopped further escalation" because of your warning is asserting a cause–effect relationship that simply doesn't exist. The user seems to be well nigh incorrigible, and the only respite we are going to get is from a long-term block or community ban. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
...then perhaps RFC is the best place? (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest no. Any RfC on nationalist/pov issues dissolves into a mess as each side brings out their friends and meatpuppets. Then again, so do most RfCs. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said - there are multiple parties on each side of this pushing buttons. As an admin trying to stay neutralish in the middle, I believe we need to treat people equally on all sides. We've allowed several accounts more rope than normal, because of an ongoing BLP issue with Darko Trifunovic (the article, and the user who its about). I am all for working actively to improve civility, respond to personal attacks, etc. ... I've done more work to warn and work with civility abusers than any other admin I know of over the last couple of months... but there are larger issues at play here.
The rate of abuse by either side is low, and both sides are responding to warnings. Enforcing civility evenly right now will delay resolution of the BLP stuff, which is very actively in progress right now. If either side are still being abusive in another week or two then we can revisit, but I think that stomping on anyone right now would be ultimately counterproductive to the encyclopedia.
I won't unblock anyone if an uninvolved admin looks at either or both sides and decides to take action, but I'd like to ask that anyone considering that look at Talk:Darko Trifunovic first and think about the wider consequences. The civility issues and aspects are not being ignored. There are a large number of admins paying attention to the accounts involved on both sides at the moment. Once the content issues are resolved we'll reinforce civility and NPA and make sure that all parties know that we're serious about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The article "Angry White Male" should be deleted unless similar articles prepended by a negative, judgmental adjective are allowed for blacks, women, homosexuals, asians and so forth. It is offensive on its face, whether the term was used by a journalist or not. A simple google search will find derogatory labels for the aforementioned groups. Where are their articles??
--Zerasmus (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) We have an article on that phrase because it is widely used (and not just as an insult). If there are similar phrases about other genders and ethnicities that are widely used, they too should have article. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
People really will complain about anything, won't they? HalfShadow 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict, but doggone it, I'm posting it anyway) To his credit, the article's sourcing is a little weak, the article isn't terribly well developed, and it's been nominated for deletion before. Should I point out that we also have articles on otherderogatoryterms, or would that be unhelpful? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Faster and I disambiguated ! –xenotalk 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. You are far 133ter than I, sir or madam. I yield. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm having difficult seeing how "Angry", "White" or "Male" can be interpreted as negative, judgmental or attacking, especially compared with "Nigger" etc. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
– User has apologized for incivil remarks, been unblocked and is editing under a new account. And everybody should be reminded to try to deescalate conflict whenever possible. *phew* henrik•talk 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I was involved with an editing dispute with an admin who unilaterally decided to block me based on "personal attacks." In truth, I did not attack User:Toddst1 but attempted to engage with him in clarifying the banner he had placed on an article I created. Admittedly, my temper flared and, in a space as transparent as Wikipedia, this was evidenced in my edit comments. As you can see from a discussion on the help desk page, there are mixed ideas about how I should proceed. While I have started a new account, I would prefer to edit under the User:Mrmerlot username and account. Therefore, I humbly request that you reinstate my account. As you can read in the above discourse, I have rethought my involvement with Wikipedia entirely and will unlikely be making any substantial (and therefore controversial) edits from here on forward. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If it is your intent to make no signficant contributions in the future, why do you need multiple accounts to do it? Honestly — take your clean slate and run with it. Given the obnoxious behaviour attached to your last account you don't want this account back. (You used it to create an article promoting your company; you edit warred over the article; you called other editors Nazis, jackasses, and buttmunches; you told us we suck, that our advice should be shoved up our asses, and that we should all just fuck off; and you did all this in the span of less than seven days and thirty edits.)
If you keep poking us about it, a CheckUser is likely going to get interested enough to block your collection of alternate accounts, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If you really want that account back you should log into it and use the {{unblock}} template. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that his talk page is currently protected. Not that I would be inclined to recommend an unblock here, based both on his previous conduct and his whitewashing of same in these unblock requests. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
His talk page is not protected, nor is his account access to it shut off. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Unlike the other guys here I would be inclined to give this user a second chance (But I'm a well-known sucker and on a crusade to make us more friendly too). I see frustration and resentment at being thrown into immediately in the deep end of our numerous policies, not anything that amounts to the long term abuse that should result in the permanent expulsion from our community. Whatever happened to WP:BITE? New users aren't expected to know everything from the start or do everything correctly. Mistakes are allowed.
Frustration shouldn't be a reason to be shown the door permanently. I'll offer to mentor and counsel this user, if we can agree to give a second chance. henrik•talk 13:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
@henrik thank you for your kind words. As you can see (an undoubtedly have experienced previously), the admin group leans towards harsh and unforgiving behavior. Rehashing (i.e., linking to) what has already been admitted to on my part is just a symptom of a larger problem. I do appreciate your offer to mentor/counsel, though I have many years' experience using and managing wikis and other social media in an enterprise 2.0 environment. As such, I am familiar with the appropriate and civil behavior required to contribute meaningfully. My biggest concern is that the accusations against me were being hypocritically flaunted by those with "power" in this space - the admins. I can tell from the above comments that wielding this power continues to be a millstone around the neck of many in this space (yourself excluded). Regardless of the final decision, I wanted to extend to you my personal appreciation (lest it continue to be presumed that nothing "personal" should be addressed in this space, only informational, that argument is fundamentally flawed as all social media is inherently social).
Oh, and for the inane comments that I am employed by concrete5, you are seriously in error. I won't name call (well, again), but I doubt the analytic prowess of those who continue to claim that I am somehow involved with concrete5. I actually just stumbled across the CMS the other day, have played with it a bit, and feel like it deserves a page in Wikipedia along the likes of Joomla and WordPress. Unless someone can give me a reason why 'not', I assume it's a personal vendetta against the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec me too) Please understand that Wikipedia is the target of large quantities of spam, trolling, self-promotion and other forms of disruptive behavior. In the large majority of cases, ejecting those who engage in it as quickly as possible is entirely correct. Unfortunately, sometimes mistakes are made and users run afoul of the "immune system" of Wikipedia without really deserving it. C'est la vie, regrettably. We have to strike some compromise between helping new users get to know the site and preventing those who wish to disrupt the encyclopedia. I personally think we've gotten too hard recently, but I'm not faulting those who help keep disruptive users off this site. henrik•talk 14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Henrik, if you read the Help Desk discussion he linked you'll find that he's claiming not to be a new user. 'Don't call other users Nazis as your opening bid for discussion' isn't exactly the deep end of our policies, either. You're welcome to believe he should have a second chance, but be sure that you're familiar with the history first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades - you have a dark, dark heart. Good bye and thanks for all the fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this discussion. It appears MrMerlot isn't this user's first account and there have been others based on this edit summary. Toddst1 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
For supposed "editors," you don't read much, do you? (ooh, is this another personal attack? no, it's a presumption of fact.) I clearly stated that I held a previous account, that I petitioned to change my user name (for personal reasons), and that my former edit history did not transfer to my new account. That previous account went back to 2006 and was used to contribute to several articles. I was merely attempting to bolster the fact that I wasn't a n00b in the space. User:Mrmerlot—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In perusing the Incidents page, I'm reminded to keep COOL and would remind our tireless admins to do the same. Waykup (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Spare me, but I acknowledge your good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to acknowledge this new users wikipedia skills, and his dilligence in getting involved at ANI with his 3rd 2nd edit.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to commend Waykup for apparently acknowledging he's a sock of the blocked user Mrmerlot here [121].Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe the link to his blog post about the experience of a new user to wikipedia (here: [122]) is more interesting. henrik•talk 17:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, perhaps new and infrequent contributors, then. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editing trends shows that we've stopped growing (edits per day remaining constant) and that the number of active admins actually peaked in 2007. The barriers of entry to start editing wikipedia get higher all the time, which is probably one of the reasons for this. I'm interested in finding out ways to become more friendly and approchable to non-hardcore users. henrik•talk 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
So the part I am not understanding is this is the third account and the user "trolled" with an ip why is he still here? The original block as for incivility and edit-warring which should still be in place. Maybe I am wrong, no? 16x9 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Blocking someone who's constructively engaged in a discussion on how to improve Wikipedia seems counterproductive, don't you think? henrik•talk 18:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's called block evasion and I really can't understand why this wasn't sent right back to User talk:Mrmerlot for the standard unblocking process and likely declined request. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
[ec]The original "punitive" block should still be in place. evading and then acting to be in care of wikipedia seems conterproductive. this new account should be blocked and any unblock request using unblock. 16x9 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that this is the policy. But how does applying it in this case improve the encyclopedia or the project? (that's intended as a genuine question, btw) henrik•talk 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wanton sockpuppetry and incivility are harmful. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, that is true. I'm hoping that this user will apologize for his incivil remarks and chose one account and stay with it. Would that be enough to lift the block and go on our merry ways to other problematic users and articles that need editing? henrik•talk 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As I hinted before, if you're willing to deal with him, I'm willing to go forward. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(wow, this is getting indented further and further). Yes, I am. Especially now that the user has apologized for his initial uncivil remarks [123]. henrik•talk 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We'll need a list from him of all his socks and which user account he wants to edit under. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, I never expected to take up everyone's valuable time in what was originally a lack of communication. A list of my socks include black, white, brown, blue... (kidding here...we're all human, right?) In my lifetime, I have used three accounts: User:3xxdad was set up originally; I asked that this be moved to User:Mrmerlot. As I seemed to have raised a stink with that account, I created User:Waykup to continue a productive discourse on the wiki (and bury hatchets). My sincere (and repeated) appreciation to henrik who has been the sole moderator and voice of reason throughout this frequently heated interchange. Waykup (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you don't need me then :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Need some help investigating Persia2's uploads[edit]
I was alerted to Persia2(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) by a report made on AIV. While investigating the complaint, I discovered he's been warned several times about the images he's uploaded. Just on a whim, I took a peek at his upload log. Most of his pictures are claimed as public domain, but all but a few of them have no metadata, and none of them look like they could have been taken with a regular digital camera. At least two of the images were obvious copyvios--they both had a watermark indicating this--so I blocked him for 72 hours with a warning that he might be indef'd if there are more bad uploads.
However, I'm of the mind that if any of his other images are copyvios, he should be indefblocked. I could use some other pairs of eyes to investigate his other uploads. Blueboy96 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The user Math Champion, and his quacking sockpuppet, Cool pipup2, appear on the surface to be semi-constructive editors, but in reality, MC appears, from studying the contributions, to be a vandal-only account. This account, as well as the sockpuppet, have vandalized several user pages, and, at one point, attempted to out PakoPenguin a user that he or she has been harassing. At least that is what it appears on the surface to be. Pako could be a sock of MC, based on the edit history of the userpage, or even a meatpuppet. Either way, the vandalizing needs to stop, and the blatant sock needs to be blocked, as it appears he was using it to vandalize other user pages when his other account was told to stop. Opinions?— DædαlusContribs 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow! My take on Math Champion is that he is using Wikipedia solely as a playground. I do not know if this is squarely vandalism, but if we do not have a policy for such hyper-trivial use of Wikipedia we should. I am for banning, on the face of it, but look forward to other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Notified Math Champion about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I know them, so I can give some information.
(Note that I am MathCool10 even though my signature states me to be MC10; MC10 is just a redirect account I created.) MC10|Sign here! 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Math Champion has four edits to article space since October (three today) with a host of nonsensical userspace deleted edits. Cool piplup2 has three edits to article space since June when he last edited. User talk:Math Champion looks like enough to me. I agree with a ban and moving on. I honestly don't care if they are friends, not friends, don't know each other off-wiki. That's irrelevant and should remain so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
←Math Champion should not be banned. Knowing him in real life, he can be immature at times but is an asset to Wikipedia. -download|sign! 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As effectively all of his edits have been to user pages, I don't think Wikipedia will be missing much. HalfShadow 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that he should be banned if he vandalizes another page; however, I oppose his banning immediately. Perhaps he will be a good contributor to Wikipedia in the future. -download|sign! 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Math Champion isn't making constructive edits. For making the majority of his edits to the userspace, that only escalates it. Also, if you haven't noticed, he doesn't vandalize articles. He probably thinks the userspace is a "free" area, which is a lack of knowlege of policy, not vandalism. P.S.: Thanks for the explanation, but I know what difference between blocking and banning is. ;) -download|sign! 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If he were actually doing something here, I'd be more accepting, but it seems as though he's just using the place as a sort of toy. HalfShadow 01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia, not some game that people can use to play with. This user has already shown that he is not a constructive comtributor, as he has done virtually nothing outside the userspace, and is in fact treating wikipedia as something it is not, a game.— DædαlusContribs 05:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is Math Champion. I will not do this in the future again. Sorry for all the trouble I have caused. P.S.: I'm not very good at editing, and so I need someone to adopt me. Maybe download should, so we can settle our differences. The way i learned how to edit was from editing myself, and i'll admit, i got carried away that day. Again, sorry for the trouble i've caused.Math Champion (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to make constructive edits in the future22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Math Champion (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose block him until he shows he will work on this project and per the WP:OUTING nonsense. I don't care if he's personally friends or not, you don't harass people in real life here. Banning is excessive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Note that ANI is not a venue for ban or sanction "polls", which are very different to ban or sanction "discussions". Changed to discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose if/until he vandalizes again. -download|sign! 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Block Block him, he obviously cannot handle the responsibility that being an editor brings. And has anyone checked if he is a sock of MC10? They have very similar names, and it is strange that he would oppose the ban of another Fahrenheit 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I can give you our IPs, if you want them. I have them from being an admin of a forum. CheckUser can confirm the IPs. The IPs are from very different ranges. MC10|Sign here! 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
For transparency reasons, I'm putting this here. I don't want to ban these editors, but I do want him and his socks indeffed until they can learn to not use wikipedia as a playground.— DædαlusContribs 06:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - As said above, this is to prevent damage.— DædαlusContribs 06:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - as said above, if they acknowledge the proper conduct here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose and Comment He has only one sock. This is Cool piplup2, so I don't understand why you say "socks". In addition, he has not used Cool piplup2 since he created the account Math Champion. I oppose until he vandalizes again. -download|sign! 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
He's now made a statement above and stated he won't treat it as a playground in the future. I've also offered him adoption. -download|sign! 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Another Comment The above should be discounted as Math Champion has now apologized and is being mentored by me. -download|sign! 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose to indef-blocking. User has apoligized to this incident and requests mentorship. MC10|Sign here! 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Only block the sock. MC10|Sign here! 23:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for now; he's at least making an attempt. Whether or not this ends up working... HalfShadow 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I just blocked Sadbuttrue92 (talk·contribs) for trolling, userspace harassment and personal attacks against myself, after a series of harassing posts to my talk page, after which I had repeatedly told him off from my page ( [124][125][126][127][128]). He was in fact collecting the diffs of being reverted from my page as trophies on his own user page, under the picture of a troll (I've also removed that as a personal attack.) I've had enough of this kind of nationalist harassment over the last few days.
Sorry for doing this block myself – I'm bringing it here for review. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Understandable. Can someone give me a clear translation of "αι σιχτίρ μαλακισμένε"? John Carter (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It is, in fact, an obscene curse telling him to go to hell, and I will not apologise for it. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It actually means "fuck off, you wanker" in Greek. The roots are the Turkish siktir and the Greek Malakas.--Avg (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What a pity. I was under the impression it meant "go to hell". Now I'm disappointed; "fuck off" isn't strong enough. (Note to self: must acquire better choice of Greek curses.) Fut.Perf.☼ 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think informing someone of your personal opinions regarding their ultimate fate qualifies as a violation of WP:NPA, so I guess we have to allow that one to stand. But, unless one is an expert as to what does and does not qualify one for such a fate, which I am not, unfortunately, it might be seen as being a less than constructive comment. Perhaps next time something like "Keep this up, and you will go to hell" might be preferable. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well if you "fuck off" to somewhere then literally you "go the fuck away" so you've probably got it, WP:NPA notwithstanding.--Avg (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x 2 Endorse block Maybe you should not have done it, and maybe you said some wrong things, but the block, in general, was warranted, in my opinion. The user was harassing and personally attacking you. hmwithτ 16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x a lot The fact that the editor is blocked is appropriate; harassment of that sort is entirely unacceptable. I don't think it was a good idea for you to do the block, but it's already done. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also endorse block, although I regret that the admin involved himself did it. After he was told by you to cease posting on your page, and not only continued to do so but insulted you directly and indirectly as well, he deserved it. And, just for general principles, I really hate it when people write something in the English wikipedia in foreign languages which don't work on the automatic translators. I tried to translate the comment above myself on a few and got no results. I can understand why you didn't want a lot of people to be able to read it, and don't necessarily fault you for saying it, but wish the people who knew foreign languages didn't use them as often as they do, because it makes the conversation harder to follow on reviews like this. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. You might want to let the editor in question know how long the block is for, by the way. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block: A good block and well deserved. seicer | talk | contribs 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block. Dealing with clear harassment should not be constrained by "personal involvement", and Fut. Perf. did exactly the right thing by bringing the matter here for review afterwards. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My, my! Harassment is not acceptable, but this is also not acceptable. I was called as "asshole"[130] by an IP, but I kept my head cool.[131]AdjustShift (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that the comment was a clear violation of civility. I am far from being Future Perfect's best friend right now, but I can acknowledge that he is at present involved in a discussion where there is a lot more heat than light being cast around. I cannot and do not condone the comment myself, and I would not condone it to someone not in a situation similar to the one he is in, but I think it is reasonable to allow the occasional slip of tongue, particularly if it is in a foreign language that we can't even be 100% sure the recipient understands and the editor who made it is involved in a rather stressful argument. I don't think it in and of itself necessarily requires a reprimand to Future Perfect, but I do think it would probably be best not to use such language in any script in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec with John) We apparently have different notions about civility then. I don't mind being called an asshole from time to time. But there are situations where "fuck off" is simply the only truthful, and hence, the only appropriate response. Telling this person to "please" read the "civility policy" ("dear") would, in this case, have been highly insincere on my part, and thus a lot less polite than a good, straight, honest, heart-felt insult. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Rules are rules, my dear! You should've posted something here, and another uninvolved admin would have blocked Sadbuttrue92. Cool Hand Luke also agrees with me.[132]AdjustShift (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I reported another, even more serious case of harassment here yesterday, multiple people stood around nodding gravely, "bad, bad", and nothing happened: the person is still trolling around. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I was more concerned about the decorum of cursing an editor, blocking him, and then declaring that the profanity isn't strong enough. No admin should do that, period. The block itself seemed clear-cut enough. Cool HandLuke 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block. I must've missed the serious case. I was going to ask why not ask another colleague for an obvious block but that's been answered; as a caveat, pay attention to what CHL said FPS. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, but... Well-deserved block. I agree with FP coming here for validation, as blocking when you're involved in the situation is usually a no-no (reminds me of the days when I was a Community Standards Administrator on IRC). I do understand the explanation of the use of profanity towards the other editor, but that never excuses it. Hold out your wrist FP, there some wrist-slapping a-comin' (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Punching me in the face is usually a more successful strategy than trying to slap my wrists. At least take some larger fish. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I also endorse the block. What I'm saying is another uninvolved admin should have blocked the user. AdjustShift (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't buy into the nonsense that the same decision can somehow be correct when one person makes it not correct when another person makes it. Blocking someone because you have strong personal feelings is wrong, but in this case it is simply an object application of policy. The block is equally valid if made for the same reasons by an uninvolved admin or an involved admin. Our policies say not to block when involved in a content dispute, I see no rule that says an admin must recuse themselves when insulted. Chillum 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for you input, Ncmvocalist. Chillum, please read those two links. When an involved admin issues a block in response to personal attacks directed at him, the guy at the receiving end may feel that the admin is trying to bully him. The purpose of a block is not to punish people; its purpose is to stop disruption. When someone feels that an admin is trying to bully him, he may become more disruptive. That's why an uninvolved admin should issue the block. AdjustShift (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Neither of those links are based off the consensus of the community. Such decisions have been made by those allowed to be arbitrary, but that does not mean that it has been accepted by the community. I would like to reassure everyone that I was familiar with both of those cases when I made my original comment. Here is an interesting point of view from one of those cases that I have had on my talk page for some time now. Chillum 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In some extreme cases, such as this, the admin may block the user. But, in non-emergency situations, admins should not issue blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at them. AdjustShift (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome to propose such a policy, though I will oppose it. There is no such policy now. I think the current wording in our blocking policy that refers to content disputes is far saner. Chillum 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The user above, the first noted user, was originally blocked for harassment and stalking of myself. He recently came back as the second IP listed, a blatant sock, only to be blocked again, and have a range block issued on the IP address range for a month. Now he is stalking and harassing me on my youtube account, as seen below by the image, and the quote:
Oh No! Did an anon IP user from Wikipedia track you down?
Why are your teeth so yellow? Is it to match your spine?
Please change the block settings on the range and IP address to more than a year, as, as he told me in a message, he only thinks of it as minor inconvenience. Honestly, I wish to you to block the IP indef, this off-wiki harassment is unacceptable.— DædαlusContribs 08:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've piped the file link. That doesn't need to be on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like a second opinion on the nature of the IP before extending the block. Could a checkuser comment. MBisanztalk 08:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, well, as said before, this user, as per a message which I can provide in a screen shot, only thinks of a year long block as a minor inconvenience, so please, block indef for continued stalking and harassment.— DædαlusContribs 08:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand, what I need to know is what type of IP is it? How large a range do we need to block? What sort of collateral damage is there that we will need to fix with WP:IPBE? That requires a checkuser to figure out. MBisanztalk 08:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There are ways from your link to find out what video you are posting and I don't know if this is germane to this Wikipedia discusssion, but you appear ... how do I say it nicely ... extremely creepy. Where this could be germane to Wikipedia is I wonder if there is a broader Internet war that is going on that you and your "adversaries" are bringing unto Wikipedia. JustGettingItRight (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You say you have no idea what this has to do with wikipedia? Have you tried reading the section title? The owner of the IP is Harassing and Stalking me off site, and promises to continue. He has said that being blocked here for a year is a minor setback.
JGIR, in my mind, you appear very rude, you assume bad faith of me, despite the fact that I have been here for a very long time. This IP, the master account, was in conflict with myself and others on an RFC on the user Collect. He has since begun stalking me and harassing me, and has made it blatantly clear that he does not plan to stop. Gwen, you say the comment has been removed. That is because I removed it myself, because I am not going to let crap like that stay on my videos. JGIR, you say I'm creepy? How so? I'm telling another youtube user my age as he thought I was a 12-year-old. There's nothing creepy about it.
To clairify again, there is no internet war, this IP started stalking me after I crossed him in the previously mentioned RFC on collect, and he as promised to not stop, but continue after his block is over, hence, because of this harassment and stalking, and off-wiki harassment and stalking, I'm requesting that you block his range indefinitely.— DædαlusContribs 21:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It took me about 20 seconds to find that video, from other info readable in the screenshot. Video can be very unflattering (this is one reason why photogenic folks who can act can easily make a living and sometimes make tonnes of money) so I'll skip the production values but Daedalus, I think you still have a way to go towards learning not to stir things up more than they already are. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, and I apologize to Daedalus as this sort of issue would be upsetting to anybody, but how does trolling on Youtube qualify as a Wikipedia problem? The comment has already been taken down, and furthermore I haven't seen diffs to suggest that it's this anon socker and not someone else(stricken as I realized there's some non-public off-wiki communication involved). Finally, that image needs to be deleted as it's a fairuse image not being used in any article- please use something like imageshack next time. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In case I haven't clairiyed above, I'm going to repeat myself here - The user has promised to continue harassing me on wikipedia, telling me in a message that I can provide a screen shot of, that a year block on his range is only a minor setback. He plans to continue harassing me, on, and off wikipedia. Last time I checked, off-wiki harassment and stalking is a big deal.— DædαlusContribs 21:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Given everything stated in this thread, I think it's high time we took this to AN for a ban discussion of this user. Daedelus, if he harasses you off-wiki or in RL, contact the RCN Corporation (as that's where the three IPs above locate to, according to the Whois, traceroute, and geolocation) and give them all the info they need to shut this guy down. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, as you suggested above, I have moved the ban discussion here.— DædαlusContribs 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
<outdent>Could someone please block the original poster? The username is one of our more prolific vandals spelled in Greek. // Chris(complaints)•(contribs) 14:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) I'm also concerned about the name, but not sure that blocking immediately is appropriate. I think a quick checkuser might be called for. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Use of that name should cause an immediate indefinite block. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser was performed before, leading up to the indef block of the sockmaster account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hilary T/Archive; Hilary uses open proxies. I'm just sticking to RBI. She'll stop once she finishes her temper tantrum and realizes she isn't bothering anyone. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparent SPA spouting voluminous amounts of quasi-racist diatribe and original research. Having already rendered a rather blunt opinion and reverted, I am for all intents and purposes a participant in what would undoubtedly be called a content dispute by the opposing party. I'm not sure whether to back away slowly, or just block. The talk page to Talk:Person_of_color#List_of_peoples_of_color proves that reasoning alone doesn't stand a chance. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Warned, watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm going to back away for fear of contributing to the inanity through exasperation. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked one of his socks and blocked him 31 hours for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Meatpuppet" is not a personal attack. See WP:MEAT for a better understanding of the term. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a topic ban from Fuel TV for Tomcat4680 based on ownership issues and this [133] comment, which shows evidence of a continuing vendetta. Acroterion(talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
TomCat also brought this up at AIV [134] and at the page protection page [135]. Just imagine the carnage if Pablo had contracted this and viciously called them "Muppets".Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You know, we don't actually have a WP:MUPPET shortcut yet. I think it might not be too badly applied as another shortcut to WP:MEAT, and I have to admit I like it for some silly reason. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, and here's TomCat asking members of the ARS to act on his behalf to get around some kind of topic ban [136]. Clearly a vicious, vicious personal attack. I recommend an orgy of blocks.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse topic ban. Also suggest that editor be advised how much of his conduct is itself in violation of policy and guidelines, particularly his forum shopping and soliciting for meatpuppets and his apparent inability to avoid shouting. Wouldn't rule out the possibility of a short block for such as well. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll endorse a topic ban as well and point out he said he wouldn't touch the Fuel Tv article after he got unblocked. So he was blocked for a short time (I think it was 48 hours or so, but that's just a guess) but after showing remorse and apologizing he got an early unblock. User:MrRadioGuyWhat's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 16:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The block earlier this month was for 24 hours. His only other block was in August 2008, again for 24 hours. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse a formalized topic ban.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Endorse, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think banning TomCat4680 from a single article is going to be helpful. The issue at Fuel TV is a very inconsequential one that is already working itself out. Seeing how editing disputes are resolved will probably be more helpful than excluding the editor from that process. Incidentally, I'm the editor referred to as a "disrupive deletionist". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that learning-to-collaborate-by-example is a good idea, I'm concerned with breaking Tomcat's single-minded focus on this topic. He was already under an informal topic ban, which extended only to the article, not to the talkpage. This led to a somewhat naive canvassing campaign to support the inclusion of every bit of information that could be found on the topic, as part of his black/white deletionist/inclusionist them vs. us focus. I view this as part of an editor salvage program, which may or may not work. Acroterion(talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the article and its associated shenanigans but, given the block below, I don't think it's appropriate to also issue a topic ban. "Editor salvage" would indeed be a better option. pablohablo. 22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron for obvious signs of TomCat seeking to drive 'keep" !votes to AfDs. I already advised him that that was not the stated purpose of that project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked TomCat4680 for 34 hours, that is the unexpired portion of the previous block plus 24 hours for the recent personal attacks. I have left TomCat a long message explaining my actions. I would note that I am both familiar with TomCat's communication difficulties and am prepared to help him more appropriately interact with the community but I would strongly suggest that he is dealt with as any other editor - I will explain, as far as I am able, to him why things are done as they are but ultimately he is either going to have to change his ways or he and the project have no long term future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment. FWIW I'm unsure if a page or topic ban would help as the problem may migrate to similar articles. To me this sniffs of a young(?) user mistaking this very friendly encyclopedia for other interactive websites. I suggest a mentor situation as they do seem to want to contribute but knee-jerk a bit when plodding through a policy page would have helped them more - and there are so many to choose from! We were all new once and the learning curve of wikiways can be a bumbpy ride. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed odd editing made by IP 216.186.44.10: [137], [138]. It looks like a vandalism. It is sufficient to block that IP (at least, temporarily)?----Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a school, and since they are on their 9th block, I've blocked it for a year. Rodhullandemu 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for raising the issue, Paul. In future, if the vandalism occurred after a final warning, you can get a quicker response by posting at the vandalism noticeboard. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, as they're over 7 blocks, they're eligible for WP:ABUSE, if you feel it necessary. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
No real need. Blocks reviewed on a yearly basis should be enough. –xenotalk 02:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Issued a level 3 warning for NPOV violations, which seems the most appropriate. If he does it again, issue a level 4, and then if again, take it to WP:AIV. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd expect it's a(n unhappy) student...
org-name: Crooked Oak Schools
street-address: 1901 SE 15th Street
city: Oklahoma City
state: OK
postal-code: 73129
I have indefinitely blocked User:RedRose333 for continued disruption. As noted in the parts above, (not really in part 1) while a good amount of the user's edit have been productive, a number of have been reverted with warnings being issued constantly going back months. Also, while not enough for a block, a lack of edit summaries for major edits like [139], [140], [141] just looking recently. Has been blocked for shorter periods months ago and the problems remain. I just want an acknowledgment of the concerns before they should be released. If others feel that's too much to ask (or might want to see if mentorship makes more sense or something), feel free to do it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As filling party of the first three acts in this drama I back the above actions. The editor is able to talk in fluent English as they showed in very recent edits ([142]). If they are not willing to talk, they shall be blocked. This went on far too long with far too many other editors affected. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I have grave doubts as for the motives behind filing this RfC and whether they truly seek a cooperative solution or rather to punish Collect. I guess my best summation for why I think this can be found here: [143]. To clarify further, the Drudge Report and Fascism were used as evidence w/o anyone from either page being contacted until after it was posted (check the times). (Note: I was told to bring this up here after first filing it at WP:WQASoxwon (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The section title Soxwon is refering to is aptly named, "I can't let it go". Soxwon disingeniously doesn't mention that I completely removed the comments he is complaining about here, taking his word for what he said, writing: "My sincerest apologies, i will take you at your word"[144]
Soxwon, you said it best when Phoenix of9 reported Collect to ANI, "Ok this suggests overkill and vendetta."[145]
RE: "I have grave doubts as for the motives behind filing this RfC" Soxwon has attempted to close this RfC from the very beginning.
This is a tried and true tactic on wikipedia of any disciplanary page: cause so much drama and such a big circus that people close the page down in disgust. With the most edits on the RfC (69) Soxwon may, by sheer number of edits trying to change the course of the RfC, and since that failed, here we are...Ikip (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Adressing your statements in order, if you'd asked anyone involved, gone to AN/I, talked to Collect, read about the situation on talk, or even read the edit being addressed all would have shown that your charges of Tagteam and Meatpuppet were baseless and it shows an incredible level of carelessness or apathy toward factchecking. The fact that you found it on Collect's talk searching for evidence against him (or worse me colluding) shows a lack of how an RfC works. The fact that so many users endorsed your view when it was shown to have so many fact issues shows apathy for the truth or poor checking and again neither is good. Finally, in the original posting the same thing was done again with DR and Fascism. I think that Collect probably should get an RfC but not one that seems driven by ppl bent on vengeance or at least not concerned with evidence.
As for the vendetta and accusations of disruptions, funny I brought a large number of editors to the table to begin with and really most of the actual content does not belong to me.
As for the numer, considering how many times I posted when posting names of involved parties contacted and the few mistakes I made, well it's no wonder. Soxwon (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, I apologize for that section again, I was wrong. I took you at your word, and removed the entire section, and apologized.
RE:
"shows an incredible level of carelessness or apathy toward factchecking."
"apathy for the truth or poor checking."
"driven by ppl bent on vengeance or at least not concerned with evidence"
As you have repeatedly reminded other editors: NPA, AGF. I would appreciate you removing those personal attacks at the least, and maybe apologizing. thanks! Ikip (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick check on number, 20 of those edits can be knocked off on just getting users to the table and one minor edit. Considering I had many more minor edits, your statement again rings false. Soxwon (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the admin action being requested here? -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that closing it would be harsh, but given the methods being used and other things going on, it might be good to start over. A lot of the evidence appears to be quotes snipped from random talk page discussions, articles, and talk pages. The problem is quite a bit had nothing to do with the people filing the evidence, and you have credibility issues when they makes assumptions like the one that led to an accusation of myself and Collect tag-teaming and/or one or the other being a meat puppet. Soxwon (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I also should probably bring up this attempt to close through consensus that was voted down handily, but also showed some to be focused on things other than helping Collect: [146] If there are any other issues (such as my behavior which I will admit was not sterling) plz let me know. Soxwon (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for clarification, are additional admins helping the discussion to be the only results of this? Soxwon (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon, this it the third time you have moved this discussion, after deleting this section 2 times. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Beg pardon? I originally undid this b/c I felt it was causing problems such as the nasty bit with the Anon, but after watching some of the edits, realized that he was just going back and forth. Soxwon (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
@Administrator:Gale. How does this sidebar assist the sitution? Collect once accussed me of putting oil on a fire (which was his skewed interpretation of my edit). Maybe less fuel from an admin would be something to consider?--Buster7 (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm against this RfC for Collect as it looks more like an arraignment and grand jury proceeding than an attmept to arbitrate a solution. Soxwon (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ya think? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't get to add that I wouldn't be opposed to an actual RfC with Collect to address some of the concerns being listed (I reread my edits and realized this impression might be left). Soxwon (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, I think all that's needed here is a chat with an admin who gives a luzz. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Consider: Collect has had hundreds of editing communications with many Administrators (Gwen Gale included).
We can assume that they all "gave a luzz. It hasn't helped.--Buster7 (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The RfC has arguably made things worse. Soxwon (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The Rfc has coalesced many individually upset editors into a "many-voiced" force....kinda like a concensus. BTW, it is an actual Rfc!--Buster7 (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, plz you've gathered all the editors whom he's had edit conflicts with. And you all have shown that you are completely ignorant of the purpose of an RfC with your attempts to marginalize Collect rather than trying to actually communicate with him. You all just started throwing stuff up there from day 1, then demanded all these different penalties that weren't possible as they were all involuntary. Soxwon (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Two final thoughts...1)I havent gathered anyone. Most came of their own volition due to the longterm and vexing editing of your friend.....2) Results are the Guru! Someone asked for comments. Editors commented.--Buster7 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
– dynamic IP no point to watching. Thanks for checking. --KP Botany (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm on vacation, actually getting ready to graduate. Could someone with less pressure and more time watch this IP for a day or so to see if they return? They edited a template which caused a little more damage than usual, and it would be nice to stop them from doing more if they continue, but I won't be around to monitor. Vandal only account, but may not be sufficient warning, yet, or may be. Anyone could do this, not just admin. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a dynamic British Telecom address – whoever was using it yesterday won't be the same person using it today. – iridescent 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the second reference of this topic to the administrators noticeboard. The first discussion was unsucessful, nothing was achieved and everyone lost interest and it was deleted. My actual concern is the persistent reverting of User:Laveol and User:TodorBozhinov only to present their personal/national POV's. This being the Bulgarian POV upon the Macedonian language; all of which is presented here.
The actual issue and repeated incidents have been happening across a range of articles where an identical name is listed just in the Bulgarian Cyrillic script; See here and here. Not only has this process occured on Wiki-wide POV Sprees, See contribs. for both of the users here and here. This process has done nothing but push a questionable agenda negating the existence of a seperate Macedonian language from the Bulgarian one (strangely enough this is the predominant Bulgarian POV). The term "Macedonian Slavic", was developed as a disambiguation term and also as a term to correctly highlight the usage of the term in the English speaking community and by the community itself.
The issue has been brought to administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has been a supporter of "Macedonian Slavic" as an appropriate term for the highlighting of place names in Northern Greece. The below proposal was agreed upon by a range of users, the only objections being from the above users:
for all place names in West Macedonia and Central Macedonia (except Serres prefecture) we use the term [[Macedonian Slavic]]
for all place names in East Macedonia and Serres prefecture we use a combination of [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]]/[[Bulgarian]]
for all place names in Thrace we use the term [[Bulgarian]]
for all people from Greek Macedonia whose (Slavic) ethnicity is disputed we use [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]]/[[Bulgarian]]
for all people from Greek Macedonia but who are ethnically Macedonian we use [[Macedonian Slavic]]
This arrangement not only complements the linguistic situation but also the common English language terminology. The most recent round of discussions occured here, where any attempts for attaining WP:CONSENSUS were derailed. This issue has also featured in the newest attempt for resolution on Macedonian related issues in WP:MOSMAC2; "Macedonian Slavic can also be used when rendering Slavic versions of Greek placenames.". This other issue is currently open for arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2.
What I look forward to is administrator involvement to help prevent the daily reverts and to prevent the current (and future) edit wars which are/will happen. Hopefully this will resolve the issue at hand. Although the situation is not yet applicable to be referred to this place, I can very easily see it getting there. I hope the administrator who approaches this case is object, feel free to contact the involved parties (namely; Myself, User:TodorBozhinov, User:Laveol, User:BalkanFever, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and some others). For reference, the affected articles include Arnissa, Naousa, Imathia, Kratero, Níki, Greece, Aetos, Florina, Milea (Pella), Greece, Zervi and a host of others. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for attempting to take action against me, I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the right place to resolve the dispute we're having, so I'd kindly ask you to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and file for mediation. Always remember that although you might firmly believe you are right in a given dispute, so does the other side. Above, you're making the mistake of presenting your own point of view as The Truth. Clearly, we have a dispute that requires assistance to be resolved, but asking administrators to take action against the other side in a dispute is not the right move in my opinion.
I'm only asking you to quit pretending that unacceptable draft manuals of style are actually in force, that you don't know what "consensus" means and that your "proposal" has been agreed on. Also, Fut.Perf.'s involvement as a side in this dispute renders his position as an administrator irrelevant to all this. Todor→Bozhinov 11:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I find User:PMK's comments rather bizarre. The agreement that he's talking about has never taken place. He proposed this and not a single user said: "Ok, that's what we're gonna do". There was some talk about "bananas" and a "battle", but nothing more. And when you say there were no objections, you somehow miss the fact that only four users were in the discussion. I also find it strange when the main edit-warrior files a case and it is an ANI! My impression is that he's doing his uttermost to avoid any discussion on the subject. Further, I think [[Future Perfect at Sunrise would not be against our action, meaning he never raised any concern about this particular issue and didn't revert the addition of the Bulgarian names of the places. Mind you, my edits had nothing to do with the removal of info - I simply added the Bulgarian names and didn't remove any. I, also, have never said/wrote or by any other mean expressed the view that there was no distinct Macedonian language. Quite the opposite: I actually add the Bulgarian name so that we get Macedonian/Bulgarian which clearly implies there is an actual difference. Really, really strange ANI. --LaveolT 12:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Advise all parties to table it, and spend a couple weeks not editing any articles even remotely related to Macedon(ian(s)), Greeks, Slavs, Turks, or Alexander pending the outcome of The Macedonia arbcom case. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Todor, this issue clearly needs the intervention of an uninvolved administrator to sort this mess out. A decision was reached a while back, that was before you went balistic, declaring the "de facto" consensus void, because apparently you were not specifically invited. You made your intention to file for mediation clear, but you did not follow up with your apparent intentions.
Laveol, there has been extensive discussion about the topic which was effectively bombarded and declared void by a fellow wikipedian. I am sure that the frequent reverting and "offensive" (your guys comments) edit summaries were not a sign of anything.
Hopefully another administrator will help solve this, but as Hiberniantears suggests it is possible for this issue to go on the back burner until the outcome of ARBMAC2. In the event should this clause ("Macedonian Slavic can also be used when rendering Slavic versions of Greek placenames."), be accepted by the comitee, then this dispute will effectively be over. PMK1 (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Either you show diffs of the alleged "offensive comments" or remove the text. You've been throwing arguments a wild for more than a week now, but if you're gonna get personal, give prooves for your allegations. --LaveolT 13:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The committee will certainly not go into deciding these kinds of content questions, they never do that. I think the best idea would be if you took up Todor's suggestion and go to formal mediation. Wasn't he going to initiate that anyway? That can go in parallel with the Arbcom case, because it's really a different issue. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Bullet remarks (I do not intend to further implicate myself in this case):
Your proposal is just a proposal; no consensus is reached. For instance, I believe that "local Slavic" is the best solution.
"MOSMAC2" is a user's essay. Not an ongoing attempt to resolve the "Macedonia issue", accepted by the involved parties. As far as I am concerned, I do not intend to legitimize it as such.
I also do not think that ARBCOM will get into such detail. This does not mean of course that it cannot expand its scope of competence in order to examine the issue, especially if one of the involved parties raises it.
I don't see how bringing the issue here in ANI could provide any results.
Think all of you seriously Hiberniantears's advice.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A fellow editor, JBsupreme, continually leaves completely inappropriate and rude edit summaries. For example, edit summaries from March 2009: [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]. I proceeded to leave a reminder to the user to avoid using such edit summaries as they are disruptive. He then went on to remove my comment. His edit summaries have continued to be uncivil, as shown in recent edits: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157]. Despite another warning from another editor, JBsupreme continues to leave rude and offensive edit summaries and shows no sign of stopping. When multiple warnings are ignored, I say enough is enough. — Σxplicit 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'll second this, JBsupreme's edit summaries are over the line and uncivil. Scrolling through their contribs is enough to show this. But what action are you looking for? - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd support a block here. That sort of language is completely inappropriate, and he's been around for long enough that he should know that. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
To me this looks like a good faith contributor who occasionally uses profanity in edit summaries, as a way of expressing frustration at ongoing vandalism and BLP violations. No one seems to be getting attacked as far as I can see. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure a block is appropriate here only because he's no longer attacking people personally in edit summaries (possible exception). Proposed alternative: I warn him that if they continue as is, I will personally block him until he agrees to improve them on his own. The other messages he's been getting on his talk page are about not having edit summaries, but I'd say that is preferable to this.--chaser - t 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The target of this might disagree with you. He's been repeatedly warned, enough is enough. Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about actions from March, but:
05:08, 21 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Joe Rogan (Undid revision 285198236 by 96.52.64.22 (talk) PLEASE SEMI-PROTECT THIS FUCKING ARTICLE ALREADY FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Well, that's just "fucking" wrong. Article text can change - edit summaries are forever. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
How are they any more forever than article text? Both just sit around in the history. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
And both can be deleted or even oversighted if there's a real need to do so. Honestly, the profanity isn't the problem, it's incivility in edit summaries, which could become a problem for the project overall if they garner negative remark in outside media. I don't think sanctions are the answer, however. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI: [158]. I consider this closed.--chaser - t 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
JBsupreme... Some of his/her contributions are useful, some are not. The user often leaves no edit summary at all or an offensive one. Here's another one of those. Here's a death threat. And here's a death wish. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated. Karppinen (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I moved this thread down to get it more eyes before it disappears into archives. Behind the cut is a general issue about inappropriate edit summaries which we discussed. It culminated in this message to the editor. Since then Karppinen found three more edit summaries, including "death to all spammers", which he called a death threat. Our policy is, rightly, to treat all death threats seriously and they often earn indefinite blocks. I think "death to all spammers" is too vague and general to be considered an actual death threat, but I bring this thread to the bottom of the page for more attention.--chaser - t 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
JBsupreme did not reply to the message you left him on his user talk at 05:03 on 22 April. But in his first edit summary after getting your note it sounds like he could be taking the warning to heart. There have been no more four-letter words or possible threats in his edit summaries since that moment. I think your concern is justified, but I'd wait a day or two before considering a more explicit warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent[edit]
RPP filed and I've reverted as vandalism. He isn't "removing personal info" he's completely refactoring other people's comments (like removing people saying "I think its a hoax too"). Nothing in there is "personal" info, an eBay link and ID is not "private" as he claimed in one of his edits (easily Googled, which is how it was found in the first place), nor are people's actions on Wiki private or personal. And admin may want to consider deleting his just created Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Both above admin requests were done by two different admins. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means. I'm not an admin, and neither is Collectonian. If you aren't talking about us, who are you talking about?—Kww(talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
By "admin requests" I meant "requests for someone to perform an admin action". Cirt (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant two different admins took care of protecting the page and deleting the talk page the IP created. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted the talk page and salted it in order to fully fulfil the RFPP request on it. -Jeremy(v^_^vCardmaker) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries here. :P Cirt (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked the IP for 3 hours. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The rest of the problem should be worked out on talk pages as needed. If the new accounts are indeed different people, they can use the talk page like everyone else. Is there any other admin action you think is needed here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
--NE2 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Done In the future please take obvious Vandalism only accounts to AIV. Protonk (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved
