Nearly 100 reverts over the course of an hour at Psychosurgeons - over the presence of a comma. If this isn't a candidate for WP:LAME, I don't know what is. I've blocked both these intrepid grammar warriors for 24h each. I see that Gold Scratch has made an unblock request. Anyone like to deal? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Unblock declined and editor directed to read WP:3RR until they understand it. Mfield (Oi!) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps they're unsure whether 48 is greater than 3? Black Kite 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Would it be just *too* devilish to replace the contested comma with a semicolon? ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
After looking at the article I did wonder whether the band are actually notable at all ... Black Kite 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh good grief! Mfield beat me to declining. It's clear that the requesting editor's thinking is "My opponent has been blocked, therefore I've no reason to edit war back, so you can unblock me.". It seems all too likely, given that, that the edit war will start right back up again when both editors blocks expire, so some attention may be needed 24 hours from now.
Ironically, the editor who so far hasn't made an unblock request is the editor who at least tried to initiate talk page discussion (edit, edit). Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I noticed that and am fully expecting this not to be the end of the matter. I also think this article probably wouldn't survive an AfD, there's not much to indicate that they meet WP:BAND. Mfield (Oi!) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, GS seems to have made the first discussion post at 22:18[1], and was the first to try to discuss things through the edit summaries, but no matter. Celestra (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Silly question: Is this the same preson (doing this as a joke on WP)? The AlexBeales account was created today, and specifically for that purpose, and it doesn't look like there was an IP doing anything before to suggest Alex regged an account to do that. The only reason I think this is the one oddity in the pattern here around 22:36 - 22:39 when Gold Scratch undoes his own (where Alex would have done it) and then undoes that but two minutes later. I can understand undoing something and then realizing shortly afterwards it was already fixed and undoing that fix, but something is really fishy there. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, it looks like they're editing from the same connection; could still be distinct people, but it's likely they know each other at the very least. Whether it's two people or one, that paints this whole affair in a rather unsavory light. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Accounts created within 3 minutes of each other from the same connection, and straight into that edit-war. I'd be tempted to indef both of them for taking the piss. Black Kite 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well if the accounts resume right where they left off at block expiry, I for one would support going straight to an indefinite block, based upon the above. (I was going to make a different suggestion, along the lines of what Kurt Shaped Box said above, which was quite a good idea. But that suggestion was based upon the premise that the accounts were acting in good faith, which these checkuser reports indicate to be less likely.) Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Both editors were aware of the 3RR as they had both warned each other about 2/3 of the way through the war. User:Gold Scratch even claimed on my talk page "All he has done it(sic) argue and swear at me." Martin451 (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In light of the the more recent information I have indef reblocked them both for abusing multiple account/meat puppetry. A very good explanation will need to accompany any unblock requests. Mfield (Oi!) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, comma's, need, love, too, y'know. HalfShadow 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And maybe so do unnecessary apostrophes :-p Mfield (Oi!) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
An apostrophe is just a comma with a view. HalfShadow 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Avoid: "excessive" punctuation; because, it makes (many) sentences, hard to "understand"!!! Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
all of you keep using capital letters too and i find that very annoying georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:48, 25 august 2009 (utc)
CAPITAL LETTERS ARE A PART OF HEALTHY CONVERSATION WHEN YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EMPHASIS TO A RILLY RILLY IMPORTANT THING YOU ARE SAYING~!~!SirFozzie (talk)ONE!!1! SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A thoughtful writer knows there are better ways to provide emphasis than using all caps.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
OMG OMG OMG. the blink tag. Why is it allowed... *wanders off to give self edit filter rights in order to set the world straight* Protonk (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is why I'm glad Opera and IE8 seem to ignore the blink tag entirely :-P. Next up, that classic of 1998, the scroll tag (on second thought...no!). Nate•(chatter) 06:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oi! I resemble that remark... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I needed a good laugh. Thanks to the original knucklehead (or heads depends on what was actually happening here) and all of the comedians who followed up. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
that user has made more than a dozen of these moves in the past few days. Protonk (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed they have, anyone up for a discussion with them on disambiguation protocols? I've gone through the move log and these all should be fixed. They also are mistaking, understandably so, that disambiguations need to be modified more than we need; if there are two Jane Foo's we only need to differentiate between them, not all Jane Foo's. And people shouldn't be disambiguated to genres and media vs, a job descriptor. These all should be removed to more MOS-compliant titles. -- Banjeboi 11:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There are more. I would really prefer that the user come here and discuss this rather than having me just revert all of them. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I looked through all of their moves and the above list, to date, are the only ones I think need to be fixed. -- Banjeboi 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a long standing editor, first edits in 2005, who appears mainly to concentrate in gnoming around BLP's, initially music artists. They should be fairly knowledgeable in what is MoS compliant. Has anyone asked them for their reasoning? From a review of their edit history and summaries I don't believe they are doing this in any POINTy manner. The good thing is, that should there be a decision to rename the articles it will likely to be a new one and not require moving over redirects and stuff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think they genuinely are misguided a bit on disambiguating in some cases as the majority are fine. I likely should have looked if there was a pointy pattern but had honestly only seen the one so was looking to get that one fixed, I hadn't realized that there was a slightly bigger batch. I'll message them now if no one else has. -- Banjeboi 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've left a note for the editor and moved the articles I could as noted above, Could someone mop the rest? -- Banjeboi 21:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
An user called UweBayern launched arrogant anti-Polish attack here: [2]
IMO arguing that Polish sources can't be used while German can is arrogant beyond belief. Not happy with that he even went on comparing dissagreements (sourced) on the numbers of the Germans expelled after WW2 with the hollocaust denial which is completely shocking and sickening. Similarly he also compares the respected historian Ingo Haar with people "who argue that only one million Jews died during the war". [3]. Loosmark (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. Have a word with him about trying to avoid calling people names, regardless of how, and call it a day. This hardly needs our attention. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It is ill advised to compare anything to the Holocaust. That way does not lie productive debate. But please settle it on article talk pages, not here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Steps to solving this problem. Step 1) Discuss with user. Step 2) WP:WQA. Step 3) WP:RFC. Step 4) Maybe come back here if behavior persists. Please try other things before making this your first attempt to solve a problem. --Jayron32 16:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say that UweBayern's comments were not uncivil, but still ill advised. I've advised him informally on his talk page, but gotten an indifferent reception. I don't think there's anything admins can do at present. Suggest we mark this resolved and move on to the next one.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've to disagree, yesterday he left this cynical and provocative message on my talk page because he didn't agree with an edit of mine or sth [4] and today he continued with his incivility with edit describtion like this one, [5] and now i noticed he wrote this about me on his talk page [6]. On top of that he continues to claim on the talk page that the German sources are ok but Polish are useless [7] how are Polish editors supposed to work in such atmosphere? Things as request for comment are useless in this situation and if the admins don't care to intervene even in clear cut cases like this one then what for do we have admins anyway. Loosmark (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware that this is a topic where emotions run high. Plainly you need to work with him to find a compromise. AN/I is one of the last resorts, not the first. Obviously what he said is impolite. But that doesn't mean admins roll in there guns blazing. We expect people to try to work things out themselves. If that fails, then there are things that can be done. Not necessarily here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Plainly you need to work with him to find a compromise. Ugh, compromise on what exactly? Compromise on that he becomes a little less incivile? Compromise on his stance that German sources are "quite neutral and scholarly", while Polish sources "are completely useless to anyone except the Poles" and "are generelly known for their strong Polish nationalist bias/intellectual dishonesty"? Thanks for the idea but no, Polish sources are just good as the German ones and if you think i'll try to beg sb to "compromise" on such a self-evident fact you are wrong. Loosmark (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps compromise on how the sources are used, that kind of thing. I haven't read the article, but I did read a book a year or so ago on what happened to Germany and Germans after the fall of the Reich. From what I recall, there are great differences on the number killed, whether there were atrocities, that kinda thing, between German and Polish/Czech/Russian/Baltic (i.e. the countries that expelled Germans) sources. Possibly both sets of stats can be used. Don't give up before you try.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't get your point, we are having these discussions on sources and methods on the talk page there for a long time. However, the problem with this new guy is he is pushing things on an all new level: it's not that he questions the validity of a single Polish source (which might be wrong but it is something that can be discussed). The problem is that he's trumpeting around that all Polish sources are useless (he even claimed somewhere that Polish sources are no sources) while German ones are good, objective etc, etc. Obviously that is very offensive and can only needlessly heat up the debate. Loosmark (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does, and I have blocked ASE for 24 hours. Regrettable, but a fairly blatant violation. I note that this was only 19 days after the restriction was imposed, which doesn't bode well. Black Kite 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It might have been a "hmm...maybe nobody's watchin'" test. Test was either successful or unsuccessful, depending on your POV. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a success for those who support the outspoken bigot Matt Sanchez aka Bluemarine. Just what they were hoping for. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As a big old homo, I despise everything that Matt Sanchez stands for and says. However, the fact that he is a vocal homophobe does not excuse the disruption ASE was engaging in. I would have to echo Bwilkins' thoughts that this was boundary-pushing; ASE has an unbroken pattern of that sort of thing, and indeed had stated he simply would not follow the editing restriction. → ROUX₪ 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Matt Sanchez wouldn't be editing anywhere on wikipedia (let alone editing in a way which is undoubtedly pushing the boundaries on his community sanction) if he wasn't being protected by some people who should know better - there are plenty of banned editors who have engaged in far less obnoxious behaviour than he has. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. However, that's a bit of a straw-man for ASE's behaviour. Another wording of his restriction, in my kind of terms, is "stay the fuck off anything relating to any of this shit". ASE was testing the waters here and/or thought no one would notice. How hard would it have been for him not to make that comment? Did it help anything? Tan | 39 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It didn't make anything worse. ASE is by no means perfect, but he's like the driven snow compared to some of his more outspoken critics. To block for that comment was at best silly, and to my mind does nothing to produce a better editing environment. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You are clearly unfamiliar with ASE's history. And there is no way in fucking hell that I would defend Sanchez or his bile; I am defending the need for Wikipedia to be free of disruption. Sanchez will be dealt with; the simple fact is he was (recently, at least) following the rules and ASE was not, and ASE's behaviour was part of a long pattern of him doing whatever the hell he wanted while claiming dewy-eyed innocence. → ROUX₪ 18:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't make the mistake of assuming that I was referring to you as a defender of Sanchez or as one of ASE's more outspoken critics. Silly blocks do nothing to reduce drama, they do nothing to improve the editing environment. Admins behaving in a ridiculous manner does nothing to reduce drama, or to improve the behaviour of others. The sanction on ASE was ill-conceived (that is the AGF version of what I think about it) and ill-executed, and phrased in such a way as to make it a stick to beat him with, rather than a tool to encourage improvements, which is what it should have been. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's clear that you don't see ASE's comment as violating his restriction. Looking at his talk page and here, I'd say you are in the minority. Chalk it up to admins behaving in ridiculous manners, if that makes you feel better. Tan | 39 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I may be in the minority, but I am also in the right. I've been in the minority before, and vindicated eventually. DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there going to be some court ruling on this comment? I'm curious as to what will "vindicate" you here. Tan | 39 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the motivations of certain of those who sought the topic-ban on ASE will become clear in time, as will those of the one who started this thread, and I think that the topic-ban itself will be recognized as ill-conceived and ill-formed. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I started the thread - what do you believe my motivations are? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that my block has expired, and since I didn't get an opportunity to say shit in this thread before being blocked... I didn't comment on or to Bluemarine nor did I even comment on the article about him. I commented on POV editing differences and that was to an entirely different user. This had nothing to do with someone's delusional and paranoid opinion that this was "testing the water hoping no one was looking". It doesn't matter whether or not Bluemarine started the thread. I wasn't commenting on him or to him, only on editing POV differences and to another user. What if Bluemarine starts a thread on ANI about anything? Am I supposed to never post to ANI again? What a farce.
After more thought on the matter, it's even more absurd as my topic ban prevents me from commenting on or to Bluemarine, the user. It says nothing about commenting on or to the article about him or article content about him as a public figure - unlike his own topic ban from the article about him. Which leads to another issue, and only proves I was right before during the lynch mob circus to implement a topic ban against me. In that circus, everyone kept saying I didn't need to report him that someone else would do it. Well, his topic ban specifically says to stay away from the article pages about him. Yet, I got blocked for NOT commenting on or to him, but he has yet to be blocked for his recent edits to the Matt Sanchez article talk page, in violation of his own topic ban.
The wiki-stalking and hounding by Delicious Carbuncle, and this tattle-tell thread is just another example, has become creepy. I've asked him to stop posting on my talk page. He did it anyway. I've asked again. And I'm saying it here now in a much more public forum.. Delicious Carbuncle.. do not ever in your Wikipedia existence post to my talk page again. - allstar▼echo 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It is inordinately depressing that you were incapable of saying anything here without personal attacks. Maximus shittus? Really? Get over it. → ROUX₪ 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Calling something, not someone, maximus shittus is a personal attack these days? You get over it. - allstar▼echo 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh huh. You frequently assume we're all very stupid and we should believe your increasingly disingenuous explanations. I suggest you stop; it's tiresome. → ROUX₪ 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If it's tiresome to you, stop butting in the conversations. Simple. - allstar▼echo 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Calling me paranoid and delusional also isn't a personal attack. At least, I don't take it as such; I couldn't give a fuck less what ASE thinks of me. Tan | 39 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And vice-versa of course, as far as what you or anyone else thinks of me. You weren't the only person to offer up the opinion so I wasn't attacking anyone, only the opinion. - allstar▼echo 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, common ground. Tan | 39 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion is yielding more heat than light. No consensus to ban anyone. Recommend (per others in this thread) that participants in Talk:Persian Empire voluntarily restrain from editing it for the next 48 hours to let the situation die down. NW(Talk) 23:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
Ottava Rima has now severaltimes threatened to call my university to complain to my department about me. I'm pretty game for any kind of actual argument about content, but this seems really over the line to me. It's probably stupid that I use my real name on wikipedia, anyway, but this is quite upsetting. john k (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a round-about way at an attempted outing. Bad idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Just ignore him. Asking for reprieve here is fruitless. someone will block him, another admin will unblock. People will whine about how we aren't treating the "real" editors with enough deference and how we don't understand OR's subtle blend of sarcasm and wit. It's not worth the damn trouble. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I said I would complain about them not educating people properly. You do know that misquoting people is a breach of civility, yes? But you have breached civility quite a bit lately: "I would have just called their history department and demand what the hell they are teaching their kids. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)" (the actual quote, which is what you do, instead of making things up) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above comment, perhaps Ottava does need some reeducation. Prodegotalk 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My take on it would be that the first one is a bit over the top and uncivil but basically translates to be as casting doubt on your knowledge on the subject (and Ottava quickly redacted it on request), whilst the second one has a smiley at the end and is clearly meant as a joke. I also notfied Ottava of this thread, since you didn't. Black Kite 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I beat the request by 17 hours. Lar probably saw it when it was posted at Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, indeed. Refactored accordingly. Black Kite 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Lar didn't handle it, he made a single comment, and any substantial review should include the Persian Empire talkpage. The running battle there has completely dissolved into petty nastiness, and it might do the article and the discussion quite a bit of good to topic ban the top two or three combatants until they can internalize WP:BATTLE. Nathan T 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Nathan is right - I immediately removed the comment, as it was only a jab at someone displaying that they have academic credentials and involving themselves in many history related disputes while having a user talk page filled with complains by people who have spent a lot of time in the fielding about strange views of history. I don't take kindly when I see what appears to be someone boasting a degree in order to verify a strange perception of reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, that talkpage is a mess and the responsibility falls on a number of experienced editors who should know better - but your hands aren't clean, even leaving aside the comment you redacted. For a group of obviously educated and articulate people, it should be 100% possible for all of you to hold a discussion (even an argument) without constantly disparaging each other. If you can't agree, escalating the warfare is not the solution; find a mediator, step back from the dispute, propose a short recess (taking advantage of the protected status of the article), etc. "You're an idiot!" "No, you're an idiot!" is childlike behavior and all of you are intelligent adults. Nathan T 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
People know that the one thing that sets me off is academic dishonesty. And anyone trying to rationalize the blanking of 60k worth of content that is mostly cited will upset me, especially when they are pushing a fringe POV, edit warring, and are unwilling to even bother to listen to consensus, references, or even be logically consistent. I don't take kindly to people that appear to be actively trying to destroy the encyclopedia. I slave at this encyclopedia because I believe that it can have a great reputation and be a great source of information. People like that are the ones dragging it down and giving us a bad name. What kind of ridiculous laughing stock would we be when our Persian Empire page, a high and top priority page, is reduced to a 1k tiny mention that ignores 1200 years worth of important history dealing with the subject? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Explaining who I am on my talk page is not boasting. I have never boasted about a degree. And you're continuing to make personal attacks on me here, and to make unfounded claims about me. Okay, I accept that the second statement has a smiley, but the basic issue - that Ottava is going around saying that I'm lying about my credentials and threatening to expose me - is real. And Ottava's removal of the original comment was made because "I don't expect he'd answer anyway," or some such, not out of any recognition that it was out of line. john k (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My exposing of you was already done by pointing out a contradiction in your knowledge that is not only found on that page, but lodged against you by many people on your talk page. You either don't have the background you claim or you have a POV and opinion that is fringe. Or, perhaps you just got stuck on a side and couldn't back down. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
So you follow up declarations that you did nothing wrong with a continuation of the same attacks? How does this help your case, OR? ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I support a full ban from Wikipedia against Ottava Rima. I don't see why we bother to keep him her it around when intentional and serious off-site harassment threats are being made. ThuranX (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary, and proposing Wikipedia bans in these circumstances (where it is sure to fail to achieve to consensus) is just inflammatory. Nathan T 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I quite often think Ottava is wrong on a large number of things, but here there's no substance to this complaint. One slightly uncivil remark (that was stricken), and one clearly meant in jest (even including a little smiley). That doesn't count as harassment or threats or anything of the sort. I suggest just moving on and tagging this resolved. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I support ThuranX's full ban idea. Enough is enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Lets see, Neutral Homer - I have had two FAs passed this month (The Lucy poems and To Autumn), and a third about to pass, along with over 10 GAs in the past 30 days, and most of the DYK records. What have you done except to inflame drama at ANI? How about a counter proposal, you and ThuranX banned. I am sure that many more people would want that. I have contributed more to this encyclopedia in the past thirty days than your whole career here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we keep the bragging to a minimum, please? --clpo13(talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If I was to brag, I would surely do more than show only about 5% of my major contributions to this project. I am merely pointing out the logical absurdity. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Was I supposed to be impressed? Oh sorry. Wow, what incredible work, how ever will I compete with you. I must go retire now in shame. </sarcasm> Grow up, this ain't third grade. You did wrong, you have done wrong in the past, time for you to go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia first and foremost. I prove every day that I am here to contribute. you only prove that you know how to fuel drama. The more you respond like that, the more justification you put forward for your banning. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're really not in third grade, then I suggest that you start behaving like you're not in third grade. --MalleusFatuorum 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I may not understand why we keep you around Thuranx, but I certainly don't understand what your or my personal prejudices have to do with anything being discussed here. --MalleusFatuorum 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(ECx7)I have no idea what this comment is about, I made no mention of anything but OR's threat to harass him offsite, which is against our policies, and frankly, the law in most civilized parts of the world. I see nothing improper about suggesting that such an editor be shown the door, forcefully and with finality. ThuranX (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You are being dishonest. What you said was "I support a full ban from Wikipedia against Ottava Rima", a ban that nobody had proposed. --MalleusFatuorum 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? It's understood that I'm proposing it as well. No, you've clearly got some other issue with me. No clue what it is, but I don't think it's worth caring about, either. ThuranX (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ottava can be sarcastic and rude sometimes, but there really isn't a reason to ban him. So why would that even be an option? Prodegotalk 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Prodego. Ottava is one of our most prolific content creators. A ban would hurt the project more than it would hurt Ottava. →javértbreakaway 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
OR and I aren't buddies... but I don't see the basis here to block or ban or even sanction OR... I find OR's first comment a little overboard, but self redacted, so I'm willing to ignore it. The second one was possibly in poor taste, but in reality just a bad attempt at humor. Personally, I think a quick, "think before you write" message has already been sent and received by OR and that this could be closed.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict times 6 - holy crap) Ban Ottava!? Sure, he can be a pain in the ass, and he'll own up to that. But you propose we ban on of Wikipedia's (IMO) best article writers? That's just sad... iMatthewtalk• take my poll at 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If he had done something ban-worthy, it would be a reasonable proposal. But, since the only offending comment was immediately withdrawn, there isn't even anything to take action against. That just makes this all the more ridiculous, and I think we can all see that there's absolutely no reason to ban. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 22:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have to comment now... yes, I think the call for banning was premature. But I think this notion that we can't ban OR because he's one of the top content editors is bunk. I can think of half a dozen editors who basically get away with murder because they are among our best editors. The real priviledged class aren't the admins, but rather a handful of editors that we don't want to lose. Yes, I am guilty of defending them myself... but it's a shame when we start citing their content contributions as reasons to ignore other issues. Do I think OR should be banned or sanctioned for this? No, but that has ZERO to do with his being in that elite group of editors, it has to do with the merits of this incident. Basically what a few of you are saying is that OR can do whatever the hell he wants and because he's one of the elite editors, will never have to worry about anything. This is a faulty message. If the actions require sanctions, then they would require action regardless of who it is.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 22:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I see anyone saying; perhaps that your own prejudice showing through. There was no call for a ban until Thuranxs decided to raise the stakes, and no real offence by Ottava that would warrant anything other than a mild slap on the wrist. In contrast to your view I think that prolific content editors are hounded out of the project by crap like this, by no means allowed to "get away with murder". It's editors like Thuranxs and far too many others who get away with murder. --MalleusFatuorum 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If prolific editors are hounded out of the project, it's because they act as if they are immune to sanctions and then leave in a huff because they find out they aren't. I've seen it firsthand and it's pretty ugly. --clpo13(talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Just take a look at Ottava's block log to see whether your assertion of immunity to sanctions holds any water at all. Or even mine. Frankly I'd prefer it if people here were more honest and simply told the truth. "I hate Ottava and I want to see hime banned." The rest is just bullshit. --MalleusFatuorum 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Ottava's block log for the past year is immaculate. His last block was in July 08. You're block log... we won't go there ;-) But the point remains, I have no problem defending actions or saying that the actions do or do not deserve to be blocked, based upon the actions and whether or not said actions have a pattern. What I do have a problem with are statements such as, you propose we ban on of Wikipedia's (IMO) best article writers? That's just sad... or Ottava is one of our most prolific content creators. A ban would hurt the project more than it would hurt Ottava. Those are not valid reasons (just as "X is one of best admins.") If the person demonstrates a history of abuse or problematic behavior, I don't care who they are. I don't think a block/ban is necessary here based upon the merits of what I've seen in this case. If I were to go based upon personal feelings, then yes, I wouldn't mind seeing Ottava blocked/banned. He's made his opinion of me clear enough. I think his attitude and the way he likes to bait others is deplorable. But based on the initial evidence presented, I do not see it.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 02:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with any sort of a ban for reasons outlined by Balloonman. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a storm in a teacup (especially as the issue seems to involve Classical history, and john k's page says he's specialised in the mid-19th century, so credentials seems slightly a red herring). Ottava Rima does however seem to be at the centre of things at Talk:Persian Empire. Perhaps an uninvolved admin could volunteer to look at that situation and try and help things along. At any rate, there seems no justification for anything beyond an admonition (caveat as always: on the available evidence). Rd232talk 22:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I repeat, not worth the damn trouble. Please close this thread down, someone. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that Ottava is not going to be banned for this. It is also clear that if someone just boldly archives this, there will be more drama. Therefore, I propose we gain consensus and mark this resolved/archived. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I object to that. Within this very thread, he's renewed the same attack that brought him here. How is it at all sensible to let him take MORE shots at the othe editor, then protect him from the consequences? ThuranX (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
So he gets to continue to make personal attacks on me here, and then you collapse the whole thing so I can't even complain about it? At this point, not only Ottava, but various other people are more or less accusing me of lying about my identity. Apparently, because Ottava Rima writes good articles, he can cast doubt about me with impunity, and his friends can agree with him. Let me note that this is a situation where I never claimed any authority whatever based on credentials - it was Ottava Rima who brought them in, in order to attack me and cast doubt on them. The statement which convinced him that I am a liar or a crank is, apparently, that I said in a minor point of clarification to someone else who said that the Roman Empire split in 476, that in fact the Western Roman Empire ended in 476, and the two haves had split before that. Does anybody but Ottava Rima think that such a commonplace and unremarkable statement indicates that I must be either a liar about being a history graduate student or a crank? I will admit that the discussion had gotten heated and uncivil well before that point, and that I played as much of a role in that as anybody. But it's quite another thing to start attacking somebody and calling them a liar, even if we ignore the threatening to call my department thing. And he continues to make the same attacks, over and over again, on the page here. I've been on Wikipedia for six years. I'm sure I've gotten into more than my share of unfortunate and probably unnecessary arguments - I like arguing and I sometimes get a bit hot in such disputes. But I've never had anyone question my basic integrity in the way that Ottava Rima has been doing, and continues to do. The fact that almost nobody seems to care is particularly upsetting. john k (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The same thing happened with another user. That person could do no wrong because they wrote good articles and did good work...well, according to his enablers. Finally, after many trips to AN and ANI, he was put on major restrictions. Just let it go, let things take their course. Sometimes it is slow, not as fast as we would like, but things will work themselves out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care at the moment whether Ottava Rima is restricted or not - it seems to me he probably should be, but that's really only a secondary concern. What I would like is some acknowledgement that it is not okay to repeatedly attack me, and some sort of vindication that his attacks are unjust. Almost nobody above even seems to see any problems with any of Ottava's behavior besides the one "minor insult" that he "quickly removed." But, to quote Marlo Stanfield, my name is my name. Ottava Rima is making false accusations about me. Other people seem to agree with him, or else not to care whether he makes false accusations, because he writes such wonderful articles. If he can get away with it, then that validates the attack. I am not someone who frequently gets into being a drama queen on ANI - I'm not sure if I've ever posted here before, and I certainly haven't done so in years. And I don't mind if someone virulently disagrees with me, or thinks I'm an idiot. I do care that someone is accusing me of being a liar, and not only that, of having perpetrated a lie for the past six years in order to mislead people here. I really would just like to clear my name from this baseless accusation. john k (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That kind of situation is a clear indication that a hard look should be taken at the user, and the enablers. Anyone who continually excuses a user in my opinion is nearly as guilty in terms of committing the violations that they commit.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hippo43 reverting good edit on British Isles in contravention of warning on page not to do so.[edit]
Resolved
– Nothing to see here. Black Kite 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
User Hippo43 reverted a good edit on the British Isles page, where an academic source was used to rephrase existing text and to provide University level support for the text. He uses a false and untruthful edit summary to claim that there is consensus to do so. See these two diffs. [8] and then [9] The article edit page states "Note
Due to a long history of edit warring, this article is temporarily under an editing restriction. Do not revert or undo another editor's revert. If you do so, you may be blocked from editing. Instead, follow the bold-revert-discuss process and discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Once a consensus has been reached on the issue, normal editing may resume. Thank you." I believe Hippo43's edit is clearly contravening this note. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please close this. The edit restriction is specifically to do with reverting a revert, not reverting an edit. Hippo43 did not revert a revert. Also, it's normal practice to place a notice on Hippo's Talk page for things like t
his. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'd understood it the other way. My bad. Closed. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A week ago, Fractyl came to me and said that there were issues on Crisis Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with Cyster(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) because the two disagreed on translation or whatnot. This resulted in me coming in, removing everything but a barebones list of characters based on the ja.wiki page, and putting in neutral and as close as possible translations. I then advised him not to edit war with Fractyl (and vice versa) [10]. He seemed to be ignoring me entirely as he made the changes that I politely requested he not make. After making these two edits [11][12], I left him this message. After seeing this edit I left him this message. Cyster seems to be ignoring me or simply does not acknowledge that the talk spaces exist. As far as I can tell, he is not aware any pages exist outside of the article space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem of course is that blocking xem will also prevent xem from using the article's talk page. This sort of situation does make one think that a form of MediaWiki editing restriction where an account was prevented from editing anything other than talk pages might be a useful tool.
Clearly, this is simple ownership, and repeated reversion to the editor's preferred version. Note that xe has been using edit summaries for communication, but has clearly reached the stage where xe is now just reverting without attempting to discuss even using the edit summaries. In the absence of a tool such as the aforementioned, protection of the article on the Wrong Version might force the editor into using the talk page. That would prevent Fractyl and you from editing the article, too, though. Do you really want that? Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Protecting the article will probably not solve anything other than preventing Fractyl from improving the page on his own without Cyster's repeated reversions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
David Tombe (talk·contribs) has been waging a vehement campaign at Talk:Speed of light and WT:PHYS to claim that the fact that the metre is defined in terms of a fixed value of the speed of light has invalidated much (if not most) of the science of physics. The speed of light in SI units has been fixed since 1983, <sarcasm>yet the scientific community seems to have been totally unaware of the tautology for 26 years until David Tombe decided to expound on it at length on Wikipedia.</sarcasm> This user's behaviour is disrupting attempts to improve the Speed of light article, a former featured article: it obviously falls under not only WP:SOAPBOX but also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (lovingly known as WP:ARBCRANK). I feel that a topic ban is in order. Physchim62(talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
What conflict resolution did you use before asking for a topic ban? Ussually that is a last resort as I understand it. Upon a review of the users talk page I don't see any warnings for using the talkpage or any recent warnings period. From my standpoint there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done here yet as not one whit of resolution of this dispute before running here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I notified the person in question they had a thread here as I didn't see he was notified on his talk page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an ongoing problem with David. There was a WQA report about his behavior and a somewhat related, drawn-out ANI report that included him a little more than a month ago, albeit related to a different set of incidents. However, he seems to have removed from his talk page the notices and the resulting WQA advice given. I would add that David is not only disruptive on the talk pages but also outright uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him (essentially calling them idiots or accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't comment on speed of light, but the volume of traffic in the related WT:PHYS thread has been making it nigh-unreadable for other purposes for the last couple of days. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the dispute at speed of light was ongoing long before I got involved. I entered as a mediator in order to try and ascertain what the dispute was about. I discovered that it was about attempts to prevent another editor from elaborating on something important. The 1983 re-definition of the metre, in terms of the speed of light, has had a major effect on the concept of the speed of light. The non-physics readership will not be aware of this major change from the traditional approach, and so some kind of elaboration is necessary in the article. I do not see any basis here for an allegation of disruptive editing. I have not made many edits on the main speed of light article. As for FyzixFighter's opportunist intervention here, it should be noted that FyzixFighter has conducted a prolonged campaign of undermining my edits. The latest case involves removing referenced material from a history chronology. FyzixFighter's 'modus operandi' is to consistently remove edits of mine and then pose as a victim of incivility. He will go to the talk page claiming that he doesn't want to discuss the topic in question because I am being uncivil to him, and he will seldom engage in discussion of the actual physics in question. A closer scrutiny of FyzixFighter's behaviour will reveal that he is merely removing edits that contain physics that he wasn't previously aware of. David Tombe (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
General incivility and assumptions of bad faith. [17][18]
I'll also log this sanction at WP:ARBPSJehochmanTalk 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) and 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Your example of my assumption of bad faith was the very passage which I have just written above in my own defence. The other examples which you have cited prove absolutely nothing at all. David Tombe (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with a topic ban. The first action should be to decide, on he basis of a consensus on the talk page, that a certain topic that has been discussed with David has been settled and continue to discussing this is not relevant to improving the article. Then, if David (or someone else) kicks off yet another discussion on the same topic, we can simply revert the talk page. Then, if David were to revert that deletion and edit war over the talk page contents, you have a more basic edit warring problem which can be brought there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that this falls under the Pseudoscience (WP:ARBCRANKWP:ARBPS) decision, this really should have been at AE. Anyway...could someone please provide a link where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that same decision? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm waiting to see evidence regarding what crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind. My singular point on the talk page was that another editor should have the right to draw the very important distinction between the speed of light in the traditional sense, and the speed of light subsequent to the 1983 decision to define the metre in terms of the speed of light. That distinction needs to be made high up in the article, for the benefit of the non-physics readership.
Hardly a basis for a topic ban or accusations of crankery or pseudoscience. Can anybody see an edit of mine on the first history page of the speed of light article? David Tombe (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that the "crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind" is the same as the crank science that David has raised repeatedly here where every other editor has either pointed out (often repeatedly) the scientific errors or that it is WP:OR or both.--Michael C. Pricetalk 16:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I support Jehochman's action, but want to note that this has little to do with pseudoscience. It may be "bad science" or "crankery", but those aren't the same thing as pseudoscience. The reasons that Jehochman gave are the correct reasons. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"I am not an admin"...but Jehochman appears to have acted quite properly, and in a timely fashion to prevent further disruption. My opinion itself is worth little, but I fully support him in this case. Doc Tropics 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I support Jehochman's topic ban. I keep seeing the name David Tombe coming up in connection with strange edits of physics articles. I reserve judgment on whether quite enough data has been collected in the present discussion compared to how a proper topic ban is presented. If Tombe has not yet been properly notified of WP:ARBCRANKWP:ARBPS, I support giving a proper notification, and then reissuing the ban if Tombe does not make any concrete promise of reform in the mean time. If it turns out that any formalities have been overlooked, consider refiling the matter at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Ed, The strange physics edits that you are talking about perhaps ultimately came down to one issue. That issue was,
The identification of one of the terms in the radial planetary orbital equation as centrifugal force.
I got into alot of trouble over that, but I was eventually proved correct. I can't think of any more off hand. But the current issue here seems to be because of the opinions that I have been expressing on the speed of light talk page. It's certainly not about actual edits on the main article. Ultimately, I have been trying to educate these guys about the fact that the famous equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is purely a consequence of experimental measurement of the right hand side. They have been arguing against this and showing me Maxwell's equations, as if I had never seen them before, and they have all totally overlooked the fact that Maxwell incorporated the above equation into his own equations as a consequence of an experiment in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. I have shown them all the exact paragraph in the relevant paper. See page 49 of the pdf link at [19]. There is no bad science, or pseudoscience, or crank science going on on my part.
This vendetta has been motivated purely because they have all been proved wrong. When has anybody ever been topic banned from an article on such minimal input, when others who are actually engaged in an edit war on that page are not similarly banned? David Tombe (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Although Jehochman's first charge looks proven I am not convinced by the evidence provided that David has indulged in "General incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I would acquit him of that charge.--Michael C. Pricetalk 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As I remarked before, David has a history of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. See the WP:WQA report placed last month, the warning/advice resulting from the report, and other previous examples: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Some recent examples appear to indicate that he has yet to understand that such behavior is wrong: [25], [26], [27]. I realize these aren't from the Speed of light dispute, but they do show a pattern of behavior that is disruptive. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm thicker skinned than some, but looking at the recent links I still see no violation of AGF. I do see someone who rates quite highly on the crackpot index and will never change. That should be the basis of the ban, IMO. --Michael C. Pricetalk 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can admit that, after dealing with the editor's not so recent behavior for awhile, my tolerance for being told I delete stuff because I'm afraid of the truth and for being compared to the thought police has become greatly diminished. I'll work on having thicker skin. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So then according to Michael Price, the crank science in question was in the textbooks up until relatively recently, and we have not even established yet if it has been totally removed from the textbooks. The crank science that Michael Price has drawn our attention to relates to an experiment that appears in modern advanced level physics textbooks which I used as a physics teacher. The question being posed at the wiki-physics project page is exactly about whether or not that experiment has been removed. David Tombe (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I logged this action in case it falls under WP:ARBPS. If not, the sanction is still appropriate in my responsibility as an administrator to protect the project from disruption.I could block the editor indefinitely. Instead, I chose to ban them from 2 of our 3,000,000 pages, a much lighter sanction. JehochmanTalk 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Severity is not the issue. If you're not following the terms of discretionary sanctions from that case, then it's an ordinary admin action and I don't see how it can be logged there. Those terms were specifically designed to avoid any action, without a warning. As the imposing admin, can you (or someone else) please provide a diff to where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that case? Btw, was he counselled on taking steps to improve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Experimental_determination_of_the_electric_permittivity contains, among other things, several instances of editors trying to explain to him what sort of references and citations he'll need in order to make a case for the changes he wants to make to speed of light. Lots of examples of him using circular reasoning and either not understanding or not acknowledging the points raised by other participants in the thread. If the WP:PHYS thread is still continuing in the same vein by the time the weekend rolls around, I'll put together a proper diff list for you and ask for further sanctions, but right now I'm going to hope that discussion will yield a solution. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No Christopher, This is just an opportunist swipe from you because I showed you to be wrong when you claimed that the equation c^2 = 1/(με) can be derived theoretically. I made my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics project page. You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. You know that c^2 = 1/(με) is a numerical relationship which follows purely as a consequence of the experimental determination of the right hand side. David Tombe (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I rest my case. This is also probably a good example of civility and AGF concerns. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Christopher, You are rather presumptuous in claiming on your edit title that I received quite a bit of a coaching at the wiki-physics page, when in fact it was you that received the coaching. You previously had no idea how the numerical relationship c^2 = 1/(με) came to be in Maxwell's equations. And it seems that none of the rest of you did either. This is one big witch hunt because you were all shown to be wrong. And for you, this opportunistic swipe is just one big face saver. David Tombe (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually David, you have significantly shifted your position as a result of the coaching on the wiki-physics page (which is good) although you deny this (which is bad). BTW, although I earlier acquited you of violation of AGF you should be aware the recent statement (above) You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. violates AGF. I think you know what the consequences of this are likely to be. --Michael C. Pricetalk 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Michael, In what respect did I shift my position? Can you please clarify this statement. David Tombe (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Endorse per EdJohnston. There are many troubling examples that demonstrate problematic conduct, and attempts made by involved editors to reason with him, including both here and here. Btw, thank you Christopher Thomas for highlighting these examples. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, What about my attempts to reason with Christopher Thomas? What makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas was the one that was correct in the dispute? David Tombe (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
David Tombe, I was purely referring to the conduct issues and approach, rather than who was correct in the content issues. Jehochman has been extremely generous by imposing a restriction that still leaves you with the ability to responsibly edit any other pages on Wikipedia - there's a lot to choose from. I suggest that rather than let this privillege go to waste, you should reflect on your approach in the various examples users refer to, and find ways to improve it if you encounter similar situations. This may involve reviewing fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, I was not particulary active at the speed of light article. I heard that in other areas of wikipedia, a person was given a 3 hour block for very definite incivility, and that caused a huge backlash that lingered for a while. What exactly is so generous about an indefinite topic ban for an article that I wasn't even active on at the time. I was nothing to do with the recent edit war there. And let's get these supposed incivilities into perspective. Under severe provocation, I doubt if anything I have said on this thread amounts to anything worth talking about. On the contrary I have seen no end of assumptions of bad faith being directed at me on no evidence at all other than empty inuendo, such as flashing a lengthy physics debate at a non-physics readership. Nobody seems to be worrying about the freedom of others to go around calling me a crank. So if you are going to make inuendos about my conduct issues and approach, I need you to be more specific. I do not accept Christopher Thomas's self appointed status as a physics arbitrator and I discount his allegations totally. David Tombe (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Does it matter that an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban as appropriate? Or am I beating a dead horse by offering my opinion? I've read this thread & the related one at WT:PHYS, which show at the least David Tombe is violating no original research; at the most, he is being disruptive over insisting on the inclusion of his own idiosyncratic understanding of physics. Maybe he should have a look at working on some of the 3 million other articles on Wikipedia: for example, I can't imagine working on the biographical stubs of physicists would lead to the same issues that these two articles did. -- llywrch (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. There seems to be another long thread at Talk:History_of_centrifugal_and_centripetal_forces#Johann Bernoulli II where he's claiming one interpretation of an issue and several other editors are disagreeing and trying to explain to him the basis of their disagreement. If I understand correctly, a page name change is also muddying the waters for that discussion. However, I've only taken a superficial look at the thread's contents. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Christopher, That's enough of your assumptions of bad faith. You have misinterpreted the situation there too. There was an issue about whether or not Maxwell's use of centrifugal force to explain magnetic repulsion is an admissible topic for the article entitled 'history of centrifugal force'. I was suggesting that it is an admissible topic. End of story. You are coming here making malicious allegations because of a debate at WT:PHYS that didn't go your way. You come here in front of a non-physics audience acting as if you and the others at WT:PHYS are the three wise men, and that you had a big problem not being able to explain some issue in physics to me, and you assume that everybody will automatically think that you must be right. Drop it. Why not go to Uncle Tom's Cabin and stir up a civil war there? David Tombe (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No Llywrch, You have got it so badly wrong. Let's finally hear what the truth is. The WT:PHYS thread contains a query regarding changes that have taken place in the textbooks since 1983 in relation to the re-definition of the metre. This change seems to have had the effect of reversing the direction of a well known equation in physics. That equation is c^2 = 1/εμ. This equation is an empirical equation which reads from right to left. It's origins lie in an experiment that was performed in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. The equation links experimentally determined values in electromagnetism to the speed of light. Since 1983 however, this equation has been reversed and now reads from left to right. We now use a defined speed of light to define the quantity ε on the right hand side. The argument at WT:PHYS involved the attempts of about four editors to persuade me that the equation c^2 = 1/εμ follows from Maxwell's equations. All of them, with the exception of Christopher Thomas failed to comprehend the fact that Maxwell himself incorporated the numerical relationship from the 1856 experiment by Weber and Kohlrausch. Christopher Thomas at first tried to say the same thing as the other three. But when I pointed this fact out again, he backtracked and said that the experimental bit is only needed for the numerical relationship. I told him that that is exactly what I had been saying. Christopher Thomas then came to ANI and claimed that many people had been trying to reason with me but that I didn't acknowledge or didn't want to acknowledge what they had been saying. He then started to discuss gathering evidence with a view to what sanctions would be appropriate for me. The actual thread at WT:PHYS was then actually presented as an exhibit of evidence to prove that I was being disruptive. Christopher Thomas was obviously totally confident that the non-physics readership here would believe everything that he said. I then defended myself against this malicious allegation and gross assumption of bad faith, as a result of which I was then accused of assuming bad faith for likewise doubting that he didn't want to acknowledge the true facts. It seems that accusations and allegations are fine when they come from some editors, but that from other editors, even a defence can be taken to be an assumption of bad faith. So my question to you, Llwrych is 'Just what makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas is right?' All these allegations about crankery and pseudoscience are an attempt to hide the truth of what was discussed at WT:PHYS. And all these allegations of incivility are just rubbish. David Tombe (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I made no such backtrack. The relevant posts are here and here, and say the same thing in slightly different ways. This is an excellent example of you misunderstanding what editors are trying to say to you. After the second try, it became clear that useful communication was unlikely to be possible, so I stopped participating in the thread. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Christopher, but that just doesn't wash. If it was merely a case of you failing to persuade me of something in physics, then why come to ANI to make a serious allegation and to talk about sanctions, and with such a confidence as if it was already decided beyond any doubt that you were right, and as if it was a matter of certainty that everybody here was going to believe you. Your allegation against me is one big sick joke. David Tombe (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
David Tombe, which of my statements are you saying "No" to? That an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban? Or that I'm beating a dead horse? Or perhaps my understanding that you are promoting original research? If you are not promoting original research, then please share with us a reliable source which supports your assertion that the redefinition of the meter in 1983 is both relevant to the importance of this equation & notable. Otherwise, kindly submit your findings to the appropriate periodical for review and publication & drop this line of argument which has gone on far, far too long. You have been banned from editting those pages, & so far you have not said anything which addresses that ban, let alone convinced me that it is not the proper solution. -- llywrch (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Llywrch, You have got two closely related topics confused here. The discussion at WT:PHYS related to an issue at the vacuum permittivity page. The isse there was about whether or not the experimental determination of electric permittivity was removed from the textbooks subsequent to the re-definition of the metre in 1983. I was basically asking a question, and the first answer that I received was from Steve Byrnes, who suggested that the experiment in question is indeed still in the textbooks. But then Headbomb came in and formally stated the 'new physics' position as regards units and definitions, which we all know anyway. I reminded him that the equation in question is an experimental result. The argument with other editors then followed. This particular ANI thread was opened up by editor from the speed of light page because of opinions that I was expressing on the speed of light talk page. I was backing up an number of other editors on the issue that the re-definition of the metre, and its affect on the speed of light needs to be clarified for the benefit of the non-physics readership. Sources pointing out the tautology in the new definition were provided at that discussion. Chritopher Thomas then entered this thread as a 'novus actus interventus' and changed the subject to the discussion at WT:PHYS. He held up the very existence of this discussion at WT:PHYS as an exhibit to prove disruptive behaviour. He boldly assumed without any question that the entire non-physics readership here would accept his verdict on the matter without any doubt. He seemed absolutely confident that nobody here might remotely suspect that Chritopher Thomas could be wrong. David Tombe (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not confusing any topics here. I am not addressing the merits of your idea. I don't know why you seem unable to comprehend that. I was -- & still am -- limiting myself to its appropriateness for Wikipedia. And to repeat myself again, your obsession with this getting this idea into Wikipedia is clearly a violation of the rules of Wikipedia: No original research. Unless you can show that this is not some discovery of your own -- that this is a matter of interest in at least one article published in an appropriate periodical or electronic forum -- you are heading towards more serious sanctions. And answering every mention that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia (due to concerns about original research, notability, etc.) with yet another explanation of this idea only accelerates your journey to this regrettable destination. -- llywrch (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No Llywrch, I do not have an obsession about putting this point into the article. I was merely backing up Brews ohare. When I first went to Brews's talk page a couple of weeks ago to ask him what this dispute was about, I didn't even know anything about the 1983 definition of the metre. As you can see from my recent dialogues with Brews, I was a bit confused as to what the argument was about. But I investigated the facts and then realized that Brews had a very legitimate point. It annoyed me to see how everybody was ganging up against him and trying to sweep his point under the carpet. So I joined in at the talk page to emphasize that point. I made very few edits to the main article, and I had already stopped editing on the main article well before the recent edit war. I was nothing to do with the recent edit war when the page was locked. I have ended up being the only person to be banned from the pages in question. This fact demonstrates a gross act of bias on the part of the administration, and I am currently appealing to Jimbo Wales to have the ban lifted as a matter of principle. Meanwhile, I have been advising Brews ohare to show his sources, quote from them loud and clear so that all you administrators can hear, and then quietly pull out. Because it is a waste of time for Brews and others to have to keep repeating themselves to people who are clearly incapable of being coached, or who don't want to know. David Tombe (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I regret this ban on D Tombe, and think it is unwarranted. He has a different view from orthodoxy on several issues, but that does not mean his contributions are not useful. He has added helpful discussions of historical matters in the past, and on this page speed of light has simply sought to gain attention for some misconceptions by many of the editors contributing at the moment who are unable to argue points logically or by reference to sources and would rather settle matters by this sort of administrative action executed by an administrator who is perhaps not able or perhaps unwilling to delve into the details of the matter. This block should be rescinded. Brews ohare (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews ohare, your comment might be taken more seriously were you to properly sign your post. As for the question of "obsession" & "good faith", the matter would never have reached WP:AN/I had he let the matter go long before. Or at least respond to this discussion in the expected manner -- addressing the points, rather than repeat the discredited matter. Both of you are getting tedious on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I mistyped 3 tildes instead of 4 when signing. I'm not surprised you find the matter tedious, but that is because admins fail to enforce discussion of sources in place of opinions. Opinions just recycle, and most of the speed of light discussion has been recycling of opinion made possible by refusal to address presented and quoted sources. Brews ohare (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair response on the tildes. However, about this "refusal to address presented and quoted sources", had David Tombe presented a link to this material several days ago, rather than presenting every other imaginable response, we might have had a useful conversation on the issue. Instead, I have been subjected to a practical lesson in why so many regulars at WP:PHYS complain about him: I honestly don't know if he is trolling me or truly is too dense to understand anything less subtle than a whack on the back of the head. -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Llywrch, This is a demonstration of your total bias. You said that I should have dropped the matter long before. You obviously haven't even studied this prolonged argument. I was only involved for a very short time. And when you say that I should have responded to the discussion in the expected manner, what exactly was that supposed to mean? Can you please clarify that statement. Please pick out the very best example that you can find where I have not responded in the expected manner. Some of us here are a bit too long on the tooth for these silly games in which one lot of editors are free to express their opinions and deliver insults, and where another lot are considered to be cheeky if they dare to answer back. Drop it Llyrwch! David Tombe (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Easily done: look in the thread of this argument. I originally posted my support of this page ban, & you immediately replied with a regurgitation of your opinion on the matter -- not a response to my point -- you had violated the rule on original research in that discussion. When I clarified my statement, you repeated your non sequitor, talking about your idea & not failing to respond to my allegation of original research. As for rudeness, your comment to Christopher Thomas above on 08:24, 20 August 2009 is a prime example. And as for dropping this topic, I'm perfectly content to drop this at any point. You seem well on your way to being banned from Wikipedia, & need no help from me. -- llywrch (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Llyrwch, Please show me the original research. And as regards Christopher Thomas, once again you demonstrate your bias. Christopher Thomas comes here with a copy of a debate that took place at the wiki-physics project and he presents it as evidence of disruptive behaviour and starts to talk about sanctions. He presents it to a non-physics readership in the hope that they will believe what he says to be true, and also knowing that others who are knowledgeable about the details will know it not to be true. That is a method of whipping up hysteria and it is a method that has been used to stir up civil wars in recent history. David Tombe (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought you wanted me to drop this thread. Oh well. The original research content is obvious. From your post above:
changes that have taken place in the textbooks since 1983 in relation to the re-definition of the metre. This change seems to have had the effect of reversing the direction of a well known equation in physics. That equation is c^2 = 1/εμ.
Who else has raised this issue in the relevant peer-reviewed literature? If no one, then it is either original research or a question more suited for the Help Desk. If someone has, then furnish the citation. Simple as that. And to conclude, your comments above above Christopher Thomas are inappropriate & uncivil; you can make the same point without resorting to statements like "That is a method of whipping up hysteria and it is a method that has been used to stir up civil wars in recent history". Were I not involved in this conversation with you, I'd block you for it, & invite any uninvolved Admin to act appropriately on it. -- llywrch (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
OK Llyrwch, Now we're finally getting to the point. The physics which you have discussed here relates to the debate at WT:PHYS. As you can see, I was merely asking a question. I was not pushing this issue in any article. It was quite a legitimate question and I gave my final verdict at WT:PHYS yesterday. One thing is absolutely sure, and that is the fact that the thread at WT:PHYS did not in any way constitute disruptive behaviour. It was a rotten malicious act on the part of Christopher Thomas to come here to AN/I and present the thread to a non-physics readership claiming that it amounted to disruptive behaviour, in the full knowledge that they would believe him, and in the full knowledge that I would know that the allegation was not true. It's time that you got off your high horse and stopped this overwhelming concern for perceived insults against Christopher Thomas. Ironically, Christopher Thomas was the only one on the thread who actually grasped the point in question. But rather than saying 'Oh yes! You have a point', he came straight to AN/I with this nasty malicious allegation. You don't appear to have made the slightest attempt to have investigated this matter in an impartial manner. There were insults delivered against me by another of the contributors to the WT:PHYS thread. Michael Price was boldly going around labelling me as a crackpot. You didn't blink an eyelid at that. So I suggest that you just drop this issue once and for all because it is one big farce. David Tombe (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I would drop this issue -- maybe you missed the part of my first post to this thread where I asked if I was beating a dead horse by offering my opinion -- but you have been so stubborn in missing my points that I felt compelled to try to explain myself. Sheesh, you're still banned from those two pages, & still I endorse that action. The only change from my original post & now, after everything that has been written, is that I'm convinced that you are either a kook or a troll. Maybe this discussion has convinced yet a few more people one of those is the case; in any case, neither of those are people the community wants here. Someone who isn't a kook or a troll would be concerned about being thought to be one, & consider changing his behavior to escape this misperception. And that said, I have nothing more to say. -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have removed and deleted the WP:ARBCRANK shortcut. This shortcut is uncivil and implies that people are "cranks" if they are sanctioned under this particular decision. Keep in mind that editors on either side of the Pseudoscience issue can be sanctioned; I am fairly certain someone whose agenda is promoting mainstream science is not going to appreciate being labeled as a crank. If someone wants to go updating the shortcuts used in the sections above, they can use WP:ARBPS or WP:ARB/PS. Risker (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Had that been tagged for speedy deletion, I would have declined it. I would prefer you undelete it and send it to RfD, please. I don't think your interpretation of the shortcut is the only or primary interpretation. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I support Risker's speedy delete. It's a form of soapboxing, and totally inappropriate. It's speedyable under G10. Horologium(talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That's an exceptionally broad reading of G10. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's not argue about non-essential details like a shortcut! JehochmanTalk 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
All hail political correctness. --Michael C. Pricetalk 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Since David Tombe was page banned, 72.84.67.16(talk·contribs·WHOIS) suddenly surfaced. This IP has a total of 4 contribs, all today. The first is a diatribe here against the admin who page banned Tombe[28] (since deleted). The other 3 are edits (since reverted) to Speed of light, from which Tombe is page banned. Coincidence? —Finell(Talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Finell, I want to be quite clear about this and I'm getting sick of all these malicious allegations. That IP server is not mine and I did not make those edits. I don't get involved in matters to do with the speed of light in inertial frames of reference. And I have seen many edits in the past from a variation of that number. I haven't checked it, but I'll bet that it comes from Virginia. Please don't make accusations until you have got your facts straight. David Tombe (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It's trivial to check this either way via CheckUser, and a serious enough issue (potential ban evasion) for checkuser to be worthwhile. Anyone care to do so? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Finell, I've just noticed that you have written about this on the speed of light talk page. Since, I am not allowed to defend myself on that page, I'd be obliged if you could return there and explain the situation fully. David Tombe (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a Verizon IP address that resolves to a company based in Virginia. David, whether or not it was you, you must admit it reeks of duckism, so don't jump all over people. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
BWilkins, All I'm seeing here are words like 'disruptive editing', 'crankery', 'assumption of bad faith', 'incivility', and now 'ban evasion'. There was no disruptive editing because I wasn't even in the front page history log of the article in question. There has been no crankery because all I have been saying is that c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left, and not from left to right. The allegations of 'assumption of bad faith' have all been based on defensive comments that I have made against another person's assumption of bad faith on this very thread. I have been accused of not seeing sense when coached by many. The truth was that the many in question came to me one by one claiming that Maxwell's equations proved c^2 = 1/(εμ). I told each one in turn that Maxwell himself got that result from an 1856 experiment of Weber and Kohlrausch. One of those many was Christopher Thomas who then came to this thread to discuss sanctions as a consequence of that interchange. The incivility has already been firmly dismissed by one of my opponents who has been referring to me as a crank. Nobody bats an eyelid at the insults and assumptions of bad faith that come at me from others. And now we are hearing cries of ban evasion because some anon edits the article and speaks up in my defence. And now you are telling me not to jump all over people! I've worked very hard to get some physics articles written more accurately for the benefit of the readership. There is no need for this kind of carry on. David Tombe (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is evidence of ban evasion, checkuser should be requested. There's not much point in alleging something unless efforts are made to resolve the accusation. JehochmanTalk 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The evidence that David Tombe was responsible for the edits by the IP 72.84.67.16 seems to me to be extremely weak. I expect that a request for checkuser would be refused. The editor behind the IP seems likely to me to be the same one responsible for piping up in support of David Tombe in the previous AN/I thread where his activities were discussed. The IPs concerned on that occasion were 71.251.185.49(talk·contribs·WHOIS), 72.84.65.202(talk·contribs·WHOIS), 72.84.66.220(talk·contribs·WHOIS), 71.251.188.202(talk·contribs·WHOIS), all of which are Verizon's. Several other editors pointed out then that it was unlikely to be Tombe ([29], [30], [31], [32]).
David W., Thanks for pointing that out. And come to think of it, why were the anonymous's edits here at ANI deleted anyway? Is it only the edits of critics that are allowed at ANI? David Tombe (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The edits of this user and the IPs certainly do dovetail quite nicely though when viewed in totality. This certainly is WP:DUCK territory. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, Go and check when I last edited the speed of light article and ask yourself 'is there any connection between the contents?' David Tombe (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: David Tombe evidently had some issues logging in, and edited this page logged out a couple of times a short while ago. His IP is therefore on public record, and resolves to BTNET in the UK. The Verizon IPs are unlikely to be him - although who they are beats the hell out of me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
To set the record straight, I am not David Tombe, however I would like to be him, and admire him very much. What I admire most is his dedication to the integrity of truth in physical science. This is contrasted to the generally poor quality that I find in the typical Wikipedia article. In short, David seems to be a lot smarter than you guys in general. I do think that Brews Ohare is on the right track as well. I am a long time student of physics and science and it makes me cringe to read a Wikipedia article. I generally find numerous mistakes, mistsatements and general distortions of fact every time I read one. I certainly would like to see the poor quality of the articles improved. It seems to me that the conspiracy of editors is to keep the errors and misstatements in the articles. So David Tombe is my hero, because he is one of the few brave fellows who really is trying to do something about the poor quality of Wikipedia, while the rest of you editors seem to like the way it is, full of errors and misinterpretations. I vote to keep Mr Tombe here working away, busy keeping you guys honest, and demanding that the quality of Wikipedia live up to the users expectations.72.64.57.234 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
And the best of British to you Mr. Yank. David Tombe (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This is either an elaborate ruse or some kind of really creepy Wiki-otaku. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The only Wiki-Okatu here is on the part of the editors obsessed with the removal of legitimate criticism of the pervasive mis-statements and generally biased viewpoints presented in Wikipedia. The Wiki-okatu here in smearing Mr Tombe is pretty unsavory and it shows clearly that Wikipedia has a bias and it is the intent of the editors to maintain that bias so they can stroke their own egos. Now that's Wiki-okatu for you. By the way, is it my imagination, or just a fact that there is a Wiki term to apply to any situation when the editors want to eliminate other legitimate editors that are better informed? They just accuse them of some obscure wiki-something. That is really Orwellian in my opinion.72.64.36.217 (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a wikipedia term; otaku is a Japanese term for excessive-compulsive fanboyism. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I though it just meant obsessive compulsive silliness. But if it isn't a legitimate wiki term why mention it? Are you trying to create a new one? Don't you have enough of those already? Plain english is always sufficient, don't you think? The complusion to denigrate others on this site is clearly evident here. I am wondering why you don't just get to work and fix the mistakes in the Wiki articles?72.64.36.217 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no doubt that there is a crusade against D Tombe that will use any pretext for complaint. Its origin is hard to pin down. As it seems unlikely that it actually has to do with D Tombe per se, I am concerned that it has more to do with editor reaction to minority viewpoints: a persistent effort to present a view, no matter how accurate or well documented by accessible sources, will lead to editor hostility when it is opposed by a number of editors, even though they make no attempt to support their opinions by sources. That is a kind of groupthink attitude that is quite pervasive among WP editors, and sometimes enforced by admins simply because it is a majority view (not a supported or accurate view). Brews ohare (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, Thanks for your support. But the sad thing is that not once on this thread have the relevant issues of balance in scientific articles even been discussed. These pantomines become reminiscent of the mock trial in Alice in Wonderland. They can be summed up by what I would call the "How dare you insult Christopher Thomas!" syndrome. It's a free for all as far as hurling abuse and malicious allegations are concerned when it's in one direction. But you'll notice how certain bullies couple it all with 'and don't answer back, or you'll be blocked!'. If you've come here to make a reasonable representation on the issue of combating group think and abuse of the consensus rule, then I fear that you have come to the wrong page. David Tombe (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And once again I've had to notify the user in question about this thread. Notification is MANDATORY, not optional. Exxolon (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up. Further evidence that the user has no interest in anything content-related. This is a normal response for Theserialcomma, every time his disruptive editing patterns and wiki-stalking are pointed out, the user responds with a barrage of ANIs, RFCs and any other imaginable means of suppressing their opponent. My editing history stands on its own merit. Most of my blocks comes from foolishly responding to provocations such as this. Koalorka (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Could I suggest just...you know...thinking this stuff about him. Not actually typing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
more unprovoked personal attacks. further evidence that this user has no interest in collaborating in a civil manner. after 6 blocks for NPA you'd think someone would learn to relax, you know, their personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to as that if the ANIs and RFCs are meant only to harass you, why have you been blocked so many times? If they were solely a means of personally attacking you, wouldn't Theserialcomma be the one to be blocked after these? Kotiwalo (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not specifically referring to my case. Theserialcomma has previously been blocked for harassing and baiting others, I'm simply pointing it out now because he recently made statements against an admin he's clashed with before. The difference being, I don't start ANIs for the sole purpose of retribution. Koalorka (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
ETA: I'm not going to begin digging up diffs, as I'm not really interested in crusading against him. My words were simply meant to advise those unaware of his numerous clashes with a number of editors involved with WP:Firearms, going back to a minor content dispute which I vaguely remember. Since then he's been involved in close to a dozen ANIs. He's developed a pattern of behaviour that is contradictory to "progress". Pointing out a disruptive trend is not a personal attack. I understand that my wording may be perceived as being snide and contemptuous. Koalorka (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
which part might be perceived incorrectly, the part where you said it is not my goal to match wits here with stubborn basement dwellers]? i could see how that might be perceived by some as a personal attack and not just "pointing out a disruptive trend". by the way, i have reported probably 10 people to ANI/ANE/etc., for incivility, edit warring, all sorts of things. That is what you do when users are abusive: you report them to admins. That is what I will do to you every single time you make personal attacks against me: You get reported. you've been blocked 6 times for NPA, sockpuppetry, and whatever else. you've been told repeatedly to stop and you won't. how long of a block do you need to stop making unprovoked personal attacks? [[33]] [[34]] Theserialcomma (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to share my opinion that from what I've seen, a significant portion of theserialcomma's activity on Wikipedia is being extremely hostile to others and trying to get other people in trouble. I think this is just another entry in a long line of ANIs he has filed against Koalorka. Koalorka isn't very friendly either, but it seems to me that theserialcomma repeatedly baits him and also files ANIs in the persuit of harassing him. But it would probably be good to get the opinions of other editors with more experience dealing with the two of them. Some guy (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, ANI is his third most favourite editing spot [35]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you derive that information out of that page. Some guy (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Click on the link marked "most frequently edited pages" towards the bottom of the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, never noticed that. Some guy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
are you people kidding me. you are making ad hominem attacks on my character which is irrelevant to the fact that koalorka made an unprovoked personal attack. i have not interacted with him at all in the past 6 months. he came onto an admin's talkpage to attack me. he is an abusive and uncivil user with 6 NPA blocks. the amount of times i've supposedly used ANI doesn't have anything to do with whether the user i just reported was uncivil. was he? either it's acceptable behavior for someone with 6 NPA blocks or not. incivility has no place here, and lame ad hominem attacks against the claimant is just poor argumentation. was it uncivil? are koalorka's unprovoked words acceptable? regardless of what you might think about me, i think i was attacked by a serial abuser and i reported it. that is what i tend to do. i believe that is what you are supposed to do. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to stalk him everywhere and incessantly attack him or try to get him in trouble. You had no connection in any way to the ANI discussion regarding Koalorka but you jumped in to attack George for supporting Koalorka. If you're actively trying to get Koalorka in trouble by constantly stalking and baiting him, your motives are bad. I agree that Koalorka is often hostile and not very good at working cooperatively, but this is a very inappropriate way to deal with the situation. If we were in kindergarten and I stole your lunch and you punched me and I told on you and you got in trouble and I didn't, would that be fair? You behavior is intrinsically tied with the equation; you are trying to dodge scrutiny to focus the blame on Koalorka. Some guy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, see my comments above. Personal attacks are not only allowed, but encouraged. Those who object to the attacks are the ones who get slapped down here. The person making the attacks gets coddled and tutted over because someone has the nerve to think that personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
What? That's a damn far stretch of my words. I'm not really saying that Koalorka shouldn't be scrutinized, I don't want to make a decision either way about that, I just think Theserialcomma's motives should be questioned for all the reasons I've already said. I had a difficult battle a few weeks ago where an administrator tried to blame me for Koalorka attacking me, and I had to continuously argue that I wasn't baiting him and the whole thing was utterly ridiculous, but in the end Koalorka's block was upheld. EDIT: I don't care any more. Anyone can feel free to accept or ignore my comments. Some guy (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no opinion about the underlying issue(s) or the contributions of any other involved editor, but I have blocked Koalaorka for 24 h for the "basement dweller" attack combined with his exhibiting continued battleground mentality in this thread. Personal attacks are not to be tolerated under any circumstances. Sandstein 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say that Sandstein's block is consistent with the relevant policies. Chillum 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
All right, I'm sorry for throwing my hat in, I guess it was somewhat hypocritical of me. Some guy (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to one-up that. Every location in which Koalorka and Theserialcomma are butting heads has multiple uninvolved administrators participating. Their interactions have overwhelmingly been either baiting or attacking each other, and completely unrelated to article content, for a while now. Given that there's always an admin looking over their shoulder, they have no need to be reporting each other to ANI or WQA (or 3RR or anywhere else - someone else who can act will notice), and that they are unable to interact in a constructive manner, and that both have risen to the level of disruptive in responding to the other...
Koalorka and Theserialcomma are topic banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards.
If one violates, and no response is forthcoming within twelve hours, the other may make a single line notification to an uninvolved administrator with a link to the topic ban and the diff of the particular edit which violated it. If no response is forthcoming within 18 hours, a second admin, and if no response is forthcoming within 24 hrs a post to ANI with the same information. In no case may either party engage in additional discussion unless asked direct questions by uninvolved admins.
You both go to your corners and stay there. If one comes out swinging, they go down. If you both start swinging, you both go down.
Lest there be any question about it - this disruptive behavor on both of your parts has at this point exceeded community patience and the sum of your positive contributions to Wikipedia. Stop, or your tenures on Wikipedia are at the end. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
While this strikes me as a good solution, was there any discussion about it anywhere? Some guy (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope. It's within admin discretion to do this. The community may, of course, override it at any time. Discuss away if you have comments or concerns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The policy is a little ambiguous as written, but similarly to how any administrator can indefinitely block someone, topic bans have similar dynamics.
We can and often do have a community discussion / proposal prior - and if one is done, and a consensus is reached, the topic ban then is something that has to be appealed by Arbcom or by a second community discussion, not a single admin's fiat, even a well thought out and well justified one.
Topic bans outside of areas Arbcom has designated can be issued by an admin - but are subject to revocation by an admin, or by the community.
Admin can do this - admin, community, or arbcom can override.
Community can do this - arbcom or community can override.
Arbcom can do this - Arbcom has to override, or Jimbo, technically.
Admins do it by individual WP:BOLD initiative more often than the community - every few weeks. Not every day, but we fortunately don't have all that many deeply divisive disruptive users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
GWH has a conflict of interest here. I complained about his ability to admin fairly yesterday, and so this is no surprise. Please show diffs that justify this, and also i would like an uninvolved admin's input Theserialcomma (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
As I have stated on Theserialcomma's talk page, I don't believe I have a conflict of interest, but I think it's entirely appropriate if other uninvolved admins review and the community comments. I think that the situation has made the necessity of this edit restriction self-evident - many community members, beyond myself, are expressing that they are at the limits of their patience with all sides. This is fundamentally protective to both parties - if they do not stop, they are likely to end up indefblocked soon, and this is the cleanest and fairest way to get them both to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
as i said LONG before you punitively attempted to punish me with a topic ban for ME getting attacked, WITHOUT DIFFS! i have no faith in your ability to admin fairly. i'd appreciate some diffs to justify this topic ban, and an uninvolved admin's (not jeske couriano!) input. and please provide diffs. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
i request diffs to justify my topic ban --for the fourth time--, and an uninvolved admin's input on whether this is appropriate based on the facts and GWH's COI. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Chummer, shut the frag up! Practically all your contributions history is slotting some chummer off, and then going Buck Rogers on them with drek accusations of harassment and ad hominem attacks. You are not the victim under any circumstance, TSC, you are the agent provocateur. Now slot off! -Jeremy(v^_^vTear him for his bad verses!) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice use of science-fictionish vocabulary there. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 01:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
So you want diffs for prolonged harassment, chummer? That's like asking for a snapshot of a bank during an off-period during a string of robberies. Your contributions history is the only evidence necessary, TSC, and I don't like the fact you're insinuating yourself in unrelated affairs, only damning yourself even more. Keep that screamer open, chummer, and I'll have no recourse but to go to WP:AN and ask for a community ban for harassment of countless others, personal attacks, and general refusal to assume good faith. I've had it with your self-victimization, chummer, especially since the evidence is YOU provoke every response you get. Stop acting like a bakebrain! -Jeremy(v^_^vTear him for his bad verses!) 21:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Jeske, that's enough. You're crossing the line into personal attacks against Theserialcomma, here and elsewhere, and that's not helpful or constructive (and not good admin behavior). Please don't make the situation worse or cause another incident by your actions here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I would strongly suggest an RfC/User on Theserialcomma. There have been multiple threads in a very few weeks here on ANI that have followed the same pattern - TSC comes to ANI with a complaint, is accused of baiting, lashes out at GWH and demands input from uninvolved admins, and finally dissolves into a snipe-fest with Jeske. This pattern serves no purpose but to aggravate all the involved parties and take up ANI space. McJEFF(talk) 06:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
– Account unblocked. User:Seddon 05:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Raising this here since the blocking admin, Seddon doesn't seem to be around (the unblock req is pending since last Thursday). The user has been blocked after this Sockpuppet Investigation, where he was found using multiple accounts. After a second look, I confirm the connection and the fact that he has used his alt, Cali567 in a deceptive manner on several occasions. He's promising to stick to a single account in his unblock request, and considering his contributions I think we can give him a second chance. What do you think? -- Luktalk 08:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally feel that he can afford to wait a little longer for Seddon to review. This will not only give Seddon the chance to comment and act if he so wishes, but also the user concerned some time to reflect rathor than re-entering the editor pool immediately with little or no time to seriously apprehend that he was in the wrong and that he needs to be follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines more carefully. An un-block request (imho) is almost an instinctive reaction to a block and can be well written with no brain effort what so ever, whereas some time away from the wiki will allow the user to get out of any drama cycles that they may have been in that would cause them to degrade to sockpuppeting. I feel a reduction in the block is warrented, perhaps to the duration of a week from the original date, but I would not go as far as to remove it all together. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It'll be a week since he was blocked in a few hours, so I don't see your point. From the unblock request, it seems to me he has done plenty of reflecting already. Seddon seems to be around, so I'm not sure what we're waiting for.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I left a message on Closedmouth's talk page endorsing the unblock, and as seen he was the reviewing admin presumed he would do the unblock. My endorsement still stands. Seddσntalk|WikimediaUK 22:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Logos5557 (talk·contribs) insists on uploading copyrighted images under "fair use" for their private article which, after much prancing around on AfD, they are condescending to host in their user space.
I considered just speedily-deleting the lot, but I opted for attempting to give the images the benefit of doubt for possible fair use. I am now given last warnings and lectures on the purpose of Wikipedia adminship for my pains.
I would be grateful if somebody else could handle this. See:
The first is straightforward as a copyrighted 1955 painting (by Picasso). The second is a card of the "Egyptian Tarot" taken from a 1951 book, which may or may not be in the public domain. The third is a copyrighted book cover warped beyond recognition by some image processing software into a mere decorative vignette.
They're all non-free by the looks of it, and WP:NFCC#9 is very clear here, so I have removed them and left a note. Black Kite 09:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
dab, first of all; I did not insist on uploading copyrighted images, I just tried already uploaded (by myself) images to save from deletion, by adding proper licensing and fair-use rationale. However, in response, you did not agree with my trials (this is just fine) accompanied with incivil sarcastic tone directed to an individual named Rueckert, who has no relevance with this issue. You openly insulted an individual while performing your "adminship". You did not care of my good faith warnings and continued to use your incivil tone, this time directed towards me. You were warned just for your incivil style & tone. I see no obstacle now to realise the subject of my warning, i.e. arbitration request against your adminship. You really have to learn from scratch how to admin. Blackkite; you removed imageboxes completely, which was also not correct thing to do. You should just remove the images from wikipedia since they are not associated with any mainspace article. Logos5557 (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Labelling the images with a speedy template is better than simply deleting them. Other editors get an opportunity to find a mainspace article to place the images and preserve them. (myself I have saved a couple images this way) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This user repeatedly delets interwiki to Azerbaijani wikipedia in this page[36], [37]. Please, explain him that it's inadmissible. Wertuose (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not as simple as implied. This isn't just removal of interwiki links. This is removal of interwiki links to an article at the Azerbaijani Wikipedia with the title az:alban xaç daşları when it is clearly (diffdiff, talkpage discussion) in dispute in this article whether that name is verifiable. I strongly suggest participating in that talk page discussion, Wertuose. Other editors are. Edit warring like this edit of yours will not lead to a good place. Be warned that if another administrator were to come along, you'd be right at the border of a three-revert rule block by now. As Wertuose and 85.100.42.44 (talk·contribs), which identity and timing of content edits says is you logged out, you've done three reverts on this content within the past 24 hours. It's a strong suggestion for a reason. Discuss, don't edit war. Uncle G (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
For about a month now the whole Wikipedia:Paid editing discussion has been churning. For those familiar with the RfC on paid editing, it should come as no surprise such a page would generate more heat than light. However there has recently been a problem with the volume and nature of the edits, I suggest, coming from User:Benjiboi. There have been more than 100 talk page edits in the past few days, most of them coming from either Benjiboi or myself.
While discussion is encouraged, I feel that (i) the sheer volume of edits of the two of us on the talk page has reached a problem and (ii) discussions with Benjiboi are not going to be resolved through discussion. I believe, after a month of trying, it is easy someone to not be convinced by discussion when they are paid to not be convinced. Benjiboi, for instance, is not convinced that conflict of interest would apply to someone getting paid specifically to ensure a particular policy were created on Wikipedia. Other editors have noted his ownership of the WP:PAID text. The talk page is full, to my read, of comments which are tendentious, dilatory, or otherwise disruptive. He's repeatedly declined to participate in any dispute resolution.
I have come to realize my own responses to Benjiboi's comments have become enabling and themselves problematic. I proposed that he and I agree to a limit of one edit (one signed comment in a particular section, not comments in every section done in one edit) limit per day. He declined, so I come here to ask for community support in making this an obligatory sanction for both Benjiboi and myself. I am generally loathed to restrict access to talk pages, so I wanted something short of a ban, or even a topic ban, however things like this should not be happening. Something is broken there. I am also open to suggestions of alternatives as well. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator; am I allowed to comment here? I just have to say that I support TeaDrinker in this, and would be willing to voluntarily abide ANY limits you set on me that would allow me to contribute to WP:Paid. It has been over a month now that User:Benjiboi has deleted every edit that I've made every time that I've contributed. I've limited myself to editing Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text rather than Wikipedia:Paid editing simply because I have no other choice. Smallbones (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I've participated in this matter too, and generally agree with TeaDrinker's statements. Benjiboi is a fine editor but on this topic he seems to be exerting ownership and insiting on his own version. However I don't believe this is the correct venue to resolve this problem. Since this concerns a user's behavior I suggest a user RfC instead. Will Bebacktalk 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I'm thrilled that these three editors in particular have made their cases here and I actually encouraged both TeaDrinker and Smallbones to do bring the situation to any venue they saw fit as the personalized barbs and baiting against me were growing tiresome. All three editors have variously accused me of all manner of COI, being a paid editor, purposely deceiving them, etc. All, of course, with no evidence whatsoever - as there is none - except that I have insisted that we not write policies we wish existed but follow the notice on the page itself - Note:This page is not a policy or guideline, it is an attempt to summarize existing policies and guidelines that relate to the general topic of paid editing. TeaDrinker and Smallbones have also been waving dispute resolution as a threat when myself and others have expressed we really don't feel that will get anywhere on the current issues as indefensible positions are rather hard to defend. I have patiently and civilly expressed this every time they push the issue. TeaDrinker's misrepresenting my view does bring up a core issue with paid editing in that our current policies, as is plainly evident on the community-wide RfC on the matter, do not inherently conflate paid editing with paid advocacy or COI or even paid editing services. As is evidenced above TeaDrinker is keen in putting words in my mouth and Smallbones again misrepresents the situation. The concept floated was to ban any paid editors from all policy pages - which is completely unenforcible - which was quickly followed with a proposal to make anyone wishing to edit the WP:Paid page, which remains neither policy nor guideline, to disclose if they were a paid editor which then devolved into a ban against paid editors on that page. Again, unenforcible, so why go there? Most of Smallbones' contributions were undone as going against the stated purpose or otherwise against consensus. There has been a lot of reverting there but any objective look through the page and talkpage will show that I have not only acted in good faith but have done so despite what seems to be tag-team tactics to antagonize me. I give Will Beback credit, they directly addressed me about their concern on my talkpage, we discussed our views and have had no unseemly interactions since. -- Banjeboi 04:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is not the policy page, but your behavior regarding it. For example, you've just been reverting citation requestions for specific assertions you're making about what others have said. That's in addition to the many other reverts. Would you be willing to abide by 1RR? Will Bebacktalk 07:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, it is not a policy page. Secondly, I reverted your second round of cite tags placed within the first round of cites, as I saw them as tenditious, apparently the same thing you're accusing me of? In any case I have done the homework that no one else was willing to do and added cites for cites as well. Again if there is actually any evidence of me doing something wrong please present it for others to comment on. -- Banjeboi 07:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you willing to abide by 1RR? Will Bebacktalk 07:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's see evidence that I have actually done anything wrong first; as a reminder, other editors' actions will likely be reviewed as well. Once we can see what problematic behaviours are at play a more educated decision on any remedies can be looked at. So far we have about a dozen bad faith accusations against myself including vague character assaults. -- Banjeboi 08:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess that's a "no". The evidence of the problem is clear enough in the article history. Revert after revert after revert. Why are so many reverts necessary? Are the editors who you are reverting so bad that they need to have their contributions erased day after day?
Unrelated to the current case, I'm reminded of one of the reasons why editing of (quasi-) policy pages by paid editors is a bad idea. Paid editors have more of a stake in the outcome than unpaid editors, and so are willing to engage in a "full court press" where the unpaid editors are merely trying to defend a project, a project that began and flourished as a volunteer effort. In any conflict between paid professionals and unpaid hobbyists the hobbyists are at a disadvantage. It's like a neighborhood touch football team going against a professional league team.
Wikipedia's reputation is important. If WP becomes known as a hosting ground for material written at the behest of paid interests, then the value of this information may be harmed even more than by previous scandals. Let's hope that we're all putting Wikipedia's interests ahead of our own, even if those interests are financial. Will Bebacktalk 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Another veiled accusation that I am COI, a paid editor, and compromising the entire project, again with no proof but the helpful "Unrelated to the current case" which lends itself to soapboxery on one POV on these complex issues. This is a perfect example of how my insisting we accurately report what our rules actually state is met with digressions which amount to how anyone who doesn't agree with these edits must simply be compromised, and likely should be banned from the page. Here:
is the link to the edit history. I am hardly the only one to revert but over the past few month my edits have tended to stick likely because I'm actually looking for consensus. Bold edits introducing material that compromises the page, even from me, have often been removed. Paid editing is a set of issues and none of them are as easy as the three editors seem to suggest. Even a quick overview of the only community RfC on the issue, the high profile cases and a review of many threads on these issues will show there is no one size fits all solution. I have tried, despite the hostility, to improve the page and I think some of my edits have indeed done so. -- Banjeboi 09:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
outdent - Here is the history of the main contributors over the last month or so:
Edits ↑ User
95 (95/0) Benjiboi
28 (28/0) Smallbones
17 (17/0) Will Beback
17 (15/2) TeaDrinker
17 (12/5) Dcoetzee
It should be clear that Benjiboi has had plenty of opportunity to get his POV across and that most other major contributors object to his behavior. Isn't there something we can do? I suspect everybody except Benjiboi would be willing to accept a 1RR limitation. Smallbones (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I have tried, despite the hostility, to improve the page and I think some of my edits have indeed done so. These editors are misguided that they can push away those that disagree with them, write a page that is in conflict with the community's wishes and it will do anything but go down in flames. After multiple requests from me for any proof that many of the dubious statements they wished to insert were, in fact, based in policy, I was tired of getting stonewalled so read through everything I could on these issues. I doubt any of them have. Paid editing is not as simple as they make it out to be and they should stick to their Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text and see if they can push a proposed policy out of it. -- Banjeboi 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
– attack removed and user warned Toddst1 (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
While it's generally accepted that a user has a lot of freedom over what s/he puts on her userpage, I thought this might need to be brought to the attention of ANI considering that it's a pretty direct personal attack. The quote in the userbox is below.
This user boldly says "Fuck you Wikipedia and your arrogant, shit-eating dickhead admins too (not including Jaysweet, who was just a pathetic sycophant that suffered from a rather severe case of unwarranted self-importance before 'retiring' from Wikipedia)."
This is the kind of thing most often seen posted by an angry user on their way out the door, but PCE has not retired. He has, however, been informed of this thread. [38]McJEFF(talk) 06:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(Non-admin response) I deleted the userbox per WP:NPA. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing you tried talking to PCE about this first? Probably could have been solved by just deleting everything after in parantheses rather than the whole box, but either way works. Shellbabelfish 07:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's clear cut enough to be removed on sight, IMO. -- Luktalk 08:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that you note this at the AfD concerned, so the closing admin can weigh their !vote accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about this. It's quite obvious what's going on, and the closing admin will in all likelihood toss all the IP votes made in this manner. Tan | 39 14:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
On a semi-related note, could you change your sig? I don't think they're meant as taglines and it took me 30 seconds to figure out who wrote that message. especially given the context of this complaint. Only because you posted twice was I able to figure out that was your sig and not someone leaving a message with just a time stamp.--Crossmr (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I second this request. Signatures are not a place for announcing your support for someone. Thanks in advance. Tan | 39 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The beer articles have been suffering disruption by a sockpuppet spamming with a bjcp.org link (the official site for the Beer Judge Certification Programme) (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Beer_Judge_Certification_Program. The point of contention about this site is that it is US based and European beer editors don't acknowledge its authority. However there has been tacit agreement to include it on the Beer style article and of course the BJCP article itself. Hu12 has declared the link blacklisted without any discussion whatsover it seems declaring the link invalid on all articles. There has been a long discussion on the beer style article talk page and there is tacit consensus to retain the link. It seems to me this is an abuse of admin privileges to come along and rule a link invalid just because one editor is abusing it. What happens if someone starts spamming Wikipedia with IMDB links, do all the links get junked? Can someone review this situation because it seems to me this admin is out of line with this action. Surely a link can only be ruled 'spam' if it is indeed a spam link, but it is a legitimate link for a major organisation with demonstable authority and is a vlaid link on some articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hu12 notified. Tan | 39 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What admin actions did Hu12 use (if any) that were abused? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
So now "I disagree with this admin" = "admin abuse"? Please point us to any abuse of admin tools here. I'm not seeing the use of any admin tools. --Smashvilletalk 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not positive...I was able to save a null edit, but considering that Hu12 is essentially the only editor that does edit it...of course he's going to be the one who makes the decision. --Smashvilletalk 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I certainly can't edit it. --MalleusFatuorum 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that the entire MediaWiki namespace is not editable by non-admins ... isn't it? Shereth 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
MF verified; and therein lies the purported admin abuse. While I cannot make a solid statement yet, it appears that Betty Logan has a case. Tan | 39 18:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As operator of several external-link related bots here, I see quite massive abuse of this link. Yes, it has a place on the official pages, but making a HUGE number of sockpuppets (subject to a number of sockpuppet investigations) is not the way forward to include it everywhere. Blacklisting is not the end, it can be temporarily (to investigate the total extend of socks), or specific whitelisting can be implemented to allow the link on certain pages. Clearly (with the 30+ socks identified), simply blocking or page protections are not going to help, and this abuse had to stop. To me this is a clear case where Hu12 is doing all he can to stop the disruption by the socks, and I would really suggest to see whether others can help in resolving the situation so the link can be de-blacklisted again, in stead of trying to cry wolf on the admin who is trying to help. Thanks. --Dirk BeetstraTC 18:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) All of MediaWiki namespace is admin-only. I think this thread is premature; discussion with Hu12 doesn't seem to be finished; you asked, he answered, you responded and came here without waiting for a further response. You need to give him some time to respond, and take some time to discuss and explain rather than run here first. If Hu12 ultimately refuses to change it (and cannot convince you that it shouldn't be there; I assume you're open to persuading as well?), then there's a whitelist somewhere, and you can ask that the link be allowed at that specific article at the whitelist's talk page, pointing to the article talk page consensus. I can't remember where the whitelist is, I'll see if I can look it up. But the point is, it's a bit early in the game for accusations of admin abuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't find a whitelist, but I know there's a way to overcome it. The thread at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Beer Judge Certification Program might be a good place, or Hu12 (even if he disagrees) can tell you where the appropriate place is to ask for a review. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Another case where trying the obvious thing works -- WP:Whitelist takes you to the right place. Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Trying the obvious thing is for amateurs. I, sir, am a professional. </hiding embarrassment with haughty tone> --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I need to clarify that by saying above that B.L. has a case, I was merely saying that an admin action was taken, as had been previously refuted. Tan | 39 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I see about 17 (!) sockpuppet investigations. And some highly abusive edits (replacing links of another beer site).
And I see 3 editors (including Hu12) which frequent the spam research on this site who have commented or researched this (and blacklisting was suggested first one of the other two). This is not just a decision singly made by Hu12. And as may be clear, I do agree that this may, unfortunately, be, for now, the only solution.
I would really suggest that you find specific links to whitelist and request whitelisting. I see on Hu12's talkpage that the link is also used by regulars, unfortunately, blacklisting in the end means that leaving the link there will disrupt the page, and all will have to go for the moment. As I said, whitelist and include those which specifically fit on certain pages is the way forward here. I agree with Floquenbeam, this thread is premature, and is certainly not helping in resolving the situation. --Dirk BeetstraTC 18:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Whitelisting can be requested [[39]]. Please be specific with links that need to be whitelisted, it should be obvious that whitelisting the whole domain would again give free way to existing and new socks. --Dirk BeetstraTC 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
While I accept these links have bene the subject of massive abuse Hu12 has removed them from a protected page that was protected by an admin after a consensus was reached to keep the links, at leats on a temporary basis. This action has basically just ignored the consensus on this article, and I object on ethical grounds that a protected page was edited by an admin: [[40]]. I was under the impression that admins had not special editing privileges, but yet we have a protected page that an admin has edited and no other editor can. For the record, I did wait for Hu12 to respond, but he did so to someone else's talk page after I took the issue to the admin who originally protected the Beer style article: User_talk:Bduke#Beer_style. I am very annoyed about a consensus being established on an article about a legitmate link and then being told that "all discussion about the links are now void". Is this what consensus means on Wikipedia? One editor pulling rank? Some editors have put a lot of effort into resolving the dispute over the links and we don't like being told our views no longer matter. It's a valid link that is valid on some articles. Betty Logan (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Betty, it is not 'one editor pulling rank', this was investigated over and over, and as I explained, the links have to go until specific whitelisting (though vandalism is not a problem on a fully protected page, but I imagine that that will not be as indef as it seems). The consensus is there, whitelisting should really be done. I understand that it is annoying, but so is the disruption (did you check, Colldiction was made minutes ago .. it is not over yet). --Dirk BeetstraTC 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou. I have no experience of this blacklist/whitelist thing so I will look into it. I still think a better solution would have been an IP ban because I think all these sockpuppets are just the one person. Apart from that I appreciate the time you have taken to deal with this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but on a rotating IP, unfortunately. I had account creation blocked in my first block (Colldiction), hoping that it would help, but soon after another sock appeared. Not going to help, I am afraid. --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Beestra is correct, with the over 40 + Sockpuppet accounts (and growing), blacklisting was an appropriate measure--Hu12 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any abuse has taken place by Hu12; however, I do understand and share some of Betty Logan's concern that the solution to this vandalism has impacted on legitimate editing without consultation with the WikiProject concerned. I have made a request that the three articles which WikiProject Beer have determined are appropriate for bjcp links, Beer style, List of beer styles and BJCP, be technically allowed to use those links. The issue of BJCP links is a long-running and very contentious one which has involved minor but tedious edit wars and some awkward and will-sapping behaviour from a range of editors pro- and anti- BJCP. It is sadly, a long, slow process to get a case like this to ArbCom as first we have to show that we have attempted to deal with it through discussion and mediation, etc. And such discussion and mediation is extremely slow moving and slippery. If you feel frustrated, welcome to our world, we have been dealing with this for years! It has, sadly, almost brought the Beer Project to a standstill. This ban might appear to people on the fringe of this dispute to be a simple solution, but the dispute is longer, more subtle, and more wearisome than appears on the surface. As these edits concern the Beer Project it might have made sense to consult with the Project on this matter at an early stage. It is not inconceivable that the sock-spamming has actually been done by one or more anti-BJCP editors with the precise aim of getting all BJCP links banned. SilkTork *YES! 19:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Long term Widespread disruption, edit warring, abuse of multiple accounts, spamming and so on.
Seems fairly obvious the abuse and with the over 40 + Sockpuppet accounts, this is a very serious matter. There has been significant disruption, abuse, repeating inappropriate behavior and major breaches of policy by these users. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. Our blacklisting records are required to be transparent for accountability -- we don't "secretly" blacklist domains. So there will always be some record of why. Our obligation is to ensure our records are correct and factual. A case with this significant amount of recorded abuse and overwhelming evidence, does not an "abuse of admin" powers make... --Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I see that Hu12 beat me here. I have removed the blacklisting, and implemented an edit filter, as this looks like joe jobbing etc. --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Considered that, however there are no conflicting edits on the 40 + sock accounts, or found in the multiple checkusers to indicate such has occured. Much of the edits occur due to a removal, not always an addition, since blacklisting, why are more accounts being created to link to the article BJCP, which cannot be blacklisted?--Hu12 (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am doubting a bit, but it also seems strange that they did not yet run into a 'if you continue spamming, this will be blacklisted' type of warning, so they should know. Unfortunately, these warnings can be beans-like .. --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the abuse took another form, so actually it did not help all too much (see my last two blocks). --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As the admin who protected Beer style I will try to comment. First, I think Betty is rushing things. Not everybody can respond immediately. If she and others are wondering why I have not responded it is because I am in Australia and have only just got up. All this happened while I was sleeping. I suggest that Dirk Beetstra has it right. There is a strong case for dealing with the socks by blacklisting and there is a case for specific white listing. I am going to remove the protection on Beer style and back off from this problem for a while. I am going overseas next week and will be taking a bit of a wikibreak. I will also be becoming an active member of CAMRA rather than a passive one, as I will be in London, and some may think that is a conflict of interest -:) --Bduke(Discussion) 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Hu12 acted perfectly. Also this should be at WP:ANI not WP:AN. Prodegotalk 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The HELL he acted perfectly. He acts like Robocop. If he'd explained the whitelisting avenue to Betty in the first place and had a thimbleful of diplomacy in his manner as well, this thread likely never would have been started and quite a few person/hours need not have been wasted. Is this an abberation or typical for Hu12? Well, two years ago or so, when I first ran into him in mid-March 2007, he had the same infuriating Robocop manner see the section at the bottom of this page). And (if I remember correctly) Dirk Beetstra eventually smoothed over the dispute with a solution ([added later] pretty much correctly: [41]). I guess he's still following Hu12 with a shovel now. Hu12 is either incapable of a thimbleful of diplomacy in his behavior or he just likes playing Robocop -- I can't tell. Someone should have a serious discussion with Hu12 about the proper way of treating people -- some editor who Hu12 hasn't already enraged, while there are still some of those editors left. Otherwise, at some point in the future you're all going to be going over the next Hu12 dispute, and the next and the next. Have fun with that. -- Noroton (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) added second link to my comment, as noted, for the wikiarcheologists -- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
But...but...Robocop is awesome. --clpo13(talk) 03:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's certainly a certain subset of admins who are fans. -- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there some WP:DEADLINE that means the beer links have to be inserted right now? Is there any doubt about Hu12's above claim regarding 40+ sockpuppets? Is there an infallible and omniscient volunteer willing to do Hu12's work to protect Wikipedia from linkspam? Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There is always this deadline for admins doing spam patrolling: They need to be helpful and diplomatic to editors who complain about particular reverts from the very beginning. I don't think it's possible for an editor doing mass spam reverts to get everything right. It's inevitable that some mistake will be made and a link that is removed should be restored. Therefore, the only acceptable way of responding to complaints is to try to be nice and to be helpful to editors that the spam patroller has irritated, because many of those editors will be in the right and we should not be offending people who are doing their best to make Wikipedia better. Clomping around Wikipedia stepping on toes is not the way to help the encyclopedia, especially when some toes will inevitably get stepped on as the necessary anti-spam work gets done. -- Noroton (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Noroton, you have a point. It is certainly not perfect, but at a certain point, we need to use the shovel. Just take it out, clean it. Sometimes issues become so big, that the damage is impossible to control. These spam issues are often issues where many admins take a step back, with an 'oh, it is a good link, this is not spam'. True, when we blacklist a porn site, no-one is going to care. When we blacklist some small website of some small news paper no-one cares (no-one notices). When we block a /16 for a couple of weeks, hardly any user will notice. Still that does have massive effects, sometimes. But these decisions get called upon as well, but also that is hardly noticed. But a couple of editors get involved (generally, the same), and other solutions get implemented.
Hu12 (and and me, and a couple of other admins) do sometimes take these decisions, and then there are sometimes sites which are very good, have a high use and hence there is a lot of damage. Please, don't imagine that because a site is really good, has a very high use already, and is non-commercial in nature, &c. &c., that the owners of a site will not spam it (they still have a lot to gain from having their sites displayed). And that is not the only reason, it may be someone with a grudge against the site, someone who got fired, or the opponent who is trying to discredit the site. And this is one of those situations which is/was running out of hand (it is certainly not over yet).
We admins are all 'playing Robocop', and sometimes we don't immediately realize what secondary damage there is. I am not trigger happy in rangeblocks, but I do use them, and I do realize that that can have effects which I don't anticipate. I do blacklist websites (here and on meta), and the effects are generally small. You are right, sometimes the effects are too big, but alerting admins (first the blacklisting admin himself) that there are quite a number of negative effects that affect the situation, and try to give a solution as well (suggest a couple of very specific whitelistings? suggest how to catch the pattern with an edit filter?), will generally solve the situation much faster than yelling at the admin. And that may be true for some of the wikiprojects as well, where pro-actively seek solutions with knowledgeable admins could also result in earlier solutions (note, the Oosterscheldekering was built after 1,835 people drowned in a flood, sometimes, the barrier needs to be closed, and that has quite big effects on the traffic on the water, but, well, at some times there is simply no other solution (24 times since 1986). I have never noticed that it was closed, but I guess, that one day I will, or maybe even twice).
Here another solution was an edit filter, but I did read into the sockpuppet investigation, but, without stuffing beans, I know that blacklisting is still a very good solution with which editors may have to live (for some time). We will see. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra, if all that was a response to my comment, I think you misunderstood me. The sole criticism in my comment above was that if Hu12 was more diplomatic and had pointed out a solution for Betty (the whitelisting feature) that this thread might have been avoided, saving many people a lot of time. In my ancient interaction with Hu12 and others over so-called "spam" (where I certainly could have been more diplomatic, but where Hu12 caused unnecessary friction), I was able to work out compromises with you and another editor -- but not with Hu12. Not all spam removals and website blocks should be made regardless of consensus on particular pages where a link may be appropriate. Proper spam patrolling would include immediately, in a friendly way pointing out to complaining editors that the spam patroller has irritated that other avenues exist. Hu12 treated me like a bum when I was improving commuter train station articles, and he displayed some of the same faults in this case, two years later -- and who knows how many other times in between or in the future. It's a lousy example for other admins, and for another editor to call it "perfect" conduct indicates we have an attitude problem among too many admins. That's why I brought up some ancient history. -- Noroton (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Noroton. Holding a grudge against me for two years and using this discussion as a platform to attack me. hmmm. Sadly, the past facts of the case still remain. Lets go back in time and have a look, shall we;
You repeateddly added the same information to many pages, and it took a multitude of administrators and editors to explain to you why the above was inapropriate per WP:SPAM[110][111][112][113]. If I recall you were snarky and incivil to others;
"Don't you dare revert any of those edits to train station articles without discussing it with me first..." Noroton 21:31, 17 March 2007
"If you do not discuss this with me first, I will start a formal complaint." Noroton 21:31, 17 March 2007
"learn some manners from her way of doing business, then revert your edits..' Noroton 23:15, 17 March 2007
"You talk about my being angry. I've got reason to be angry. My work has been deleted, mostly by people ruder than you." Noroton 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"Why on earth not? Cite a Wikipedia rule that says we shouldn't have that "See also" section with that item. Cite one. Tell me how it's "spamming" to do so. Tell me." Noroton 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"...I agreed because I thought I would get essentially what I wanted — information pointing to the commuter council.." Noroton 03:55, 18 March 2007
"NE2, you're violating the Wikipedia admonition against assuming bad motives and the Wikipedia adminition to look for consensus. My actions were at the suggestion of one of your cronies" Noroton 22:03, 17 March 2007
Another editor commented " We had a problem a couple weeks ago with User:Noroton over at WP:WPSPAM. It was incredibly disruptive. At one point 75% of the WikiProject:Spam page was devoted to something Noroton related and all spam-teamwork-processing basically ground to a halt." Requestion 07:43, 8 April 2007
Since you've demonstrated here how well you've learned to deal with people you disagree with, perhaps now you could move on..?--Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You've succeeded in proving that your poor behavior and the poor behavior of other spam patrollers could bait me into an angry response. Thanks for helping me to prove my point. For trying to improve articles on train stations in my county, I was called -- by spam patrollers -- a probable conflict-of-interest case (based on no reason other than I thought a certain link should be added to each station's page). Despite my anger and despite the worst baiting -- bar none -- that I have ever seen on Wikipedia (really, we should have a museum for this sort of thing), I was able to come to an agreement with the spam patrollers. No thanks to you. Not every case of adding external links to a bunch of related articles is improper spam, and to link from an article about a train station to the official state agency that acts as an ombudsman for problems at that station is, at the very least, a plausible justification that doesn't deserve my being abused and accused of being someone with a conflict of interest. What a sad, pathetic episode from the archives of the spam cops. You reveal a lot about yourself by bringing it up in detail. Oh, and you forgot one quote, me responding to Beestra:
Thank you for doing your best to stay away from incivility and being open to other points of view even as you adamantly argued your points. I wish more editors followed your example. I'm sorry for sometimes lapsing into anger, but my anger arose from both protecting work I'd done and defending what I think are important points and important additions to Wikipedia. Noroton 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find a comment of yours that was similar to this one. I didn't find anything helpful in anything you wrote. It's odd that you quote Requestion. To get one of the quotes above, you had to scroll past these gems that should get their own cases in the Museum of Spam Patrol's Hall of Shame:
revert, edits from a spammer are not welcome here (an edit summary [114] by Requestion which I quoted in the discussion)
Name calling? Personal attacks? I was simply stating a fact. User:Noroton is a convicted spammer, see the section above for reference. Letting spammers edit this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam page is a serious conflict of interest for obvious reasons. (Requestion 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)) From this discussion.
"Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors."
"In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not."
Noroton, I understood exactly. Yes, there are cases where there is damage. But pulling out a 2 year old complaint, where here the situation is particularly difficult and needed handling is not really helpful. Please note, that I am still very tempted to re-blacklist the site, I am not so sure if other solutions will be sufficient (or will be sufficient before bringing this 'pedia down because of hitting the condition limit too often). Now we know that certain links need whitelisting, but then we need to figure out which, and how, and that has to be done for every link. And until that is done, the blacklisting disrupts the pages (to a certain extend; yes, I know, that if you don't add the link that the page can still be saved, but a vandalism blanking needs to be followed by removal of the link anyway, and our anti-vandalism bots can't handle that). --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I did a timing check. The person that brought the discussion here, and who started with the first complaint on the talkpage of Hu12 was already for some time (mistakenly!!) on the list of socks/spammers. I can clearly see why that first response of Hu12, who was in that first post immediately accused of abuse of admin priviliges as well, is .. a bit reserved. Even if the account was not on the list of possible spammers/socks, such a remark is on first sight not really helping discussion forward. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
To repeat my point, which I think Dirk Beetstra and Hu12 are ignoring (perhaps because it's not really refutable): Hu12 should have been more polite and helpful to an editor whose edits (or at least position) had been worked out with others and who was understandably annoyed. Hu12's actions -- as well-intentioned and useful to Wikipedia as they are -- disrupted constructive edits to the encyclopedia (in other words, the thing we're here for). In Hu12's defense, as I mentioned, when you're doing something that affects a large amount of spamming, you probably have to use a broad brush and inevitably some of that will revert good, proper edits, annoying editors.
So what does the proper spam patroller do when he's annoyed innocent editors? I repeat: Be polite and diplomatic. He doesn't do what I've seen Hu12 do just now and over two years ago: put forward a robotic, bureaucratic face devoid of any hint that you understand that your efforts, in a certain case, may have been disruptive to the good functioning of Wikipedia. For crying out loud, our bots can do that! Hu12 can certainly follow the example of our best bots.
If Hu12 wants to dismiss my comments as entirely the result of a two-year-old grudge, be my guest (it's inevitable that some people would think so, and I knew that when I made those comments). That happens to be irrelevant as to whether or not I have a valid point. And if I have a valid point, it's worth bringing up an example which shows the present case isn't an isolated one. Hu12 has been disruptive on an ongoing basis (just how much, I don't know, and my thirst for vengeance just isn't enough to motivate me to do an AN/I search). The fact that he's been disruptive in this way should be remembered if more complaints come here. -- Noroton (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
And to repeat my point, Noroton, if a person is, almost directly after an administrative action, accusing me first of abusing my admin powers (or whatever negative thing), without asking why that action was performed, then also I would be not all too helpful (I still hope I can stay polite). --Dirk BeetstraTC 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Spam engaging spammers off the coast of Wikiland(ec w/Hu12 below) You should expect editors to be annoyed, and be prepared to be both polite in response and immediately show the editors what they can do. If that's too difficult to do, then jump off the Spam Patrol Battleship. Actually, everyone should see the Spam Patrol Battleship in all the glory of the 350px size that Hu12 used when he put it up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam page. Here, take a look, just exactly as it appears there (with the same caption). What a great attitude. Yes, spam patrollers, try to be polite, helpful and diplomatic between cannonades. Imagine -- some editors seem to be irked in response. How dare they! -- Noroton (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The old shadowbot picture (BB61 USS Iowa BB61 ). shadowbot was later named AntiSpamBot and now called XLinkBot. I resized it as 350px is inapropriate for properly following this discussion. Nortoton,
My illustrating your attitude by putting up the same picture on this page that you put up on the Wikiproject Spam page in exactly the same (huge) size is tendentious in a discussion about your behavior on the Wikipedia page about editors behavior? Have I got your point correctly? I don't suppose you plan to downsize the pic over at WikiProject Spam, do you? I'd be satisfied if you just treated other editors better. Perhaps you could downsize the sense of entitlement that leads you to edit others contributions to a discussion about your behavior at AN/I. It's another reaction of yours that illustrates my point better than I could have. This discussion is generating more heat than light. Time to end it. Feel free to have the last word. -- Noroton (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Noroton, I would think any reasonable editor would find that your reason for being in this discussion is an attempt to personaly attack myself and Beetstra with meretlessHyperbole. Accusing others of bad faith, without clear evidence of such, is infact bad faith on your part. Clearly you acted in a manner incosistant with wikipedia guidelines in your old spam case. Perhaps you thought this as an "oportunity to get even". Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness such as yours, it becomes obvious that you are using this as a platform to make or illustrate a point WP:POINT. Accusing others with made-up and misrepresented facts, just to advance your agenda, may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact. There were no admin powers used in your case, nor was there Any abuse of admin powers in this case. Be polite and diplomatic by staying on topic, particularly when "falsly alledged" abuse, doesn't coincide with the "actual" facts.--Hu12 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the hyperbole is to accuse me of making a personal attack when all I've done is strongly criticize you for continuing behavior, right up to the present, that is not good for Wikipedia. The totality of my criticism is actually rather mild (lack of politeness when you bother innocent editors, lack of helpfulness when they should be told what they can do to get a whitelisting exception and overall lack of diplomacy). I strongly suspect that over the past two years and more you've caused quite a bit of disruption because of this, but I've also acknowledged that you've taken on an important task, so I think I've been pretty reasonable. Criticism, however strong, is not a personal attack, and disagreement with Beetstra is not even criticism. No one's calling for any sanctions against you, not even me. So calm down. Just remember that when you approach to patrolling is to blast away at enemies, they may not react with oodles of Wikilove. -- Noroton (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think it is time to close this thread. Could we please find a more appropriate venue for this. This is turning in merely 3 editors argumenting, and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. --Dirk BeetstraTC 17:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A little aggressive for a first warning, don't you think? PowersT 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If he's been doing this for 9 months, it's a fair enough warning. He removed it from his talk page anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If he's never received a warning about it, it's irrelevant how long he did it. PowersT 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And apart from that, we tend to be pretty leniet to what users do with their talkpages. I used mine as a Wikidairy for a long time, till another editor gave me the advice to make a subpage for that. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Did we get any Wikimilk or Wikicheese from that "wikidairy"? :-P (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism from a range of IP addresses[edit]
Over the past month or so, we've seen persistent and repeated edits by one or more anonymous users from several different IP addresses adding unsourced, unverifiable content to articles. Most of the time, these edits either add or change release dates for video games, add release dates for versions of a game that do not exist, or add other information to the articles that has to be reverted. The IPs I've personally witnessed doing this are:
The reason this notice is here and not on AIV is that several administrators (including myself) have already blocked the IPs involved multiple times. Since the IP keeps changing but the behavior is the same, it looks like someone on a dynamic IP, and thus it might be appropriate to consider a rangeblock. I didn't know where to go for that, so this seemed like the best place to take it up. Any help would be appreciated. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
the range is too large to consider a rangeblock. Could this be Bambifan? Tan | 39 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I should add that the original IP user was given ample warnings and opportunities to read the core policies on verifiable content, but never responded to any of our messages or showed any signs that they'd read or understood anything. Therefore, we were forced to assume that the persistent re-addition of bad content was vandalism. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It may be Bambifan, though said vandal usually leaves edit summaries and targets Disney articles, not video games. This is his type of vandal edit, though. Vicenarian(Said · Done) 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This could be a tangent, but when I think of video game vandal I think of User:Dr90s. Though only a few are the specific type of articles he targeted in the past so it may not be him. Either way, it might be a good idea to ask User:Thibbs to take a look; if it isn't Dr90s, it may another vandal he's encountered. (Guyinblack25talk 22:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC))
There are some similarities between the edits from these IPs and those of Dr90s. User:70.68.115.85's edit summary, for example, reveals his interests (in the Zelda series, the Mario series, the Resident Evil series, and the Metal Gear series) to closely match those of Dr90s. Apart from this, however I don't see any strong indications immediately that this is Dr90s. This user seems to have a fascination with release dates and the addition of something like "when your player loses all of his lives then the game ends" to a wide array of articles. Neither of these are behaviors I observed in Dr90s (whose obsessions included game rankings and Shigeru Miyamoto). Dr90s also seems to employ a BRRD cycle (as opposed to a BRD cycle) which ultimately results in him vigorously (albeit abrasively) defending his theories in talk. This is not something I can see these IPs doing. From Dr90s' imperfect use of English in talk and in edit summaries, as well as from an analysis of the two confirmed IPs from which he was operating (i.e. User:133.2.9.161 and User:43.244.132.168), it appears that Dr90s edits from Tokyo, Japan. IP analysis in the case of the IPs here in question shows locations in Louisiana and Virginia in the US, and Calgary in Canada. Of course proxy servers could be in use here as well, and it's always possible that the editor moved to North America...
There are certainly strong similarities between Dr90s and this IP in terms of the articles affected, however without any stronger content- or behavior-based connections, I would be uncomfortable saying that these were more likely than not socks of Dr90s. -Thibbs (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please deal with accordingly. MuZemike 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Blocked that editor for 1 week as well, and added a note to his talk page for admins in case they're concerned about my performing the block without a warning. Those edits are completely in line with earlier edits from 70.68.115.85 , and are in a slightly different class: Adding unnecessary pieces of text like "If you touch a ghost, you die. When all they lives are lost, your game is over". (This is usually redundant with text already in the article, and is written well outside of the accepted guidelines. We're now considering it vandalism because the editor has been told repeatedly to knock it off and read the guidelines, and appears to be completely ignoring us.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Re original comment; what would be the collateral damage to requesting semi-protection on these pages? If minimal, then that would stop whatever ip address is being used. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Via my watchlist, I stumbled upon discussion of a content dispute at Bungie (an article that I haven't edited), and I intervened in an attempt to sort out and resolve the issue. I'm not a party to the content dispute (regarding which logo image to use, for which I have no preference), but I cannot claim to be neutral regarding the conduct of the two users involved (David Fuchs and Connormah). While both have engaged in an edit war, I'm particularly disheartened by the behavior of David Fuchs, who began by falsely claiming that "nonfree SVGs are against WP:NFCC image use policy" in an attempt to get his way. (David was fully aware that there is no consensus for such a restriction, as he subsequently acknowledged on his talk page.) For better or worse, Connormah didn't back down (as many users would when confronted by an administrator claiming to enforce policy).
Equally troubling is David's textbook ownership of the article. He has repeatedly and uncivilly stated that he intends to maintain control of its content and that Connormah lacks the right to perform such an edit because he/she wasn't involved in its authorship. At nearly every opportunity (even when replying to my attempts to broker some sort of a truce), David has managed to needlessly insult Connormah by claiming that he/she is not a real contributor and only hinders the efforts of those who actually seek to improve the encyclopedia. Here are some quotations:
"There's only on Wikipedia because a bunch of people like yourself don't understand WP:NFCC. SVGs are not low resolution images as required by our image policy for nonfree content. Furthermore I don't appreciate people who don't do jack to actually develop articles enforcing their own styles on them." [diff]
"either way, you are not a significant contributor to this article. please go away and plaster your SVGs elsewhere, if you will" [diff]
"I'll repeat my statements; go away, and learn how to properly license images. It's rather sad when applying boilerplate templates you can't even select the proper one. I'm done discussing this with you." [diff] (Note that the image in question is properly tagged.)
"At least I'm trying to improve an article in a meaningful way. Don't you have some made up wiki to attend to?" [diff]
"or you just leave the page for the people who actually have a vested interest in improving it rather than tracing logos." [diff]
Connormah became frustrated and sought my advice on how to proceed. My initial instinct was to direct him/her here, but I instead turned to David once more (in the hope that the conflict could be resolved amicably). David responded by again insulting Connormah (opining that he/she opted to "whine" to me and stating that "other people are trying to improve the encyclopedia") and refusing to seek outside feedback by means of an RfC.
Please see User talk:David Fuchs#Non-Free SVGS. for the full set of comments.
I don't care whether the PNG or SVG is used, but this dispute's outcome should be determined via good-faith community discussion (not via bullying or attrition). I'm sorry that I'm unable to remain neutral in this conflict (despite my lack of a vested interest), but it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that I don't strongly disapprove of David's conduct. —David Levy 01:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, some notes to set the record straight: 1) the image in question was not the SVG but another nonfree image Connor added which is still improperly tagged with a boilerplate fair use logo template (File:Bnetscreenshot-august20.jpg). 2) David Levy does not mention that I tried to resolve this on the talk page following the mutual edit warring (Talk:Bungie), but that Connor has refused to discuss it there. I refuse to start an RfC if the other party isn't interested in discussing it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
1. It was unclear that you were referring to that JPEG (which you could have easily re-tagged, as I will do momentarily).
2. I linked to the complete discussion on your talk page (in which your posts to Talk:Bungie are addressed) and referenced your refusal to solicit outside feedback there. (As I noted on your talk page, I don't understand what response you seek from Connormah, particularly after you repeatedly ordered him/her to "go away" and declared that you were "done discussing this with [him/her].") —David Levy 01:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't say the SVG is not in question, you've repeadtly refused to use it referring to your interpretation with WP:NFCC. Connormah (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that David denies that the SVG is the primary focus of the dispute. —David Levy 02:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll also repeat my main statements here. I am, and was just trying to help on the article. I believe that David is displaying WP:OWN in terms of the Bungie article, as he is being stubborn as to my revisions. I do not appreciate his uncivil comments made towards me, on my talk page, and edit summaries. --Connormah (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Open an RfC or pursue dispute resolution otherwise. this is not an incident requiring immediate action. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. There seems to be a serious ownership issue here from the language of those diffs and one of them borders on a personal attack. If there is a problem withe the licensing that is one thing. But if David can't discuss it civilly then he needs to let someone else do it and go do something else. We've already been down this years long road with an editor who couldn't discuss NFCC stuff civilly. One thing we need to do is learn from past mistakes and deal with this before it grows into a larger problem.--Crossmr (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I also disagree. As said above, we have tried to settle this dispute in other ways, yet David has continued his uncivilty towards me. I think something has to be done. --Connormah (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
User:MKapoustin via the unregistered account User talk:24.226.102.232 has initiated a threat of legal action against Wikipedia because of alleged inaccuracies in a biographical article. To quote the individual, "I am in fact taking these exchanges, sending them to the Attorneys I work closely with in Canada and the USA, Bulgaria and will have one or several of them write Wiki that my bio is NOT to be created from "newspaper clippings" of unverified hearsay. I don't sue newspapers mostly because why bother. Most of the lies came out from Bulgaria and their courts are fundamental flawed and corrupted. But rest assured that this process of where volunteers say "you show us a newspaper article or we won't let you publish" and "we will put what we find" and "delete yours" ends." ttonyb1 (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
He said he was going to have his attorneys contact us. That isn't "legal action". It happens on a daily basis, in fact. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, just making sure there was not a reason to be concerned. Erring on the safe side. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. I gave him instructions on how to proceed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
With the disclaimer that I am not an admin, this is obviously a legal threat, and while it is completely appropriate to give him advice on how to contact the lawyers, policy says that his account should be blocked until the legal issues are resolved. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. It isn't a legal threat. Nowhere does he say he is going to take legal action. Talking to a lawyer is not legal action. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, but the invocation of lawyers is coercive, and so meets with the spirit of NLT. 76.229.205.206 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are people here so eager to block? A block here would solve nothing. "But zOMG!! NLT!! Policy!" ... Some guidance is what some readers/users need and I've given it to them, by telling them what they need to do if they would like their issues looked at by users who deal with this sort of thing every day. There's no reason to believe that the situation will be elevated any further; unless of course somebody blocks them because "policy says so". - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, Rjd0060 has done the right thing here. Treating article subjects with respect and doing what we can to point them in the right direction to address their concerns handles the problem. Blocking someone with what could be legitimate concerns simply because they mentioned a lawyer needlessly complicates things. Shellbabelfish 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
But we have been blocking people based on what could be perceived as a threat, even if it isn't explicit. Evil saltine (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You're wikilawyering. Please stop. This isn't about wikilawyering some exact and rigid responses based upon discussions of completely different situations elsewhere. This is about doing the right thing so as to not inflame or worsen this particular situation. Uncle G (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I originally posted this on the board because of what I thought was a threat of legal action. Rjd0060 kindly provided clarity and guidance and I thought the matter to be closed. It is interesting to see the variation of opinions, but I believe the real matter at hand is to get verifiable substance into the article. There is a lot of emotion in the talk page that stems from first-hand experience and the associated COI issues. Bottom line, to block a user such as User:MKapoustin may impede the establishment of a higher quality article. Uncle G, you are right in your assessment that the source is in question, not the encyclopedia. Thanks to everyone that chimed in and sorry to have provided a controversial topic. My best to all... ttonyb1 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a threat of legal action, except he worded it in a manner that we misinterpreted. I believe he's quite serious. In the words of the man himself, "Warning of my taking possible legal action for edits being made is not idle threat." Almost had us there, Rjd0060! :P I agree, though, blocking isn't the answer here. Metered mediation and such should be pursued if things get out of hand.
Of course, we don't even have any proof that this is Michael Kapoustin. Could just be some kid on 4Chan deciding to play games. The ISP is in Ontario, not Vancouver, where he apparently lives. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 07:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't think it would be fair if I didn't express my skepticism here; a person embroiled in events such as these doesn't strike me as someone who would fight it personally, especially at 12 at night (Vancouver time) or 2 in the morning (Ontario time). At least, that's when the RFPP request was made. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 07:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
"Almost had us there"? Check the time stamps - the comment you're referring to was posted several hours after the ones I was referring to, and several hours after I went afk. Pardon me for wanting to use blocking as a last resort. Some others are against that philosophy, it seems. Rather than blocking, after the user posted to RFPP I likely would have made sure he saw my other comment on his bio's talk page (perhaps posted the same information to his talk page). Anyhow, he had valid concerns and no help from the editors so it is quite easy to imagine why he became frustrated. Blocking "per WP:NLT" is going to help this somehow? ... Right. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Account and IP both blocked, per WP:NLT. He made a threat, and then repeated it with clear intent to take legal action. I am sure some will object, but statements like "Warning of my taking possible legal action for edits being made is not idle threat" :[115] seem clear as anything. --Jayron32 13:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, notice this section of the comment — 'I don't sue newspapers mostly because why bother. Most of the lies came out from Bulgaria and their courts are fundamental flawed and corrupted. But rest assured that this process of where volunteers say "you show us a newspaper article or we won't let you publish" and "we will put what we find" and "delete yours" ends.' Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I Heart Jeffpw (talk·contribs)
This user seems to be setting up memorial account, I'm not sure if it's pointy or sincere although the use of gayly suggests an odd tribute if they are sincere. Any ideas? -- Banjeboi 10:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Like you, the word "gayly" and the way it's worded automatically makes me lean to the side of assuming bad faith, but it could be genuine, I suppose. Certainly This diff seems genuine enough. Black Kite 11:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we be allowing user accounts that serve no constructive purpose for the encyclopedia? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I would wait to see if they make any further edits - some accounts set up their userpages and then start editing articles, I suppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As an admin I am uncertain whether Userpages can be PRODded; I was thinking of something relating to WP:NOT#Memorial? Anyway, such action should surely only follow from there being no response to a polite invitation to discuss the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, they can't, PROD only applies in mainspace. They can be MFDed though. But discussing it with the user is the less aggressive way for sure. Regards SoWhy 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have left a message at User talk:I Heart Jeffpw, but was rather unambiguous in having the userpage deleted. Any opinions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Rather than using tools, we could, of course, use the wiki idea and edit out the "gayly" (which could just be poor translation) and, bang, one perfectly normal user page. And that makes it the editor's next move. ➲REDVERSIt sucks to be me 12:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the gayly could be but a bit of a (very) clumsy go at adjective building, likewise the whole notion of starting up an account this way. It's all awkward, I'd wait and see what happens next. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It still contravenes WP:NOTMEMORIAL, in that this isn't either Jeffpw or Isaac's Userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, spot on, I only meant that one might wait a little while, for a word from the user, before dealing with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Come on... "queerly in love again"... I struggle to assume good faith on this one..--Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I need some help here as there a mother lode of irate anons and new editors who go in and add BLP violations in the article, in response to the 2009 National Artist of the Philippines controversy. I've seen them deliberately editing the titles of his works with obscene remarks in Tagalog, as well as other libelous content on the subject. This incident was also a subject of a TV Patrol World report regarding his article, too (I'll add refs to that when I find them). Blake Gripling (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the disruption is from IPs and new editors, the way to resolve this is WP:RFPP. I see that the page has been protected now, so this matter seems settled. -- Atama頭 17:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The most recent edits (diff1, diff2) by the latter IP have included legal threats over the content of the article. While the article looks borderline with respect to notability, I haven't had time to go over the content in detail. However, the legal threat certainly needs to be addressed. Thanks. --Finngalltalk 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are definetly legal threats, Indef block him.--SKATERSpeak. 17:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Gwen indef blocked. I rangeblocked 71.249.112.0/20 for 72 hours. Tan | 39 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This is why we're not supposed to allow usernames that match the name of a company that represents that company (not that it matters, though, the person still worked around via sock puppetry anyways). MuZemike 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
New editor creating lots of unrefrenced stubs, refuses to communicate[edit]
A new editor Joshua L. O'Brien (talk·contribs) has recently been creating a large number of totally unreferenced, poorly formatted stubs on historical figures (primarily Irish aristocrats). In spite of me leaving several notices on his talkpage requesting that he read WP:RS, reference his stubs and format them better, he has continued to create these unreferenced stubs and has totally ignored all attempts by myself and others to communicate with him. The articles themselves "appear" to be about real historical figures, but mass creation of totally unreferenced and poorly formatted stubs does not seem like such a good thing. I have implored him to include at least one reliable source in his stubs: he has not doe so and has not responded. Can someone step in and try to get him to communicate and understand our referencing policies? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The refusal to communicate seems to be the primary problem; we should NOT be discouraging new editors from adding content to Wikipedia! I agree that he needs to be made aware that people are trying to communicate with him, but we need to take care in helping him do things right. It is not the new content per se that seems to be the problem here, it is the refusal to communicate. I am not sure, short of a block, what can be done in this case, but I do not think a block is appropriate for merely creating stubs! --Jayron32 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just commenting on the articles, I don't think some of them fit our standards for inclusion and some should be deleted per CSD A7. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's curious that all of the articles are about people with the same last name as the editor... MirrorLockup (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone making a family tree? Wouldn't be the first time.--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Ireland, and articles on baronets apparently related to the creator of the page, in combination. Is anyone else hearing that alarm bell going off?
By the way: Picking Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet at pseudo-random and checking it out, I find that it's copied practically word-for-word from the entry on this WWW page, except for the part where it states that this person died in 1677, which was some 9 years before the history books record him as being created baronet (in 1686 according to Edmund Lodge's 1859 genealogy of the existing British peerage and baronetage, pp. 299, in the entry for Baron Inchiquin). Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet is similarly taken practically word-for-word from the same WWW page. Given those, I'd say that where this editor isn't copying and pasting others' work xe is getting the facts wrong. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Not commenting on potential socks etc. but just coming from a CSD point of view; Irish Peers of the late medieval/renaissance period were the country's primary legislators and would arguably pass WP:POLITICIAN, never mind an assertion of significance per WP:CSD. For this reason alone, I would ask that the articles not get tagged as speedies at least until we know what's going on. Fribbler (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say block him for now - 1) it might persuade him to communicate, 2) it can let us get a handle on his articles and check which are non-notable/copyvios/et al. Irish peers would only count under WP:POLITICIAN if they were members of some kind of parliamentary body - I note that he's been creating articles on baronets, which do not fall under WP:POLITICIAN as a default. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, my peerage knowledge requires "peer review" ;-) I has assumed baronets sat in the Irish House of Lords, but I am wrong. Fribbler (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not trying to discourage new contributors contributing new articles. However, mass creation of very short, unreferenced stubs and refusing to respond to concerns isn't on. I've even offered to help him format his articles properly and otherwise if he will meet me halfway and provide at least one reliable source for each of the articles, but my pleas were ignored. Content is nice but we have policies for a reason. I've only come here after multiple people have tried to communicate unsuccessfully. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A definite oy vey alright. The problem is a lot of the O'Brien/Inchiquin articles would pass both WP:POLITICIAN and indeed WP:GNG easily enough as the O'Briens were prominent movers and shakers. For example, I can see one of the Baronets that would pass as a Member of the Irish Parliament, although that isn't asserted in the article; a lot of the other articles, if sourced, would easily be notable. But it would take time.. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
User refuses to stop adding in information against consensus over past months[edit]
Resolved
– IP blocked for 3 months. MuZemike 18:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please look at the history [116] of the Age of Empires II article. One user has for months now been trying to add in the same bit of nonsense, which has been reverted by various editors, and criticized on the talk page. [117] shows this user hasn't done anything else in that time period, but edit that page. They have even been blocked nine days ago [118] do to their actions, but are now doing it yet again. This person has no intention of stopping their constant readding of the unsourced invalid and insignificant information. Will someone order them to stop adding in that bit again? Even back in March [119] they were talking about Windows 7, long before its actual release date! DreamFocus 17:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Despite the fact that their block log is clean, I have enacted a 3 month sanction. Dream Focus is correct in saying that this is a SPA that has attempted to include unsourced material into the article over a long period - hence the length of the tariff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A 3 month block is a bit more than a general sanction. A strong final warning and/or short block could have been suitable alternatives. Nja247 18:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, my mistake. They were given a warning, not a block, nine days ago. And since the edit history shows this account has been used for nothing over the months than the constant reinserting of the same material into the article, it is unlike the person was going to use it for anything else. DreamFocus 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It was not intended as a general sanction, it was intended to stop a continuance of some disruptive editing over a long period. In arriving at the 3 month tariff I noted the disruption had been both been ongoing for at least that period, but with long periods of inactivity in between, and that they had done very little else. I considered that any block shorter than a month may not have effected their edits, since they may have not edited in that period, and so chose a length going forward that was close to that for the period they had been disruptive. If the account wishes to dispute the length of the block then they are at liberty to do so, per the block notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Block needed for someone putting false information into Barack Obama article[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
User:Unitanode is putting false information into the Barack Obama article and, according to the article probation, must be blocked.
Like Henry Kissinger, Barack Obama was a part time faculty member. There is no shame being a part time faculty member, particularly, since he was already a state senator, a busy job. The University of Chicago calls its faculty "faculty members", not "professors". The use of the word "professor" is resume inflation and could result in firing if anybody else did it. Obama was not a professor. The use of the term is imprecise, misleading, and contrary to University of Chicago terminology. False information must not be allowed into Wikipedia.
Despite an explanation, Unitanode continues to do what others have been doing, i.e. putting false information into the article.
Standard Edit war - the above editor has been bold, been reverted and is now editing warring, I have warned him about 3rr, reverted his change (my 1st edit in this matter) and asked him to discuss this change further on the talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Is it possible that this is a good faith confusion or content dispute? Have you raised the issue at the users' talk page? Why would we jump straight to a block? –xenotalk 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is under article probation, that's what it says. Why insist on putting fake information or embellishment that is in error. The big reliable source is the University of Chicago itself which calls people "faculty member". Otherwise, you could call teaching assistants and instructors "professor" which is intellectually dishonest. Gaydenver (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x3...Also, the first sentence of the link provided as "proof" says professor. Unitanode is a frequent BLP/N poster and is trying to maintain BLP by posting what the reference posted. I see he only reverted once (granted without an edit summary)...and I see that he has not been contacted about this ANI, nor has any attempt been made to actually discuss the one revert that he has made. --Smashvilletalk 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
← This is a curious complaint. The poster objects to describing Obama as a professor, citing in his defense a New York Times article whose lead sentence describes Obama as... wait for it... a "professor". That, combined with edit-warring, does seem to beg the question of when discretionary sanctions might kick in, but not against Unitanode... MastCellTalk 18:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like semantics to me. They could call their professors Grand Tutnums if they wanted, but if they are teaching at a post-secondary level, they are commonly known as 'professors' (part-time or otherwise). In any case, this is a content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. –xenotalk 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As a mild aside, I really wish people would stop using "begs the question" to mean "raises the question". Tan | 39 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, referring to clearly good faith editors as vandals...not cool. --Smashvilletalk 18:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fake information insertion is ANI material as is any article on article probation (see article probation instructions). The New York Times source confirms he was part time. However, the best reliable source for being called "faculty member" is the University of Chicago website itself. Otherwise, we'd be calling teaching assistants and instructors, "professors" which is highly inaccurate. As far as "not cool", insertion of false information is vandalism, unless you want to sugar coat it and call it "article dressing"Gaydenver (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, insertion of information which is directly supported by reliable sources is referred to as "accurate" or "verifiable". --Smashvilletalk 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, this is wrong. If a reliable source is found to be wrong, then the news organization may still be regarded highly but the information is false. Gaydenver (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaking "accuracy" with "truth". Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Tan | 39 18:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't help but wondering if some people are so bent on helping the President that they prefer to have false information in Wikpedia. We should be as truthful as possible and not inflate his resume. Even with the most truthful info, we are not saying the President is bad. Gaydenver (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
So, let me get this clear, you would like someone to block an editor for correctly quoting a reliable source, because your opinion is that the source is wrong. I think the phrase we reach for here is "stop wasting everyone's time, please". Archiving. Black Kite 18:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not close discussions just after they have been started. Otherwise, we could close half of ANI. You are misquoting me. I merely cite article probation which requires ANI discussion. Gaydenver (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
IP 90.201.120.205, 90.201.120.243 and 90.201.120.30[edit]
Appears to be on a vandalism spree and has disrupted a number of military history articles related to British military history by changing the outcome to "Decisive British Military Victory". Its causing a lot of work for 3 editors cleaning up after him/her. On a related note would it be possible to have rollback?Justintalk 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
With regard to your latter question, please post your request to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. I'm not trying to be bureaucratic here, but the admins who are active in reviewing rollback requests may not be reading this page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Struck through request, another admin did it. Thanks for the heads up. Is an IP block range appropriate if this continues? Justintalk 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Incident report against Caden and another user operating under three different IP addresses[edit]
Resolved
– I think we're done here - KMF and Caden, stay away from each other please, and hopefully all will be solved. Black Kite 10:47, 18 August 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.
As for Caden, this person was guilty of Wikihounding me in the past, trying to mingle into my own affairs here on Wikipedia when it was none of his business, and this is the proof [[121]] on that by adminstrator Georgewilliamherbert (at the very bottom of the page). We are three months removed from that particular incident, and obviously this user has not changed in his ways despite a questionable remorseful statement by him saying that he was “sorry” to me. The incident between me and this other user was STRICTLY between me and that other user. And ONCE AGAIN, here comes Caden stepping into my own affairs when it was none of his business, wikihounding me AGAIN, and looking to pick another fight with me ANY WAY POSSIBLE. This user has a negative history on Wikipedia, stemming from disruptive edits, picking fights with other editors, showing hostility towards other them, and stirring controversy in the Wikipedia community such as his references to the Ku Klux Klan in his user screen name. But don’t take my word for it. Go through all of Caden’s edit logs, talk logs and block logs. All of those pretty much explain themselves as to the type of editor Caden is. Once again, this person has gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia. No offense, but I find his actions very hypocrital.
The actions by anon 68.50.128.120 and Caden were obnoxious and unnecessary to say the very least. I try to pretend it never happened, but both seem persistance to have their ways otherwise. I will not tolerate childish behavior from these two users, and request an admistrator to issues warnings for their nonsense towards me. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I turned in the first two IP's since they went back to bad behavior once their previous blocks expired. I think the two registered editors have been at each other for awhile. It was peaceful for a couple of months, but maybe that's because Caden was offline. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh man, let me just first say that I was not notified of this report. Not cool. I really believe this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Alright peeps, here's how it goes: Keltie is not telling the truth. Yesterday he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Keltie a friendly warning to cease the personal attacks towards the IP. The dude then responded by deleting my warning and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin User:Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. The dude then removed that warning from his page and later went onto the page of another admin (User:AniMate) asking that I be punished. I have nothing against Keltie so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me, twisting the truth and demanding action taken against me. All this report shows is that he's out to have me blocked like the last time. He's hated me for a long time I think but I don't give a rat's ass. The guy has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, look at his history and his edits. You'll see he's disruptive and fires off personal attacks like it's no big deal to him. The dude's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy (he's been blocked before) but then again neither am I. I do not know what his rant over my signature is about. How the hell is my birthname a controversial reference to the KKK? Keltie should be blocked for that alone. It's offensive, untrue, immature but typical of him. It's yet another personal attack from good ol' Keltie. Furthermore, it's Keltie who has "gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia" many times before and not me. Regardless man, I've done nothing wrong here. Judge for yourselves. Cadencool 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Left a note for Caden reminding him that as per WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let me dissect this last statement by Caden for everybody here.
First disection...Caden said that I personally attacked an editor, 68.50.128.120, in my edit summaries.
Sure, the situation would have been different if I went to that editor's talk page and attacked him. But I didn’t attacked the editor. Putting comments in my own edit summary is not an attack.
Second disection…Caden said that I responded by deleting his warnings, and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary.
Yes I did delete the warnings. Where is the rule that say I can’t delete remarks on my own talk page? As for the obnoxious part, I’m not going to deny it. Any editor who had past dealings with this person (and there are a handful of them) would agree with me that this Caden is a difficult editor. Difficult to the point of that one particular word I used to describe him. If I get a warning for calling Caden what I have been calling him, so be it. At least I’m honest about what I say, just like Carrie Prejean who, despite losing her Miss California USA crown, still has her dignity and honesty, and isn't afraid to express it. I'm not afraid to express my own opinions either. Caden is just fabricating remarks to make me and other editors look like the enemy, and him the victim.
Third disection...Caden said that he has nothing against me so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me.
If he has nothing against me, then why in the world is he getting involved in my own affairs and Wikihounding me as he did in the past? Caden is known to get involved in arguments that didn’t involved him initially, but came in in the middle just to antagonize a situation more than what it should have been. I sense this is all fun and games to him. And he has done that twice to me in the past, first time was three months ago, and the other time was just a few days about. How is that having nothing against me? He says one thing, and does another. A contradiction on this editor.
Fourth disection...Caden said that I have been blocked before.
Indeed I have been once blocked before. Of course, Caden is not going to tell you the situation surrounding that particular block. Once again, it all comes back to this wikihounding incident he commited against me. He too was block for this incident. And in the end, an administrator DGG, unblocked me two hours later because he deemed my block as unjustified, rooting from a trouble-making editor, Caden. Take a look at my block log and see for yourself. Caden however, didn’t get unblocked. There was a debate about extending that block for the trouble he caused to me. I have never truly been blocked irrational behavior. That is something that Caden cannot say about himself personally.
Fifth disection...Caden said that he does not know what my rant over his signature is about. And how the hell is his birthname a controversial reference to the KKK?
Apparently, Caden is not just an irrational editor, but one who immediately jumped the gun before thinking it over first. Somebody read over my first statement of all this, and tell me exactly where did I say “birth” name? I said “user screen name”. There’s a big difference. As for as the reference to the Ku Klux Klan, I present to everybody exhibit A [[122]]. In this particular exhibit (at the bottom of the page), it will show that Caden at one time incorprorated the white supremacy group in his screen name, going by the moniker CadenKKK. He was given an blocked indefinately by administrator Hersfold for that screen name, only to be uplifted upon changing it. It does not excuse the intolerable behavior of Caden, resorting to something as uncivil as that.
Of course, I can go on and on about this editor, but I felt I made my point. This simply goes to show that Caden has not been telling the truth on everything he has done, and it takes a person like me and other editors and adminstrators to undig all of his wrong doings. He claims he has done “nothing wrong.” I’m sure I can find other editors and administrators who will say otherwise. I don’t hate him. I don’t hate people in general. But at the same time, I'm not the type of person who will tolerate such abuse and behavior as Caden has demonstrated in his relatively short period of editing on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The three IPs listed at the top all geolocate to the same greater metro area. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that while I posted the second IP, it was not blocked, because it has not edited in several weeks. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots
Attacking another editor is an attack. It doesn't matter if you do it on their Talk page, your Talk page, an edit summary, or some other place. Don't attack others, period. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay here's my reply in response to Keltie's post point by point:
First disection - Keltie "did attack" IP68.50.128.120 in his edit summary. This is his personal attack: "Undoing crap by obnoxious editor." How can he deny that? The evidence is there.
Second disection - Fine man you can remove warnings from your talk page but "you can't" make personal attacks in your edit summaries like you did again with me. Your edit summary was this: "Again removing crap by yet another obnoxious editor. One who has even worst dealings." That is a personal attack. You say I'm difficult, well I find you difficult and so have others. And yes, I too am not afraid to express my opinions man. At least I tell the truth dude and am not afraid to say it. I can't say that about you man.
Third disection - It's true I don't have anything against you. I don't like to see you attacking other editors in your edit summaries and that is why man I gave you a friendly warning. Dude you've received so many warnings from admins and other editors for the exact same thing, so I wonder why you chose to single me out yet again? I think this is the third time you've taken me to ANI man. It's obvious you have a grudge against me dude. Why else would you be canvasing 3 separate admins on their talk pages in attempts to achieve a block against me? You've been to the pages of User talk:Exploding Boy, User talk:AniMate and User talk:Chzz, ranting your bull. I am not wikihounding you Keltie so you can quit saying that man.
Fourth disection - Dude you were blocked for edit warring and so was I. It had nothing to do with me wikihounding you, so don't flatter yourself. Trust me man, I don't care what you believe. Dude I was never blocked for "irrational behavior" so quit it with the lies already. My block log clearly shows it was for a edit warring.
Fifth disection - First off my username is my birthname and you've known that for months dude. As for your KKK allegations it's misleading lies on your part as an attempt to distort the truth in the hopes that an admin will fall for it and block me or ban me. Whatever. If editors want the truth, they can read about that in the link you provided to my talk page. In short, it had to do with an old ANI (the report was not about me) where 3 editors called me a racist or made remarks that I was somehow associated with the KKK. All of it was abusive lies and not a single editor was blocked for those attacks. I remember well how Bugs enabled and helped to fuel the fires of hell on that ANI. It's no surprise to see that dude sitting here silently now. Anyway when I saw that the community was pretty much allowing the devious lies, the abusive attacks and the appalling accusations to go on, I got very upset and made a poor judgment on my part. I changed my username in anger to make a point and I was punished for that with a block. Hersfold and I worked it all out after I calmed down and not only was the block lifted but he also expressed to me that he understood why I got upset and why I did it because something similar had happened to him on wiki. Dude my block was for "disruption to make a point" and not for my signature. I am human and do make mistakes.
Here's my take. The dude is pissed off that I exposed him for incivility and for making personal attacks in his edit summaries. So in retaliation (like before) he's here on ANI (like before) and canvasing to 3 admins on their talk pages to achieve what he hopes to get. A block or a ban. Period. Cadencool 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
...maybe he was just agreeing with someone three times? Yes? HalfShadow 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe a really successful inning? Protonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I knew you when you were just an amateur tonk. Good think you didn't decide to go with that name, huh? HalfShadow 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It's German; it means "The Bart, the." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Could people please re-read what I said or could you please read the link to this blown out of proportion lie? Listen, if you can't be neutral or fair then please don't bother causing me further harm here. Cadencool 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If someone labels you racist, adding "KKK" to your ID doesn't do much to dispel that notion, no matter how good an idea it may have seemed at the time. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, are you still here? HalfShadow 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Bugs you of all people know what happened on that old ANI that was filed against ParaGreen. Don't act dumb here please. It's insulting since you were the one who fueled the fire. And HalfShadow, I was protecting the use of freedom of speech on that ANI since I don't support censorship of any kind but in my attempt to do the right thing, it was twisted by Bugs and 2 others and changed into this whole KKK hate garbage and I was victimised from there. Cadencool
In fact later on Bugs thought it was funny and claimed he understood the whole thing. Here's what he said about it:
I know Roux wouldn't want me to say this, but I kind of liked that signature of yours. It was too outrageous to be taken seriously. Probably better not to use it too much. But it was a way of mocking some of us, and pretty much deservedly so.Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Cadencool 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That was 5 months ago, and since I didn't recall saying it (I do now that you brought it up), it's not surprising that someone who stumbled across it would fail to see the humor in it. Seems to me like you two should take your specific content issues to dispute resolution so someone can untangle it all. As far as personal issues, maybe a no-contact ban on both sides would be in order. It's working so far, between me and some other editor whose name escapes me just now. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Here, HalfShadow has been engaging in baiting Caden, who didn't respond very happily. I warned him, he responded with insults, I warned him against the incivility, and it continued. It doesn't look like he's going to stop any of the offensive behaviour anytime soon. → ROUX₪ 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If Baseball Bugs, HalfShadow, and Protonk can't remain mature or neutral then can you please stop posting. This isn't a game. None of you are helping. Baiting me is not acceptable behavior on ANI. EB you're an admin who's been in conflict with me not only in the past but just recently. I really don't feel you should be commenting. I apologize if I'm wrong but I don't see how you can help. All I ask is that editors and admins review this report in a neutral/fair manner. I will accept any decision or not. I just want this report to be about fairness and it should focus on the evidence only and not be distracted by some who think this is all a big joke. It's not. Thanks. Cadencool 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Same here, and in fact I was invited to comment on your behaviour but declined, so I think you should be counting your blessings. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I admit that I sometimes enjoy Halfshadow's wry sense of humor, but I do agree that the "Stimpy" remark was OTT. — Ched : ? 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The disruption at Rebecca Quick was not from the IPs, and certainly not from Caden, but from KMF; the history of KMF's editing of that article reveals a pattern of attempting to exclude mention of her former marriage, initially because it was "trivial." Later, the argument became one of impeaching sources, yet similar sources were allowed as mention of the current marriage. In reviewing this, I looked over KMF's editing history and suspect a possible conflict of interest involvement, which would explain the otherwise puzzling situation that KMF was willing to edit war over what was, from the beginning, a known and non-defamatory fact supported by reliable source, the prior marriage.
Edits to Rebecca Quick, all the KMF reverts are in bold:
Mquayle registered 17:26, 6 May 2009. The current husband of Rebecca Quick is Matthew Quayle, the producer of Quick's program. This removal of reference to the identities of spouses stood until 7 July 2009.
12:20, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 302583314 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Not appropriate to mention.)
12:25, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302587651 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Again, inappropriate. Do not change it.)
12:41, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302588154 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Unsource, rude, and inappropriate to mention of a living person.)
Then Onorem intervened and revert warred against the IP, giving "unsourced" as the reason. However, there was mention of the former marriage already in source for the previous sentence, which stated: "She now lives in Haworth, New Jersey"[124]. The 2006 source is the New York times, and it mentions her husband, "she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer." That would have been Peter Shay, we have the name from other sources. So there was no reference on the text itself, hence I understand Onorem's action. But there was adjacent reference adequate to establish a former marriage. The IP was blocked for edit warring.
162.6.97.3 was blocked] for "block evasion." (which is unclear, I found it likely that the two IPs are different users. I have a suspicion that one is the former husband, and the other may be a friend, but no proof of either.)
17:33, 5 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306233866 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Despite everything, this edit STILL does not have a source listed.)
19:48, 5 August 2009William M. Connolley (Protected Rebecca Quick: here we are again ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC))))
The additional source is a newsletter of a local organization that had a photo of Rebecca Quick with her then-husband, Peter Shay. I put it in to balance other information in the article, from not-so-reliable source, mentioning Matthew Quayle by name, the current husband, also to establish more clearly that the "computer programmer" is a different husband than the "producer."
20:01, 7 August 2009Elen of the Roads (Reverted 1 edit by Bilby; No reason to assume 3rd sector source is unreliable unless you have evidence it has been hacked.. (TW)
20:28, 7 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306659446 by Elen of the Roads (talk) Not an adaquate source. Like putting water in a gas tank.)
16:47, 9 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Readded Cedar Run source. Talkpage consensus seems to be for it. Please discuss before removing again.)
18:26, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306997914 by Elen of the Roads (talk) I'm sorry. But two people (Elen and Abd) is not consensus.)
20:32, 9 August 2009Coppertwig (Undid revision 307013795 by KeltieMartinFan (talk) Revert. Sorry, but one person (KeltieMartinFan) is not consensus.)
21:21, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 307034753 by Coppertwig (talk) It's not only me, but I'm not about to list the names either. Way too many.)
Notice that the first edit warring was not over sourcing, it was over the bare mention of the prior marriage. This was supporting the earlier removal by, we may assume, Rebecca Quick's present husband. In the discussion begun by the IP, Talk:Rebecca Quick#Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married., KMF wrote, I personally don't oppose JohnnyB256 suggestion of excluding all of Quick's martial information on this article. I’m sure Miss Quick and those close to her would actually prefer it that way. What makes sense to me is that, indeed, Ms. Quick's current husband wanted the mention removed, and that KMF's tendentious attempts to remove any mention, plus, once it was obvious that total removal wasn't going to fly, at least any reference where readers would find the former husband's name, was based on KMF's personal support for Quick's husband, here "I'm sure" is based on actual knowledge. KMF has a history of editing articles related to NBC. There may be a conflict of interest, or there may merely be a tenacious and uncivil editor who is going to push as hard as possible for what the editor wants, to the extent of edit warring and, now, filing this AN/I report. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I, too, noticed days ago that Keltie edits nearly any article to do with NBC (programs,hosts etc) which left me feeling there could be a COI here. I just finished reading the drama caused by Keltie on the issue over Rebecca Quick having been married once before previously (she's now on her second marriage), despite the reliable sources that supports that former marriage, Keltie fought endlessly to have it removed from the article (that's fishy). I had had a feeling days ago that there was a possiblity he may be employed by NBC or at the very least is associated in some way. So due to the possiblity of a COI, I mentioned my concerns to an admin called Chzz. The discussion of that is on my own talk page under the section"Question". It sure is a relief that at least another editor noticed the bizarre editing on every NBC related article . Cadencool 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see much reason for assuming a COI. Not that there isn't necessarily one, but the early reverts were of unsourced personal information in a BLP, and you don't need a COI to want to remove material under those conditions. While it isn't exactly a big deal to have been divorced, a previous marriage was being mentioned without a source, and it is the responsibility of the editor re-adding the material to provide one. The later reverts (which I started) were to remove a self-published source (a newsletter) from the article, which is again in keeping with policy, and made sense given that Abd had provided a better source (New York Times) as well as the newsletter. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Bilby, the New York Times source was there all along, all I did was make it a bit more obvious, by referring to the "computer programmer." It was the standing reference for the text that Quick "now lives in Haworth, New Jersey," the only thing that I did that was new was to read it -- besides researching the background of this, which includes coverage of the May edits to our article article, by a "gossip column." (That's cited in the Talk discussion.) The Times said that she was married to a computer programmer. The newsletter was not a "self published source," it is independent confirmation, and might be, in fact, the source for the New York Times comment. It was the newsletter of a local conservancy or the like. It has a photo of Rebecca Quick, as well as her parents and husband. Is it impossible that there was an error in this newsletter? Sure, anything is possible. Frankly, an error of that magnitude, that the organization had missed the name of their celebrity guest's husband, seems less likely to me than what I see in reliable sources quite frequently, wherever I know the subject of the article. And like a major error in a major source, it would have been corrected. I added the newsletter to cover the possibility that the NBC producer had been a computer programmer in 2006. The newsletter is a supporting source that provides information necessary to kill that: the name of the former husband. Since the article doesn't name the present husband, balance would suggest that the former husband not be named either, but the additional source was evidence that there wasn't a coincidence. There is also the gossip column, but it apparently depends on the newsletter as a source. A serious journalist would have checked with legal records, were there any doubt. I don't think there is any doubt.
KMF is a disruptive editor, uncivil and willing to edit war over trivia, and bears watching. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
extended comment by Abd
I'd say that the only reason that the newsletter reference isn't still there is that I don't edit war, and since nobody was claiming that the present husband is a computer programmer, Bilby's claim, that the extra source wasn't necessary, was sufficiently close to true to not be worth the disruption of contending about it. Coppertwig had accepted that argument, but I'm not sure that Coppertwig had considered the issue of confirmation of separate identity.
As to conflict of interest on KMF's, I don't see how, from a review of the evidence above, Bilby can say "I can't see much reason for assuming" it. Not proof, as I noted. But the level of coincidence is high; were it important, more research could be done on the nature of KMF's edits; this particular sequence shows active edit warring to remove a piece of non-defamatory information originally removed, we may assume, by Quick's present husband (a clear COI involved in the real beginning of this) (or someone pretending to be the present husband, which, if it were a pretense, would simply increase the mystery). KMF edit warred in pursuit of the removal of this almost trivial information, and was grossly, gratuitously, and provocatively uncivil. Caden is naive and erred in restoring KMF Talk material that had been removed by KMF, but he was correct about the incivility. KMF also removed the edit warring warning I dropped on KMF Talk (KMF had hit 3RR in the second edit war) and then put it on my own Talk page, making it look like I'd been warned for edit warring until I framed it. Note that all of KMF's edits of consequence to the article were bald reverts, showing no attempt to find a compromise. KMF is a disruptive editor and, at least, bears watching.
On the original arguments presented by KMF, if the first marriage was notable enough to mention in the New York Times, it is notable enough for the project in an article on the subject of the NY Times article. Notability does not expire. It doesn't belong in the article, but the photo in the newsletter conveys volumes about the history of this subject. If that man is an NBC producer, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Computer programmer? Sure. Makes total sense. All computer programmers are now allowed to complain, but I'm simply pointing out that some people are good at somethings, others at others, and the skills involving in being a producer include self-presentation, computer programmers generally don't care about that. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The source originally removed by the IP that was certainly MQuayle was [125], which was eventually restored to the article (by Bilby?). This is a source for the new marriage, reported in January 2009. So this is, indeed, adequate to show that the reported computer programmer husband, as of 2006, was not Matthew Quayle, the additional source would then merely be for interest. I know I was interested to see that, and no original research is required.... --Abd (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is far from a core issue here, so I'll be very quick. The WP:BLP policy is pleasantly clear: "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects;" and "... or that relies upon self-published sources". There was no source being provided for the claim that the subject had divorced in the article, thus it was reasonable for it to be removed. Personally, I would have tried to find a source and add it, but while that might be expected, it isn't required. Second, Wikipedia defines self published sources as including newsletters. Thus removing that as a source, when a better one was already being used, was perfectly reasonable. There is nothing in the newsletter valuable enough to warrant using a non-RS in a BLP. So while I can't comment on whether or not KeltieMartinFan has a COI, nothing in the editor's behaviour was unusual or speaks to that claim, as the reverts were firmly within BLP policy. If there is a concern, perhaps it is worth raising at WP:COI/N, although I doubt there will be much milage. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know why there is such an obsession, by all concerned, over whether this woman was previously married. Why does it matter? And when did wikipedia become the Midnight Star? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a curious mystery. :) Although, it should be said, editors have been known to argue over some odd concerns. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict with below). Actually, it's not odd at all, it only seems that way if possible COI isn't considered. In my various discussions of this, I repeatedly pointed out that admin and other response to this was reasonable, but reflected a lack of depth, which is normal. Most editors can't or won't put in the kind of time necessary to really understand what is going on. The information about a former marriage was sourced, but the reference was on the previous sentence, not the one re-inserted by the IP. Easy to overlook. I actually did at least two hours of research on this before seeing it. However,almost certainly KMF was aware. My hypothesis: one of the IP editors is the former husband, or possibly a friend of same. The former husband doesn't like being written out of history. And I can understand this, and if he was notable before, he still is. The IP editor who removed the reference to the article about the marriage, and the infobox reference to the marriages, was, almost certainly, the present husband, who understandably wants to preserve his wife's privacy, and who then registered and removed the infobox reference to the two marriages. KMF seems suspiciously aligned with the latter agenda, given the overall editing pattern. It is not a lame concern for those involved. However, if Quick wants reference to the marriage removed, the path would be through OTRS, not by edit warring to keep it out. My judgment, though, is that it belongs, it is adequately sourced; the wife is notable, a public figure, I don't think that can be undone. She was married before, so have been a lot of people, including me. It's no shame, and we know nothing about why that marriage ended, and, unless it appears in reliable source, I'm not going to even speculate. What was my concern here? It was about edit warring and a ready assumption that the problem was the IP editors, even to the point that it was assumed they were socks. That wasn't an unreasonable guess, but it may have been wrong. There was a problem with the IPs, for sure, but it wasn't what necessarily appeared, and there was more of a problem with KMF, who may remain active on other NBC-related articles. I'm not terribly concerned about the short IP blocks, they do little damage, and the IPs understand the problem and if they want to register an account, they can.
So, if there are no more problems, great, we are done here. I only brought up all this about KMF because of the aggressive filing of this report. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're making a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. What I'd really like to hear from you is a reason why her supposed previous marriage actually matters. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
User:KeltieMartinFan has taken no further action to alter or change the Quick article. Thus KMF's word should be accepted that the matter is finished.
A Quick edit-war did occur, with incivility by the major parties involved. That appears to be done as well.
Whatever exists between User:Caden and User:KeltieMartinFan is a pre-existing condition Completely Unrelated to the Quick matter. Whatever brings any other kibitzers here other than User:Bilby and User:Abd is unclear as well.
That said, while User:Abd has been helpful in much of the Quick debate, Abd is repeatedly over-amped about potential conflicts-of-interest in the matter. It also serves little purpose at this time to recount exhaustively all of the Quick edit-war particulars.
Finally, and amusingly, only User:KeltieMartinFan would vouch for Carrie Prejean's dignity! :)
This is the fixed IP most strongly suspected, by me, of being the former husband. It hasn't actually been denied, but, as long as the IP doesn't edit war or offend in other ways, it's moot, it merely is one of a number of alternate hypotheses that do, in fact, show why this was of such earth-shaking importance to several editors. This particular incident is finished, but I put the evidence here for future reference, if it is needed. If KMF is sincere, indeed, it's over. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Abd Please, please stop with the suspicions! :)
It may be hard to grasp, but edit-wars can occur without NBC employees or ex-husbands involved. And that is very much the case with the Quick matter!
I find it odd that Keltie remains so interested on practically every single NBC related type of article. Having looked through his history shows that he edits nearly every single morning program imaginable on NBC as well as other NBC programs, NBC personalities, you name it it's all NBC related. A few months ago Keltie was involved in an edit war over Katie Couric. No surprise there which leads me to believe more and more that if Keltie isn't employed by NBC, then he must be associated in one way or another. Either way it's a COI and seems to make a lot of sense based on all the NBC type of articles he edits. Unless of course he's just an obsessed fan of NBC. Cadencool 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, Bugs. Caden and I should stay away from each other. And until three days ago, I was doing just that until Caden decided to barge in AGAIN on my own business here on Wikipedia. Just like he did three months earlier with the whole Amy Robach & Jenna Wolfe spat. It is Caden that you need to tell to stay away from me. Because I was staying away from him until he decided to bother me again. I even forgot about him until he pooped up on my talk page. As they say, actions speak louder than words. No matter how many ways Caden says he has nothing against me, and has no grudge...his actions clearly say otherwise. None of what Caden has said in the last few days have been honest and truthful. Caden said that HE has not been blocked for irrational behavior? What does he think edit-warring is? As for the KKK reference, where in his right frame of mind does he think putting that as part of his signature rational and acceptable in the first place? I might be difficult in my own little way, but I would NEVER stoop to such a low level like Caden did. As for Abd, he too is quickly developing a reputation that almost rivals that of Caden. None of what he presented in the last couple of days are evidences of disruptive behavior on my part. All Abd presented were actions by me that are legitimate and within Wikipedia policies. He is only boosting my reputation on here even higher. As for the whole conflict of interest accusation that both Caden and Abd are trying to accuse me of? At least I had my proof of your KKK reference when you accuse me of "lying" about it, Caden. You and Abd DON'T HAVE proof that conflict of interest exists with me and NBC. And I’m not going to say whether or not conflict of interest does exist either. Such petty accusations are not worth my time, and I don’t feel that I should be obligated to go easy on the two you, and let you two off the hook that quickly. If you two really want to go the extra mile with that accusation, be my guess. PROVE IT. It will give me great satisfaction to know that two editors who have it in for me will go out of their way, and spend a lot of their valuable time and effort JUST TO find out if I, KeltieMartinFan, have any type of association with the National Broadcasting Company, General Electric, or any of their subsidiaries. I will say this though to everybody, when the two of you were trying to dig up dirt on me and my "supposed" obsession with NBC, they clearly left out all my important and positive contributions on various shows and personalities on networks other than NBC, like ABC’s Good Morning America and their various personalties, CBS’s The Early Show and their various personalites, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Erica Hill & Robin Meade, Fox Business Network’s Alexis Glick and Fox News Channel’s Gretchen Carlson, Alisyn Camerota & Ainsley Earhardt. Not to mention the numerous times I had to revert information caused by vandals on political commentator and Republican strategist Margaret Hoover. You don't actually think going through your edit log, Caden, that I can't figure out what type of personality you have, don't you? Just like you and Abd are trying to figure out what type of personality I have from my edit log? If you two still think conflict of interest is involved, I would care less. I’m not going to defend myself over you two in particular over this far-fetched accusation just to downplay my credibility on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Everyone involved just needs to take a breather. Tempers are flaring and it's not doing anyone a bit of good. That said, I'm not inclined to believe Keltie has a COI simply because of his editing patterns. More proof is needed to show that a COI exists. I'm sure you could go through anyone's edit history with a fine tooth comb and find a pattern that appears damning. (I'm sure this was helpful in some minuscule way.) --clpo13(talk) 09:40, 18 August 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.
I don't really want to become further involved in this, but I just feel that I need to at least try to do something to halt the inevitable train wreck that's currently underway. Within about 24 hours, the Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move movereq is going to be headed to the backlog. Now, there are plenty of admins who are regular participants in the WP:RM process, but this is anything but a normal movereq, and the fundamental problem goes far beyond what the movereq process can handle anyway. Apparently, this all started in a mediation case months ago. Unfortunately, the behavior problems driving this are being exhibited by multiple people on both sides of the screaming match. Aside from the earlier mediation case and the extensive discussions all over the Talk:Catholic Church page (as if that wasn't enough), there's also been some spread onto Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Is there consensus for this or not?, and on several individual talk pages. All i'm saying is, someone may want to get out in front of this... — Ω (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a content dispute (however stirred up) and that there isn't likely going to be enough consensus for it to happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's part of the problem. It definitely is a content dispute, and their using the movereq procedure to attempt to force an A or B solution rather then actually try to create a consensus. The reason that I posted here is to gather wider notice for when the discussion has to be closed, because no matter how it's closed some or all of the participants are going to be even more angry. — Ω (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Omission of Senator Kennedy's death from "In the News"[edit]
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.
Additional input from uninvolved parties would be useful in this discussion relating to whether the death of Senator Ted Kennedy should be included in the "In the News" listing on the main page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering it leads on at least six other Wikipedia languages, and is the lead story on BBC World News, etcetera, I really find it... absurd that the OWNers of ITN somehow don't believe he qualifies. As someone said in that discussion, that on the EN-WP site, people are going to be looking for Ted Kennedy about 50x more than Baitullah Mehsud for example, who is currently ITN. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I must say, I cracked up when I saw it wasn't there, eight hours ago. Kept thinking, "It's got to show up!" Not helpful. It should have been. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
And yet...we have Usain Bolt breaking the 200m world record...one week ago. --Smashvilletalk 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
They're a little behind the time curve. Recently they reported that Lindbergh had arrived safely in Paris. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, that was pretty silly. But it did lead me to an interesting article about drone attacks in Pakistan. Support Julian's reinstatement of the new item. –xenotalk 20:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I am very surprised, since upon reading the article I became aware Ted threw the opening pitch at some major baseball game less than five years ago... Surely that would qualify him? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
On a serious note, anyone else think a broader discussion of ITN, and the editors who basically run it, is needed. I'm not too familiar, but looking through the discussion it seems to be an issue (or is perceived as one by people who spend less time there). Deserted Cities 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A shakeup at ITN may be needed. It's easy for insularity to develop in projects and sometimes some outside perspective is helpful. I'd invite review of the arguments advanced against including this event as a way to gauge the possibility that this subproject has wandered far from its core mission and far from the generally accepted consensus of what the encyclopedia should be presenting. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
By all means, ITN has not enough people participating. TFA, OTD and DYK have guidelines, just as ITN does. There have been several attempts to refresh them but if ~10 people participate it is not very successful. And this leads to clear arguments, such as in this case. More people -> better consensus, this is how WP works. Now come and help, you're kindly invited. --Tone 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments like this [126] aren't too inviting. Deserted Cities 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I replied to it slightly harshly. Disputes are fine, but I really hope nothing like this happens again. Black Kite 21:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the most ridiculous discussions I've seen in a while. The death of one of the most recognizable politicians in the US, covered by media sources around the world, is US-centric and shouldn't be covered? Oy vey. There's definitely a disconnect going on in the selection system for ITN that needs work. Tony Fox(arf!) 21:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As long as this is still hot, I'd like to draw your constructive comments to the debate that has been idle since February. The simple thing is that ITN is not meant to be an obituary (what would easily happen if the criteria were too broad) but there has been a strong push to include some prominent people regardless. Since there is a lengthy discussion almost every month about individuals, there should be some guidelines to help editors make a decision. It is extremely easy to say "Use common sense" but reality shows that a common sense is not easy to define and thus leads to disputes. Once more, come around, get involved, suggest how things could be better and we'll have less incidents of this kind in the future. --Tone 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a bit of a dispute here regarding Ted Kennedy's entry (which I have just re-added per consensus at WP:ITN/C), so a few extra eyes would be good. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fuck people's toes. You did the right thing, and I'll instantly revert anyone who takes it off again. It's absurd that this wasn't on ITN. This is en.wiki, and this is an obviously newsworthy occurrence. Tan | 39 20:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fuck people's toes? The mind boggles at the mechanics of such an act--Jac16888Talk 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's probably more common than you would think. However, I was merely responding to this edit by Juliancolton. Tan | 39 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Tan though absurd may not do it justice. I thank him for the restraint. RxS (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The test is not the number of eyes, but flexibility. If the process at ITN is inflexible and had to be pushed past, it needs work. This is for sure an IAR situation. I didn't always agree with Kennedy, but I respected him, and I'm shocked that his death wasn't on the main page as quickly as we could write something up. End of an era.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Everyone here should watchlist WP:ITN/C. That place needs a reset/reboot/revamp, fast. Tan | 39 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Was it a glitch or but a slice of ongoing failure? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I tried participating in ITN a few months back, and I found it... uninviting, to say the least. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What's funny is that their flood of "newbies" that they are complaining about is almost all admins...yeah...pretty sure we know how and when to wield a mop. --Smashvilletalk 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This is really a clash of two hot-button areas on ITN: the death criteria and US-centrism. Quite predictable. But, I think people forget that the section is called In The News, something that this, probably more so than all the other things on ITN, certainly is. But, what I find most troubling is the reverting twice... I won't harp on that, but it should be clear that's a big no-no. -- tariqabjotu 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I do find the fact that they act like it was a bunch of trolls that took notice of their inability to collaborate a wee funny and a wee disturbing. --Smashvilletalk 21:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Erm... did you just respond to yourself? -- tariqabjotu 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This wasn't an IAR situation at all; the item clearly meets the normal criteria. —David Levy 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to add a little note of support here. The group of people at ITN seem... insular. More to the point though, I was looking for Ted Kennedy's death to show up on ITN 8 hours ago, although I wasn't at all surprised to not see it there. — Ω (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the phrase "sunlight is the best disinfectant" applies to ITN. When a small group takes charge of an insular area; over time layers of unquestioned "precedent" are laid down, and editors who began with the best of intentions become resistant to change or outside involvement. I think if more editors paid attention to ITN (and I admit this is the first time I've given it's inner workings more than a cursory glance), it would be of benefit to ITN itself, the encyclopaedia and the editors who have become locked in their own fiefdom.- Fribbler (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to toot my own horn but, I actually posted what would be a permanant solution to this problem 3 weeks ago: WT:ITN#Use of Wikinews. It might be worth reconsidering, if there is going to be widespread interest in reforming the processes there. — Ω (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Your proposed "solution" is to turn over the section to a sister project with a different mission. —David Levy 22:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont' see it as a "different mission" at all, which is what I was trying to bring up. Regardless, this is a discussion I'm uncomfortable having here, since it should be taking place on WT:ITN (which is why I posted the link). — Ω (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That you don't see "encyclopedia" and "news source" as different missions is a major part of the problem. —David Levy 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A quick glance of his/her contributions show that the user spends all (and has spent all) of his/her time dealing with mainpage stuff. Sounds suspicious in and of itself, but recent comments made during the Kennedy debate seem to show some issues involving WP:Bite and WP:Own. See [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133]. Deserted Cities 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Note, I was the one who originally posted Kennedy's death on ITN/C, leading to this whole debate
First, I don't see how spending all of one's time on "mainpage stuff" is "suspicious"; I wonder if you want to choose a better word, or clarify what it is you're suspicious of. It's a volunteer outfit, people spend time doing what they like. Second, I think bringing this here before you've discussed it with them is premature, and personalizes a problem that probably is ITN-wide, rather than limited to one person. I think this subsection is unproductive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
well i did not know signing into wiki and working on main page was so suspicious. and in above comments there is maybe one harsher than normal comment which i apologized for (moment of annoyance over previous reply is all it was). rest seemed like proper discussion to me - and if i am wrong about that then i apologize for that. but i kinda do not appreciate being put here over "suspicion" and questioning what i edit because i opposed to something on ITN/C when clearly i have been trying to help around wiki for a while... -- Ashish-g55 22:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Floquenbeam. This isn't proper. Ashishg55, I applaud you for your work. Remember, everyone, our last perfect editor retired years ago, and there's just us guys left who try to muddle along imperfectly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that I just posted a link here at WT:ITN#Reboot discussion. Someone may actually want to move this whole discussion there. Dispite the fact that I don't like what's been going on there myself, I don't think that sandbagging the regular participants there is the way to take care of the issue either. — Ω (talk) 22:39, 26 August 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.
Reposted as it was NOT dealt with, and the harassment has NOT stopped since.
Nemonoman (talk·contribs)
While looking at Parapsychology, I found some surprising claims, and checked them against the sources, and discovered that the sources directly conflicted with the claims being made. Further research discovered a pattern of abuse of sources, and I nominated the article for FAR:
As can be seen, I provided detailed analysis of an entire section, line by line, showing that almost every claim was distorted or actively went against the source. For instance, here's the first bit of the analysis.
Claim
Evidence
"The practice of randomization and associated techniques such as "blind" administration of conditions were principally developed in the conduct of early psychical research, and have since become standard practice in scientific experiments."
Claims about blinding actively contradicted by citation; randomisation claims overstated: The Bulletin of the History of Medicine does not say any such thing. Its discussion of blinding begins in the late 18th century, and, several pages of chronologically-organised examples later discusses that the first use of blinding in psychic research began after 1884. It does say "From this point [after Richet befgan using blinding sometime after 1884], blinding quickly became an essential feature of psychical research, as did Richet's random selection methods (au hasard), which he used as an additional precaution to ensure concealment. 71 When university-sanctioned psychical and parapsychology research centers were opened in the early twentieth century, blind assessment and early forms of randomization were also an integral component of their research protocols." - However, it does not credit this work with any innovation in the protocols, randomisation, or any other blinding technique.[1]
The Isis source's main statement on the matter is that Richet's randomisation methods were groundbreaking, but also credits various other fields as well, such as the later work of R. A. Fisher, and Pierce's earlier work with using playing cards to randomise a study on the perception of small differences in weights. Hence, "principally developed" is somewhat of an overstatement.[2]
I and others subsequently removed some parts of the article that had such sourcing issues.
This has caused Nemonoman to launch constant, evidence-free attacks against me, complaining at a variety of fora, and acting as if I provided no reasons for my actions. For instance, from the FAR:
“
In the past week, the editors above have edited Parapsychology with a meat cleaver and sledgehammer. The careful wordings and citations, the neutrality and consensus that successfully brought this article to FA has been successfully eliminated. Gone. The article is now canonical: Parapsychology is bullshit and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or worse.
After a slash and burn of many long months of consensus editing, the fine editors above now note -- very correctly -- that following their POV edits the article is NOW a stinking heap of garbage. And having gotten it to this stinking state, they now want it de-FA'ed.
I am in total agreement with them. This article is no longer FA quality. Not in any way. Thanks guys! --Nemonoman (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. You guys could turn this into a business.
”
and
“
Nor did it contain your many helpful new edits.
As to the info you removed, en masse, with no discussion, god bless you. Apparently you're comfortable that new info, including numerous citations, describing parapsychology in a reasonably positive light may be removed without comment. And that other information describing parapsychology in a skeptical light may be added without comment. Do we detect a pattern?
Some of us editors who regard it as good wiki-business to keep the article neutral were working that new material over. Apparently not fast enough to satisfy you, particularly when you had so much new skeptical material to add.
How much of this FAR is based on the actual quality of the article, and how much is based on a belief that the SUBJECT MATTER does not merit a Featured Article. That's something I'll be thinking about today. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It would have been a nice courtesy to discuss your plans to FAR, and your reasons, on the talk page, just as it would have been a courtesy to discuss your extensive edits of the article.
In the future, before wiping the blood from your hatchet and heading over to FAR the work done by many editors who toiled for quality and consensus, please make some small note on the articles talk page, and your actions may be better received.
I agree that Parapsychology should be de-FA'ed following your edits. It is now full of (your) POV and no longer FA quality.
This is an interesting strategy. I'll have to remember it. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
”
Then, when I deleted his comment (somewhat poorly chosen edit summary for removal: "Removed fairly trollish comment" - silence would have been better on my behalf), decided to attack me on Talk:Parapsychology[134]:
“
I expressed my concern about Shoemakersholiday's major deletions and the FAR of this article on his talk page here. He removed those comments as trolling.
Scarcely.
This is the place to discuss big changes and big actions before engaging. To do so shows respect for other editors. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
”
This is, as you can imagine, getting very old, very fast. I suppose I should link Nemonoman to this after closing this edit window, and will do so, but I would appreciate a little help here soon. Shoemaker's HolidayOver 195 FCs served 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This appears to me to be a case of ownership on the part of Nemonoman, who is slinging around accusations of POV because someone is messing with his article, hoping that something will stick. This is backed up by his absence of reply to Shoemaker's Holiday's points, merely claiming that he should have been consulted first. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the last one was not dealt with due to WP:TLDNR? (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
With respect, this is a harassment case, and is not particularly long, maybe two pages. If administrators cannot read two pages, why are they editing an encyclopedia? Shoemaker's HolidayOver 201 FCs served 02:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Because simple diffs would have sufficed, and the long quotations of text weren't necessary. But then again you can continue to question why people aren't volunteering to jump into the always great fun of "who was harassing who and who criticized who and who said what first" that always follows. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
On a more serious note, it's a FAR dispute, there's heated discussion on all sides, and there's plenty of other editors on that page that concern me more. Personally, I've never dealt much in that area, so the last thing I feel like is a block overturned because everyone tells me that's normal fair in that space. Is this a long-term issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
He's leaving messages on my talk page. Rodgarton is joinin in the fun with his behaviour. I tried to politely point out some problems, and have had eight. bloody. days. of this stuff. And when I point out the problems, I'm getting complete silence and getting ignored. I was trying to help out the encyclopedia. I spent hours checking sources and documenting my work for the FAR, and instead of having the issues looked at and argued about, I've been getting attacked, on multiple pages, for daring to point out well-documented problems. And, when I point this out, I'm getting complained at because I attempted to keep calm and simply document the problem. I want the whole damn thing to go away, but instead, I have to deal with having pointed out a problem, having a lot of people on both sides thank me for doing it, then Nemonoman, and later Rodgarton, starts a harassment campaign of attacks against me, and all that happens is other people ask not to be included in their attacks, and for him to simply concentrate on me. Seriously, you do want people to go and check sources and point out problems they find, right? Because what you're actually doing is throwing people who do that to the wolves. Shoemaker's HolidayOver 201 FCs served 02:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Here. I'm contacting oversight, but something needs to happen to prevent this from happening again. →javértbreakaway 22:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Revisions deleted until oversight can remove them. User indefblocked. Black Kite 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
In the future, if you're getting something oversighted it's probably counterproductive to paste the link on probably the most-watched page on all of Wikipedia. → ROUX₪ 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Nor, in fact, is he a web. IT'S LIES ALL AROUND I'M AFRAID. → ROUX₪ 22:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe B is a sock of Prester John based on my CU investigation, and have so tagged B, along with a number of other socks I found while rooting around, which were blocked. A tip of the hat to LessHeard vanU who provided some important information. See the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Prester_John for the list.
Also, since I noticed some of WH's comments on various pages, I have cautioned WH about his approach in interacting with these users. Even if they actually were socks the "belligerence first" approach may not be the most effective one available. As it turns out he was wrong about who they are socks of, I think, which tends to dilute the statements anyway. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Normally I'd file a 3rr report but I am on a mobile device. At Portuguese Empire [135] a new account is repeatedly placing a rather silly map instead of the one that has been there for months. Despite three editors reverting him and requests to discuss on talk, nothing. Just reverts. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 19:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted one of his edits and gave him a warning about violating the three revert rule. I'm also telling the editor about this discussion, for the sake of neutrality. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, User:Pedrocas8 seem to have a personal agenda of placing the factually wrong map he uploaded to the Commons (now deleted) in Portuguese Empire (he as tried the same in the Portuguese wiki). A anon just tried the same again (diff), and I've tagged him as a suspected sockpuppet. This seems to be a single purpose account, breaching a huge number of procedures (working against consensus, POV, introducing factually wrong satements, 3RRR breach, no edit summaries explaining his reasons, etc.). The Ogre (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know where to report this user as even though most of his edits could qualify as vandalism, the sole puropse of the account seems to be an attack account against User:J.smith. In all or at least nearly all his edits he has vandalized pages saying "Fuck you, Smith. Please have me notified when you die. I want to dance on your grave.". This account is clearly is an attack on J.Smith notcie username is Fujsmith (fuck u J Smith). Whe you add that, to the fact that he edited J.Smith's talk page first, on top of the fact that he has posted the same message repeatedly on all/most of the pages in his edits (See their contributions) I think it is safe to say that this is pretty much an SPA against User:J.smith.--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I indef'ed him. I suspect there's a back-story here, probably a sock of some other vandal account, but no idea who. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I left a note for J.smith just before. Maybe he has some ideas.--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of anyone I've pissed off recently... but it's just a standard WP:RBI as far as I am concerned. As far as being notified when I die... give me your address and number and I'll have you added to the list. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've got a list of people I'm supposed to contact when I get reincarnated. DMacks (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm having some issues with this user, especially as regards him referring to others' families.
Basically, he and User:Marwat are feuding with each other; last week Marwat was blocked 24h for edit warring and LoW 1w for edit-warring with sockpuppets (he denies using them, but CU came back as "Likely", and he was blocked based upon that). Now LoW is seeking an unprot on Marwat (article, not user), which I'm not fulfilling both because LineofWisdom has been abusing socks and because he's taken to start trying to drag mine and Marwat's families into this ([136], [137], [138]). As a result, I asked him to stop posting on my talk page; he's thus far refused to comply.
I'm not an admin but I think a block of all users that you mentioned would be suitable. Especially if you say the CheckUser came back "Likely".--The LegendarySky Attacker 07:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I don’t want to pose as a victim here but as Jeremy mentioned above he has also started to drag my family into this and has started to use foul language. I don't want a feud with him but as true wikipedian and co-creator of the subject article Marwat I had no other choice but to revert his edits. Please get him off my back too. -- MARWAT 07:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Marwat is innocent here; it's User:LineofWisdom who's acting up. Marwat (user, not article) is simply LoW's target. LineofWisdom is now starting to edit-war with me over my removal of hir comments from my talk page. -Jeremy(v^_^vTear him for his bad verses!) 07:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) [ec]
Impartial Adminsitartor Is thera any impartial administrator who is going to help me out and deliver justice? I have never ever used a sockpuppet, I assure it. If I am found to be using any, I would welcome a life-time ban and blocking. I just relied to the allegations the above user was accusing me of. He is partial. He has even abused me. If an administrator lose hos tolerance and start abusing users, why an administrator is hoping that the user would tolerate it?> He was too harsh to me, rather helping me in polite manner. He, infact has on his nerves, since i have requested unprotection of a page which was protected by him. I request to deliver justice. I assure I never used a sock. The sock, alleged to me, infact voted and debated against me. Please, help me out, if there is a nuteral administrator and operator, who is daring to uphold the truth. Please. As far as dragging family is concerned, I never dragged a family but Marwatt is keep on insisting and claiming that I am a Pakhtun not Punjabi. You know what it means? It means that I should affirm that my father and forefathers aren't the one who are but I should adopt names of Pashtuns. isn't this the biggest abuse? See the discussion page os Marwat you will see [[User:Marwatt|Marwatt}} has abused other users in the past. But may be he is friend of two / three administratos, as Jermy is also taking his side, he is never banned for it. I need justice! LineofWisdom (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTE) Jeremy Has being an administartor has violated the Wikipedia's rule. His administratorship be termintaed and he be blocked for sometime. --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you also allowed to abuse other users, use a foul language and become harsh to them especially being an adminsitrator? do you also have right to insult the users who approach you for help? Do you take is as personal attack, if a user requests un-protection of a page that is protected by you? --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've told you *why* I'm not unprotecting the page; that's not at issue. And since you refused to listen the first time, I'd hoped me telling you flatly to fuck off would make you go away. Apparently I should have opted for an IAR harassment block. -Jeremy(v^_^vTear him for his bad verses!) 07:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
How could you justify your such behaviour being an Administrator? Now, when other administrator has to decide my fate, why are you coming in favour a user? Doesn't this means a personal vandetta of yours against me? --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The difference between Marwat and you at this point is that Marwat isn't posting on my talk page despite having been told twice not to and he hasn't breached 3RR. What you're doing is nothing short of harassment. -Jeremy(v^_^vTear him for his bad verses!) 07:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that all parties cease addressing one another. I've commented on AN3. Any further aggression on LoW's part could result in a block. Killiondude (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The warning is just for me, why not for the others, who are provoking to do so? :-) Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Declining your unprotection request certainly isn't provocation. You've gone way over the line here and its frankly unsurprising that when you start accusing people of having family issues, bias and stupidity you get a poor reaction. I would suggest that you leave Jeremy alone as he's requested; use WP:RPP if you want to discuss unprotection. Shellbabelfish 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to bring a little neutrality to the artical "Kent Hovind" but was quick erased without reason 3 times, I made adjustments when I was given a reason, but there was no relenting, and Hrafn was summoned to block other, and warn me, but he has a history that cries out BIAS and there is no justice for legit contributors on the article.
SERIOUSLY facts established about family members working for this Hovind guy can even be found on his own website, and anyone following the case KNOWS that RICO was used in charging him and his wife, yet even with a source citation, a blatent lie was given denying it was in the content.
If they use a bible verse to accuse a "bible teacher" why would they block a bible verse supporting his claims IT IS BIAS hatred,,,, SOMEBODY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HELP I am crying out anywhere and evrywhere, does anyone have any strength to help this weekling out against a gang of hating bullies PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankful21&3 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I took at a look at the edits in question and I have to side with Hrafn on this one. The information you added was not notable or necessary and wasn't referenced. Hrafn was right to remove it. He could have explained his revisions better to you, yes, but as being "crazy", no he is actually doing his job. Please consider using the talk page to discuss the information you would like to add in the future before running to ANI or worse edit warring over the information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thankful21&3, NeutralHomer has given you sound advice, both here and on your talk page. Jezhowells gave you that same sound advice yesterday, before you started your edit warring and went on your crazy spree over articles and talk pages, at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Edit dispute over Artical "Kent Hovind" with user Arthur Rubin. I echo that advice, with the caveat that you ignore this good advice that people are giving you a second time, like you ignored Jezhowells the first time around, at your peril. Moreover, calling a fellow editor a "knucklehead" or a "hating bully" won't win you any friends or support.
The person behind these IPs has been vandalizing 70 - 90 articles at a time, so it feels like we should do something a little more proactive than WP:RBI. However, both of these IP's geolocate to one of the biggest metro areas in the United States and are coming from one of the big five ISPs. As such, I am sure that a rangeblock would have too much collateral damage. Does anyone else have a clever idea for dealing with this sneaky vandal? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:DRV is down the hall. → ROUX₪ 15:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
DRV isn't the place really, because a clear WP:CSD#G5 is a perfectly good reason for deleting an article. If you believe the subject is notable, ask myself or another admin to userfy the article for you to work on. Articles will not automatically be re-deleted (per WP:CSD#G4) they are re-created by another user in good standing. Black Kite 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion."
This certainly looks disputed to me. QED. → ROUX₪ 15:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, to add to Roux's comment, Per DRV: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion." I think that's an appropriate venue for whatever concern Leatherstocking has. Tan | 39 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh aye, but my point was that a week's DRV seemed a bit like policy wonking for the sake of it when any editor in good standing could just re-create the article in it's deleted state - in this respect CSD#G5 is unlike the other speedy categories. Just trying to waste less of people's time. Black Kite 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Logic and reason has no place here on teh wiki, BK. Tan | 39 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, have no objection to any editor in good standing creating a fresh article with that title. However I don't think that restoring the work of a serial sock puppet would be helpful in the long run, as it only encourages him to try to sneek back and see what he can get away with. Will Bebacktalk 16:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, he probably will be back. ;-) Tan | 39 16:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and perhaps sporting a fresh tan. ;) Will Bebacktalk 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Norman Bailey? Who? NSC staffer during the Reagan administration?[148] Three months in the Office of National Intelligence?[149] --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I placed the request here because Will was twice rebuffed by the community in the cases of Stanislav Menshikov and Wilhelm Lautenbach, so the recidivism on Norman Bailey becomes an issue of admin misbehavior. I am familiar with his grand conspiracy theory about a "serial sockpuppet," but cannot pass judgement on its veracity because the evidence is all either secret or highly speculative in nature. Therefore, I am forced to evaluate these biographical articles using only core policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV as my yardstick, and they look fine to me. I see no evidence of bias or other disruptive behavior, and apparently neither did those editors who participated in the earlier AfDs. I don't know what Black Kite means by "userfy," but I am asking for the same procedure that was used for Stanislav Menshikov and Wilhelm Lautenbach: undelete, and submit for normal AfD. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If you think the subject deserves an article then write one. The evidence for HK's sockpuppets is quite clear, and has been confirmed by checkusers as well as on-Wiki evidence. Repeated edits on behalf of a banned user may raise concerns about meatpuppeting, a violation of WP:SOCK. Will Bebacktalk 20:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please link to the evidence, Will. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(Oh I hate these; it always seems like you're looking at nothing...) HalfShadow 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The most recent set of HK socks was identified on August 19, here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Herschelkrustofsky/Archive. Just ten days before that, on 8/10, a private CU run identified ten socks, including the account that created the article in question. Will Bebacktalk 23:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Was your phrase above, "Repeated edits on behalf of a banned user may raise concerns about meatpuppeting, a violation of WP:SOCK", directed at Leatherstocking? Apart from your evident concern that he/she has the same POV as a banned user, which you apparently feel is a violation of Wikipedia policy, do you have any other evidence of violations of policy by Leatherstocking? Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
He/she has frequently restored material added by the banned user when it's been deleted. I don't think I've referred to anyone's POV here. I didn't start this thread, but if you'd like me to make a case against Leatherstocking I can assemble the evidence and request appropriate action. However, I'm more interested in editing than in evidence-gathering. Regarding the Bailey article I've created a stub so anyone interested can expand it. Will Bebacktalk 01:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
When making accusations, I think it is generally better to be specific and include diffs than to make a general insinuation, particularly when changing the subject. I'll re-state my views on this question. I'm for keeping well-sourced and neutral material, and for deleting poorly sourced, biased material. If there are banned users out there who are fiendishly plotting to add well-sourced and neutral material to the project, I think that it's unlikely that I will lose sleep over it. When this question has been put before the community, I have found that there are other editors with opinions similar to mine.[150] In a nutshell, I think that building a better encyclopedia should take precedence over settling scores with old enemies. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
– Indefblocked. Black Kite 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. Bramlet Abercrombie Bramlet_Abercrombie(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log)was blocked about a year ago by East718 for "single purpose account; long-term edit warring on Louise Blouin MacBain, Jimmy Wales and related articles; continued blanket reversion of squeakbox's edits; ninth offense". He has begun editing, and he began by continuing the same POV pushing: [151][152][153]. I reverted these articles back to versions which simply avoided the unnecessary discussion of founder/co-founder-ness and then left a note for East718. Since then Bramlet has reverted back[154][155][156]. This may warrant continued attention. Cheers! --Gmaxwell (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Any reason for not indeffing him on the spot? -- Luktalk 10:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. A year was clearly not enough.--Atlan (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly not. Black Kite 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
co-founder (with references). Looks like changing Jim Wales designation in the | disambig page to co-founder is correct. This seems to be a bad block. Refs support the "Co-founder" designation.
Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 16:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not Jimbo's userpage, that's his article. In any case, I think the disambig page was fine before. It sidestepped the whole founder/co-founder issue quite elegantly. –xenotalk 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
And it doesn't matter what the "correct" version is, if you're blocked for persistently edit-warring for a year, and as soon as you come back you start exactly the same thing again without discussion or anything else, it's pretty clear that you're not really here for any constructive reason. Black Kite 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this an attempt at humor or some kind of pointy request?--Atlan (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, I see no evidence that any other source has ever called this quote the "False Moshe Ya'alon quotation." Therefore the logical choice is to rename the article to the wording of the quote itself. *** Crotalus *** 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Problem with that is the title is too long and clumsy to be a resonable title. Do you see any sources that specifically call the quote anything else? If not, I would have to say the current title is probably the best, and is certainly better than titling the article the entire text of the quote. TheSeeker 4Talk 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, if this topic deserves its own article at all, it's probably best to name the topic as Crotalus is doing rather than the current title, unless it has a common name. I think, however, this probably doesn't deserve its own article but should rather be covered at Moshe Ya'alon. It seems to be, mainly, a controversy around him. Anyway, I couldn't find the filter that was triggered. There must be one that prevents long titles but I didn't see it. Mangojuicetalk 16:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The IP 209.99.19.8 has had a long history of editing various articles about Indian actors and actresses, while he reprimands edits that do not agree with his POV (while using terms like "retarded", "f-ing", "mindless piece of shit", "peanut brain", "idiotic" in his edit summaries to describe other editors), he persistently pushes his own POV. This can be seen just by looking at some of his contributions. Just today, he undid my revision of Chiranjeevi where I fixed many problems with the article, including the removal of POV-statements, peacock terms, and other non-encyclopedic content. Later on he added a completely POV peacock statement here which I had removed before. This has been going on for months and according to his talk page he has already had his last warning for distruptive edits. Is it high time for someone to block him already? GSMR (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Most recent warnings seem to have come later than the user's most recent edit. Definitely time to bring in some outside users (as seems to have happened), but probably "wait and see" for now. If they continue down this track, a block is probably in their future. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
GSMR, your personal experience with a few edits is perhaps colouring your perceptions of all others. The problem with, for example, this edit and this edit is not that they are bad edits. In fact they are good edits. The second removes entirely unsourced statements that a candidate for political office is corrupt, for instance. There's no POV-pushing or peacockery there. This edit, similarly, removes editorializations such as "big disaster" and "major setback". The problem is the edit summaries. I find myself in agreement with Luna Santin once again. The editor knows now, since xe has been informed of this discussion, that such edit summaries are unacceptable. Let's see whether the problem persists despite that knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, fine, I will keep an eye on his contributions for the next little while, and let you know if he continues to be aggressive... but surely you agree that his motivation is not so much good faith as it is promoting Chiranjeevi. He has vandalised articles about other Indian actors, like in this edit. GSMR (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE Look at his latest edit. More flaming and incivility. He also tried to remove previous warnings on his talk page here and here. GSMR (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added a warning template to his user talk page. Connormah (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Do not edit war over them, or you are out of line.— DædαlusContribs 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
But he's already been given his "last warning" roughly 2 weeks ago :\ GSMR (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Not for personal attacks. We'll just see what an admin thinks now. Connormah (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE 2
He just left me the following comment on Talk:Chiranjeevi:
"Oh when someone criticises chiru then you think it is in good faith. That shows that you are loyal nandamuri little girl. Stop whining and act lil gal. You are the guardian of this article so do your job good otherwise no candy for you ok baby? LMAO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.19.8 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)"
Proof: here.
GSMR (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
He also removed all warnings from his talk page again, while I know that this is allowed, here is its previous content for future reference: here. GSMR (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Then put a CSD tag on it and see what an administrator decides? Or am I missing something more complex? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's close enough to the AfD issues involved or not; before a prod tag is replaced I'd like some feedback. Would {{Db-g4}} be accurate or is there a better one? -- Banjeboi 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I had a look - I'd decline a G4. They're not similar enough in my reading, but YMMV Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That was my concern, maybe the prod will take care of it. Thank you all for your time! -- Banjeboi 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Its not the same article I deleted that is currently being overwhealmingly endorsed at DRV. Its still the same POV coatrack as the old one but that wasn't why I deleted the other one as that was based around an unsourced premis for the article. There is no clear basis for G4 for this article and I would submit that the prod won't last. I suggest another AFD if you dispute the article but at least this has some vaguely relevant sourcing. SpartazHumbug! 18:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth I've removed the prod. I don't think that path to deletion is appropriate when we have an extremely similar article called Supporters of marriage equality in the United States detailing folks from the opposite camp. Maybe we should have neither article, or both, or maybe their titles need to be changed or content altered in one or both of them, or maybe they should be combined into one article, but it seems very odd to make a decision about one and not the other, since we are talking about two sides to one issue, both of whom use their own terminology to define their own position (not unlike "pro-life" and "pro-choice".). Article talk pages and if necessary an AfD are probably the place to discuss this. Clearly this is a critical topic, I just have no idea if our existing coverage is sufficient or if we need these standalone articles to group individuals and groups into their respective pro and anti-same-sex marriage camps. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe just AfD them both then, or dump some of the content somewhere useful and turn them into redirects. But I guess that would also take energy! I'm afraid I don't have any either. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
User:RHaworth (Talkcontribs), who to be fair is acting in accordance with the majority at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early rock music, nonetheless acted without consensus, as the AfD had not run its course, and without a mandate, as only the close of AfD releases it from the mandate of the AfD's decision. Redirected and then protected (I must confess ignorance about the ramifications of a protect in this case, but it sure smells fishy to me) Racism in early rock music to Rock and roll#Race. I ask that no punishment be applied, and as the redirect may in due course be a sound one, I ask for no remedy, but I demand a visible sign of comprehension of wrongdoing. This is my first ANI, so I apologize in advance, should my premise be mistaken. Anarchangel (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like there were two AfDs for the same subject occurring at the same time.
Good, and thank you. Error is excusable, irregularity is not. Note, however, that it was said in the AfD that the articles were apparently created by students as an assignment, so if that is true, it is the teacher who is at fault, and there is in fact no recidivism here, but rather multiple editors. Anarchangel (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I may have bent the rules. I claim that WP:SNOW applies. Yes it is multiple authors but it also seems obvious that the authors are contact with each other. Even if they had not been following the AfDs, Tigiy, Nacl3 and RhiannonP had each been given messages on their talk pages at least 12 hours before the article re-appeared so I think it fairly reasonable to treat it as recidivism .
Black Kite, what was wrong with my redirect at racism in early rock music that you should delete it? And do you not think it might be a good idea to protect the title? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Meh, my bad - I closed the other AfD using a script, which of course deleted the redirect again. I've recreated (and protected) it now. Black Kite 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute about the content of the page Persian Empire, specially about two versions of the page [157][158]. In recent days several users have been involved in revering the page to one of these two versions and NuclearWarfare has been one of them [159]. Now he has indefinitely locked the page on his preferred version [160]. This is a clear violation of the sysop policy. Alefbe (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
He did not make the revert to that version though it was another editor. I dont think hes really violated any rules. However please look at the first section on the article (history section) its been locked on a version with alot of awful messed up text, so it needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you. –xenotalk 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, NuclearWarfare was responding to a request at RFPP [161] and protected the version that existed when the report was made. He probably should have left it to another admin, though. No doubt trout him and send him on his way - but I don't think straight to ANI was appropriate for this. Did you raise the issue at his talk page? –xenotalk 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I clearly noted at RfPP that I was protecting the version that existed at the time, without have even looked at it in the first place. However, in interests of expediency, I will reverse my protection and allow another uninvolved admin to protect the page. NW(Talk) 21:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xenotalk 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Everyone knows that in Admin School they teach us to always protect m:The wrong version. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This editor, who came back yesterday after a 3 year break, is changing all spellings of hebrew in a lot of articles to something ... unknown, way out of norm. I explained it to him on his talkpage, and reverted him once on Hebrew language, but he disagrees and reverts my reverts. Don't know what to do. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC) ClueBot also reverts him automatically, and he reverts that as well, see User:ClueBot/FalsePositives#What_is_going_on. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I'd like to undo all his edits, but feel I need some backup first. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I had noticed something odd going on but wasn't sure what it was. I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. This is resulting in articles where the text and title no longer agree, eg [162]. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed his contributions and I agree- they seem to be just plain weird. The methods of spelling he is using remind me of an international method of writing English, but are extremely difficult for a layperson to read. They certainly aren't vandalism, but I don't think they are helpful either. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Then again, this seems to be a content dispute and better suited for those venues. Shall we move this discussion there? Basket of Puppies 14:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone, first of all I have to say I'm really disappointed in the hostility and attacking without checking fats attitude of the people here that have put themselves in charge of this world's knowledge. First of all, a word about the ISO259-3 Romanization of Hebrew standard. This is an official ISO standard that is aimed to deliver the structure of Hebrew words in such a way that it represent any time and any dialect of Hebrew, you can check the Wiki about it. Now, all I actually did is when finding articles that do not! have any sort of a persistent method of writing Hebrew in Latin letters, I changed the problematic words - in some small and almost stub like unprofessionally made articles that no one has really got into verifying them before I changed anything now, like different niqqud signs, there were all kind of terms that seem to be half the way to ISO style of writing, like "pataḥ" and things of that sort for example. No one has bothered looking at these things till yesterday, I saw these things and realized they are neither here nor there, what I mean is they didn't follow any "accepted spellings" of these Hebrew words, nor they completely delivered what they seem to want to deliver as for the structure of the Hebrew word, so I gave those articles a slight push towards one direction. No one looked at these small articles before that! And they are full of errors and strange things regardless! I may have done some of these things quickly and unprofessionally regarding links and titles and such, but they weren't better before! Now that you've noticed the numerous places I've made the changes you're throwing the baby with the water, without even looking at the articles discussed. If some of you believe that the Hebrew terms in Latin letters should follow some "accepted" spellings if there are such, then OK, let's talk about that, but that is not the case in most articles here in Wikipedia, and no one bothers to take care of that.Ly362 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
One thing is sure: the spelling you use, isn't in use anywhere on Wikipedia. It is reserved for the lead of the article, like a phonetic spelling. Don't you see you are introducing something new and strange? Want to discuss it, go ahead. But don't be suprised that you are reversed when you make unconventional edits. And don't think these articles are being "neglected", as you say. You see yourself it took less than 24h to get onto this subject. And the hostality is because you revert all those who try to stop you, human and bot alike. You should have listened to the commotion you are making. You are all over the place (the relevant sections at least). Debresser (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The articles are neglected, and indeed it took less than 24h before some of you jumped on the first person that touched them, nothing contradicts what I said here. The hostility came before I reverted anything, it is felt immediately by the words chosen by the kind of people here who think they are in charge. I think some here are vandalists of the world's knowledge. I think you didn't bother to go over the articles before my changes and you don't bother going over them now after undoing my changes. They are more than neglected, they are full of errors, and some Hebrew words are converted not according to any defined system, but no one undoes those.Ly362 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's make a truce. Let's concentrate on the content of those articles. I admit, I only read them superficially, and that already some time ago. I changed a few small things in a few places, but it is impossible to read all articles carefully. I, for one, would definitely welcome any improvements to these articles, as I am an amateur fan of Hebrew grammar. But don't change the spelling to anything like an ISO standarisation without a general agreement concerning all Hebrew text. If you see a term spelled in a few different ways, choose the most well-known one, and change it. That, I feel sure, will be fine with everybody. Do we have a deal? Debresser (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is perfectly fine.Ly362 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Strange case here. This is a relatively new user with a clear knowledge of wiki markup writing articles on, of all things, Chinese LGBT films. The synopses read like clear-cut copyvios and I deleted them accordingly. He/she is back recreating them without the slightest acknowledgement of my concern or even the fact I'd deleted them in the first place...but the text doesn't match Google searches. I'm still convinced these are copyvios if anyone else would care to take a look. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If they are, I can't find where from either. Talk to the user and AfD the articles if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I can. The content of the now deleted revisions of Oxhide came from here. The content for the now deleted revisions of Enter The Clowns came from here. And the content for the now deleted revisions of Queer China, 'Comrade China' came from here. For context, note that these are the distributor's own publicity blurbs as published by the Tribeca Film Institute's Reframe project. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
PMDrive1061, your Spidey Sense is right to tingle. What you have here is advertising masquerading as articles. Here are the pieces of the puzzle to put together:
Ariellavt (talk·contribs) wikilinks several names in the list at DGenerate Films. By a wholly unsurprising coincidence, the August 2009 newsletter for that distributor announces that those films are to be added to the company's catalogue this month. By yet another wholly unsurprising coincidence, Ariellavt creates articles for five of those new additions within 24 hours of the newsletter's dateline: Er Dong, Gai Shanxi and Her Sisters, Raised From Dust, Meishi Street, and Oxhide. The remaining two, Enter The Clowns and Queer China, 'Comrade China', xe creates two weeks later. By a yet further wholly unsurprising coincidence, the content of the created articles comprises nothing else except a plot synopsis, a barebones infobox (with of course a link to DGenerate Films), and exactly the same external links as in the distributors' own publicity blurbs. (See the the external links here for Oxhide and here for Enter The Clowns, for examples.)
This is patently a person with a conflict of interest adding advertising blurbs, for dGenerate's latest catalogue additions, masquerading as Wikipedia articles. I will not fall over with shock if the next edits turn out to be to Betelnut, Using, or Little Moth, the three remaining films in the newsletter that haven't had advertising blurbs created here yet. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: They turned out to be re-creating the advertising blurb at Er Dong whilst I was putting together the above. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, nice...and I just apologized to the guy for the mix-up! Darn Spidey Sense didn't tingle well enough, apparently. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, every one of these is now deleted. The article about the film company was about 99% copyio'd from its website. Spidey Sense thanks you for the help, BTW. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
NJ information (talk·contribs) keeps uploading images of various malls without any licensing information (my hunch says they're probably copyrighted images on the malls' websites). If you see his talk page, there is a cavalcade of speedy deletion notices. I've noticed that when the user's images finally get deleted, the user comes right back on to upload the same images without any license information every time. As of now, the unlicensed images are: File:Livingston Mall.jpg, File:Short Hills Mall.jpg, and File:Rockaway Mall.jpg. Also, since I can't find the specific template to subst. onto the user's talk page about the image notices, could someone with more experience do that? Thanks in advance. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 22:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
User notified about this thread, this is mandatory. Exxolon (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
User has also been warned about copyright violations. (FYI, the template to use is {{subst:uw-copyright}} found here.) -- Atama頭 00:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out that the editor is a SPA who has been warned about inappropriate edits before, and it looks like they've never left a message anywhere (article talk, user talk, their own talk) despite questions about their contributions. You might want to consider WP:AIV if this behavior continues. -- Atama頭 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I gave this user a {{uw-npa4im}} after seeing these edit summaries [163][164]. In what was probably not my best judgement, I replied. Now apparently, if I reply again, I will be reported to the police. I know that I'm just being trolled at this point, but would an admin mind stepping in and putting an end to this? Thanks. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This repellent edit summary is more than enough for an indef, imho. → ROUX₪ 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Zeno's on it like white on rice. Tan | 39 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a shame, in one respect. The actual edits in those diffs were some worthwhile copyediting, correcting punctuation and grammar that was rather bad. But the edit summaries and the talk page response were unacceptable. Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If you think they'd respond to mentoring and are willing to put some effort in... Indef is not permanent... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This user continues to make disruptive edits despite being warned by multiple users not to.[165][166]. She is changing links from Durham, England to Durham, England, using the redirect for no reason. The discussion at Talk:Durham#Requested move hasn't even finished yet, and it doesn't look like consensus to move Durham to Durham, England is going to come along any time soon. I'm calling for a short block of this user, as they refuse to stop their disruptive edits. Jeni(talk) 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest a 48 hour block to any admin who reviews this situation.--The LegendarySky Attacker 01:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is a problem, and has the net effect of edit-warring. I'm in a generous mood, so I left a warning on her talk page- if she makes another similar edit, though, I think the next admin to look should go ahead and block her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The list of people who have tried, and failed, to work constructively with Una is long. This by far isn't the first time she's been involved in disruptive movement related discussions. Usually folk just keep their fingers crossed she finds another subject area to grace with her attentions before she wreaks too much havoc in theirs. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 31h. Next? Black Kite 02:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this something, well, I really don't know how to put it[edit]
I'll not act unilaterally here, but I was about 1 second from deleting the userpage per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:USERPAGE as a clearly inappropriate use of the userspace. Any other suggestions? I'm off to bed, but if any other admin wants to delete, that would get my full support. --Jayron32 04:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged the userpage as an attack page. The last four sentences of the soapboaxing indicate that the user is attempting to defame the U.S. Marines. Cunard (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I acted unilaterally, and used my ordinary editing tool. I also used it on the account's talk page. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so that was something. I was just making sure, didn't want to start something nasty...Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 04:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
DGG (04:11) provided evidence that there is not a copyright violation risk, using the US 4-pt test. Independently, you have placed yourself in the position of being legally required to provide evidence that there is a risk of copyright violation.
Why? Because your claiming of "risk" (along with four previous posters who similarly claimed "probably" (00:15), "possibly" (12:41), or without condition (23:06), (12:19)), alleges that Jack Merridew's uniquely link-transformed Atwood quote is not a fair use. If the quote is not a fair use, then you and the other four posters also allege that Jack Merridew has committed an illegal copyright-violation tort. If you (or the others) can cite reasonably believable evidence of not-fair-use – no problem. But, if you (or the others) cannot cite believable evidence that Jack Merridew is a civil law violator, then that is a libelous (written) defamation. Technically, evidence of truth is a defense to a claim of defamation.
If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom. [167]
In defense of his statement, Milomedes offered only the following wikilawyering explanation:
If you actually read WP:NLT you'll see that it applies to people who consider themselves to be a victim. It also reads, "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat..." " I'm simply warning you of your theoretical legal problem that has nothing to do with me. See shooting the messenger fallacy.
"In violation of our policy on copyrighted material" it is then." Firming your position, but still no evidence?? Considering your attitude, note also this sentence: "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified."Milo 10:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC) [168]
As language such as "consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom."[169] is neither "polite" nor necessary for the purpose of reporting "a legal problem", and is indeed designed to create the fear of a lawsuit that Wikipedia:No legal threats is designed to prevent, I ask that Milomedes be blocked indefinitely, per the provision of the policy which states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Thank you. Erik9 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I just did a cursory glance over the MfD and it doesn't look pretty, but one thing that stood out to me especially was the incivility and the sarcasm that was starting to occur, and as such some civility warnings/blocks may be in order, I have to go for now and don't have the time to read all of the discussion to verify the legal threat so I'll leave blocks/warnings for civility and legal threats to another admin :(. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Everything looks ok to me, no violations of any kind by me anyway. A very interesting debate. Erik9 even took his case to Meta where he didn't succeed, so this is just one more forum stop. Milo 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're the one whose edits are under question. Whether they appear alright to you or not is irrelevant. Not the fact of the matter is, on wikipedia, you are not allowed to threaten people the way you clearly did there. It is a clear violation, and you should be blocked until such threats are retracted.— DædαlusContribs 03:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any threat. Since when can't warnings be given? Please cite the line of WP:NLT that you claim I'm in violation of. Milo 03:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Statements such as "consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom."[170] can hardly be considered "warnings" of genuine legal problems. Furthermore, as you know, Wikipedia:No legal threats has no line numbers, and doesn't define exactly what constitutes a "legal threat", lest the definition be wikilawyered. Using graphic language to inform me of the fact that Jack Merridew may obtain my real identity, and file a defamation lawsuit against me serves no legitimate purpose, and appears to have been done for the express purpose of intimidation. Erik9 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." MastCellTalk 04:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll be glad to discuss the context of this passage with someone else, but since we have a personal conflict, please move on. Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to discuss anything with me. I quoted a line of policy, without comment. Your response is interesting. MastCellTalk 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok; and, it's just a matter of neutral jury selection. Milo 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It IS a legal threat, and Milo-whatever should either retract it immediately or be blocked for it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 04:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, BB. I enjoyed our last discussion, so we get along fine. So, you've decided that I'm guilty without hearing the argument? Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going by your own words. It doesn't look like an "I'm trying to help you" kind of message - it looks like a "cease and desist order" - which you have no business doing. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 04:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
To put it another way, if you had said something like that to me, I wouldn't have bothered filing an ANI report, I would have merely told you to stick it where the moon don't shine. Ya follow? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 04:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
BB, your reputation as the second-toughest judge at ANI suggests that I'm not going to be able to persuade you that what I did is within the WP:NLT rules, no matter what points I cite. You don't like what you see, and I guess that's enough for you.
But from my point of view, I'm a rule follower, so I read the rules. If they say I can do something, or don't say I can't do it, plus applying the rule principle as best I understand it, then I proceed.
I don't know how else one can do anything actively worthwhile, such as debating a critical Wikimedia Foundation Mission resolution, during a remarkable two-week MfD like this one, without following rules in light of principle. That's always been my understanding of the written Wikipedia method. Milo 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say this is far past warning, which would have sounded more like "Hey guys, might want to be careful that this isn't being defamatory". Also, the tone/context does seem to indicate that its being used not to help the editors mentioned, but to intimidate them into backing down from their position. This needs to be retracted and I'd think anything further in this vein would result in blocking. Shellbabelfish 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you willing to discuss my reasoning, or have you made up your mind? Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever your reasoning, this goes too far. Please try taking this feedback on board and ensuring that any future attempts to warn people about legal issues don't cross the line. Shellbabelfish 04:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
We also have a personal conflict, so please move on. Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
As a general question, why are we discussing this here? It certainly appears that Milomedes has made a comment intended to intimidate, and consensus here appears to be that it violates WP:NLT. If this is the case, he should be blocked, and this discussion should take place on his talk page where he can clearly retract his statement. As this is going here, we're allowing him to come to ANI, wikilawyer about his conduct, and then dictate which editors he will allow to discuss this with him. That doesn't seem like the best way to handle a violation of a policy. Dayewalker (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Indef blocked for making legal threats. If he should make a full retraction in an unblock request, any admin may unblock him without consulting me first. --Jayron32 05:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see a clear legal threat here. Unnecessarily heated rhetoric and unclear responses when asked? Yes. And that needs addressing. Shell Kinney has it just right: Please try taking this feedback on board and ensuring that any future attempts to warn people about legal issues don't cross the line... But if Milo makes a statement that he did not intend to intimidate and did not intend to suggest that he was contemplating any legal action, that would sort the matter out as far as I was concerned. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
In this dif: [171] he states "If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom." Threatening to out users in front of a courtroom is probably as clear a legal threat. Couching such threats with meaningless qualifiers such as "could be" or "in theory" does not make it any less of an attempt to use the threat of legal action to intimidate. --Jayron32 16:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I read the diff, yes, but thanks for reminding me. My interpretation of it differs from yours. It's excessively heated, filled with hyperbolic rhetoric, unhelpful and ought not to have been said by Milo. But I differ in interpreting it as a clear legal threat. I hope that clarifies my position. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
That understandable, as you strongly opposed my position in the MFD in which the legal threat occurred [172]. Please disclose such conflicts of interest when commenting in future AN/I discussions, so that you aren't incorrectly regarded as an uninvolved administrator. Erik9 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm no less uninvolved than you. My support or opposition of a position in the MfD has no bearing on my ability to evaluate whether something is a legal threat or not. Does the fact that I characterized the DrV as legitimate and needing to be run to conclusion (supporting you) similarly disqualify me from having opinions? Or do you only raise CoI when convenient? I am surprised that you continue to use this tactic of casting aspersions on others. You really ought to know better. It's getting quite tiresome, and I had hoped that after this apology to me you had turned over a new leaf. Please review WP:AGF again ( since the last review you were encouraged to make didn't seem to do the trick).
To reiterate the substantive matter, I find Milo's contributions to that MfD to be quite unhelpful and distractive in general (they did not really advance the debate), and that specific comment as particularly so, but I didn't find it as a threat. YMMV. By the way, yours weren't so great either. And neither were mine. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If you characterize endorsing the MFD closure that I'm seeking to overturn [173] as supporting me, then you have a curious definition of the term. My statement that you're involved in the MFD is purely descriptive: as an involved administrator, you would be prohibited from blocking or unblocking Milomedes yourself. Therefore, your comments should not be construed as contributing towards the consensus of uninvolved administrators who can take action with regard to this report. I'm certainly NOT accusing you of attempting to downplay an explicit, graphically worded legal threat just because it was made against someone who you opposed in a content dispute. To summarize the issue on commons: after I filed a MFD against his user subpage, Jack Merridew responded by accusing me of being a "hypocrite" who "quite possibly" had child pornography on his userpage [174]. To Jack's dismay I'm sure, the image was ultimately validated as being of an adult, freely licensed,[175] and not considered to be pornographic by commons editors.[176] While I did overreact to the accusations, my response was understandable given the circumstances. To construe an apology as an admission of wrongdoing is profoundly ungracious, though perhaps no more so than your initial "acceptance".[177]Erik9 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
My support of your position was in this phrasing, repeated in its entireity: "I agree with Eric about the mechanics of the process here... this DRV is appropriate and should be run to its conclusion. Taking this matter back to MfD, absent time passing or some policy change/clarification, would not likely result in a different outcome and would be pointless"... Drew was seeking to stop the DRV you started and I opposed that. Perhaps you missed it? We can disagree about what the outcome should be while agreeing the DRV is legit. That's what I was referring to. I am afraid that your summary of what transpired on Commons fails to include a large number of salient points which weaken your position. I support or oppose things based on the facts, which is why when you are correct about things, you'll get my support, as you have done many times already, whether you realise, acknowledge, or thank me for it or not. But, regrettably the converse doesn't seem to be the case. I think the ungracious one here is you, you seem to overreact, cast aspersions on motives, and generally assume bad faith of me when it's unwarranted. That was what I had hoped you were going to stop doing when you apologised. However, none of that is particularly relevant to this question of legal threats. Milo's blocked. He should stay blocked until and unless he clarifies what he meant, and it is clear to the satisfaction of the community that no threat is intended. That I don't myself see it as a threat doesn't mean it doesn't need clarifying. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comments at the deletion review overall did not support my position. If I had noted that you were an involved editor in the MFD with regard to your concurrence with taking the matter to DRV at all, then I would also have to note your involvement in response to your endorsement of the MFD closure. Of course, I did neither. If my comment "That understandable, as you strongly opposed my position in the MFD in which the legal threat occurred" is to be construed as "overreact[ing], cast[ing] aspersions on motives, and generally assum[ing] bad faith", then you are in essence disputing the entire basis for administrators to recuse themselves from acting upon matters in which they are involved: administrators aren't considered to be able to fairly and impartially decide the correct administrative action when they are involved. If you wish to hold yourself out as some exception to the principle which justifies the "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute" section of Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools, then I respectfully disagree. Erik9 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
"Your comments at the deletion review overall did not support my position" -- didn't say they did, please review what I did say. I gave an example of support which you disregarded in your haste to try to discredit my statements. Look, this is a side issue but by your theory of when to apply involvement, you're not qualified to comment on this either and shouldn't have raised this matter here. Horsefeathers. Neither of us are exceptions to any principles, I just think you are misapplying them. And casting aspersions while doing so. The main issue here is whether Milo should remain blocked pending a clarification and or recanting, and we're in agreement on that, aren't we? ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not claim that involved administrators are unqualified to comment, but only that, since they are forbidden to take administrative action, their involved status should be clearly disclosed[178], so that they are not incorrectly regarded as uninvolved administrators contributing towards the consensus of administrators permitted to act. This principle is not contravened by my placement of a report here, or the manner in which written: since I am not an administrator, I could not reasonably be construed as an uninvolved administrator. Erik9 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as a "threat" per se. He's not implying that he will sue. It could be as interpreted as a threat though, so it definitely merits a warning. I wouldn't block over just that statement though. Evil saltine (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right: "He's not implying that he will sue": he's implying that Jack Merridew will sue, and using graphic language to describe the contemplated legal proceedings. Legal threats are not acceptable simply because they are delivered on behalf of third parties. Erik9 (talk)
I understand; we block for perceived legal threats as well as actual threats. Evil saltine (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Look at it this way; if you are in an altercation with another person, and he says to you "I hope nothing happens to you in your sleep tonight", apropos of nothing, how should you take that? He statement was clearly meant to intimidate people who took up an opposing viewpoint from him by introducing the threat legal proceedings for those that opposed him. Carefully couching the language to avoid the first-person pronoun does not make it less of a threat. --Jayron32 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a gray area... not everyone sees it the same way. However, that a number of people see it that way suggests it needs clarifying to remove ambiguity, and if Milo won't respond satisfactorily, he should remain blocked. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is in the gray area too, I would have more firmly warned at this point but don't contest the block's legitimacy. It's a legitimately preventive block - we have an apparent or credibly possible threat, we need to prevent harm to the community from legal issues being used as a hammer. Hopefully Milo will clarify and/or retract and someone can unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No legal threats was written, as I understand it, specifically so that users could not use the treat of legal action to coerce and intimidate others -- this strikes me as a transparently obvious attempt to do so. There is no requirement that the words "I'm going to sue you" be used. Milomedes is not a newcomer by any stretch of the imagination, and is surely well aware of the community's history of swift, strong response even to a hint of a legal threat. They could just as easily have used less charged language, and chose not to. They could just as easily have redacted their threat, and chose not to. I for one consider both choices significant. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm with luna. This is an obvious threat. I don't see where folks above are finding gray. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It's always easy to see things as black or white. Life usually isn't that way though. But this is a moot point. There are enough people who think it's a policy violation, or could be construed as one, that it needs clarifying. Milo has had some time now to clarify, but hasn't (yet? if ever?). Absent some change in that, there's probably not much more to discuss... he'll rightly stay blocked until he recants the threat. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not imposing some manichean split here. "If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom" Is a legal threat. Just like if I said, "Lar, if you don't retract your claim about seeing things in black and white, someone might come to your house and beat your face in" it would be a clear threat of physical violence and we would be right in repudiating me, despite the fact that it is couched in the hypothetical. No one would come along and say "well, maybe he was just stating that coincidences happen in the universe" or "maybe he was looking out for your best interests". No. It would be a hideous threat and I would be well in the wrong in making it. Likewise, someone saying on wikipedia "you need to take my side in a discussion or you could find yourself in a civil suit" is an obvious threat. I'm not taking the easy road or avoiding introspection by saying so and I'm a little insulted that you would intimate as such (And further intimate that it is a good block only by the dint of consensus here). Protonk (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A threat is a statement that conveys a (possibly conditional) intent to inflict some form of punishment. If someone states: "What you are doing is against the law and creates a legal liability", such a statement can only be construed as a threat if the person uttering this warning is in a position to initiate legal action. If I give you as my opinion that your publications constitute defamation of Glenn Beck (say), or that they infringe upon his copyright, and that you might be sued for that, it is not a threat (unless I'm Glenn Beck), because only the person defamed or whose copyright was infringed upon can sue. In such a case it is totally misplaced to invoke WP:NLT over such a statement. --Lambiam 15:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not misplaced. Bringing up legal issues in this way is a form of intimidation. That's why it's forbidden and it's why the user must be blocked until he recants that intimidation. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Lambiam: Here's the deal, WP:NLT is about not bringing up legal consequences in attempting to intimidate other editors to do what you want. Read his text again: "If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom." (bolding mine). He demands others do what he wants (to strike something he wants them to strike) and then states that they could be outed in a court of law if they do not comply. It does not become any more cut-and-dry than that for a legal threat. --Jayron32 15:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And so, if I know you are planning to set fire to your neighbour's home and I were to say: "If you do that and someone perishes in the flames, you may be charged with murder", I would, in your opinion, be uttering a legal threat. Curious, but INA(wiki)L. --Lambiam 16:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh, no, that's not the same thing at all. Red herring analogy? Tan | 39 16:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a straw man. What if, instead, you know that Jay is likely to comment in a discussion on Wikipedia -- I assure you, that's quite different from burning down someone's home -- and you intimate that Jay's very likely to have terrible things happen to him, if he disagrees with you? What if you go into significant detail about those terrible things, far more than is necessary for a simple notice? Would it be safe to say that you've gone above and beyond merely "informing", and are in fact attempting to intimidate another user? What if, when confronted about this, you do nothing to ameliorate the attempted intimidation? Nothing about the posting suggests that it was a "friendly" notice, as far as I can see. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Instead of using terms like "red herring" and "strawman", please answer to the point itself. In the example above, is the statement "you may be charged with murder" a threat? If not, would it become a threat if I go into significant detail about the terrible things that may ensue, far more than is necessary for a simple notice? I don't think so. And did Milo really go significantly beyond a notice that some users' conduct might, in theory, make them liable to legal action, and did he go into significant detail about terrible things? I don't see that he did. Since when is the difference between a warning and a threat the amount of terrible detail? Conveying the intent to inflict punishment is an essential element of a threat; if whoever issues a warning is obviously not a position to inflict such punishment (and also does not attempt to suggest they are), it is not a threat. --Lambiam 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's true. Death threats can be quite intimidating for some people, even when issued by complete strangers over the internet who, one can typically assume, have no way of carrying out those threats. Looking at historic application of WP:NLT, there is no requirement the threatening individual be in a position to sue -- the core element of a threat here is not intent to "punish", but intimidation. Chilling effects must be taken seriously. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
We have to use terms like "straw man" and "red herring" because, well, that's what your analogy is. There is no use in answering it as it has no bearing at all on the situation at hand. Tan | 39 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(exdent) How do I go about checking the "historic application" of WP:NLT? In all places where the text of WP:NLT gives an example, or becomes otherwise more concrete, it is quite clear that the assumption is that the users who may be blocked under this policy are users who themselves threaten to sue:
"If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so"; "If you are the owner of copyrighted material ..."; "If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia ..."; "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are “defamatory“ or “libelous“, that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation."; "While you may sue in a court of law, ..."; "Attempting to resolve disputes using the dispute resolution procedures will often lead to a solution without resorting to the law. If the dispute resolution procedures do not resolve your problem, and you then choose to take legal action, you do so in the knowledge that you took all reasonable steps to resolve the situation amicably."
(Emphasis mine). This is a very consistent pattern throughout the text of this policy; it is all about users who say: "don't do that or I'll sue", and there can be no doubt that this does not cover the case where in no way does the user actually threaten to sue. --Lambiam 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Cloaking it in passive voice as the editor did ("such-and-such could happen") does not diminish the threat or intimidation factor. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 20:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that you are saying that Milo obliquely, between the lines, in a cloaked way, without saying it in so many words, by implication, threatened to sue other users? --Lambiam 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand you are implying that wasn't a threat? Do I understand that you believe telling someone something bad might happen to them if they don't back down isn't a threat?— DædαlusContribs 21:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question: it depends on how it was phrased and the context, but telling a child something bad might happen to them if they don't back down from their plan to put their hand on the burning stove isn't a threat, in my opinion. Also Milo's statement was not a threat, in my opinion, and definitely not a "legal threat" as described in WP:NLT. I'm still waiting for Baseball Bugs' answer to my question, but I wouldn't mind hearing from you as well: Is it your opinion that Milo (possibly very obliquely) threatened to sue other users? --Lambiam 22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
IF he didn't mean it, he could have easily retracted it. What he did was an attempt at intimidation, pure and simple, and our policy is quite clear that such attempts of intimidation through legal means are not allowed. As I said earlier, he could have easily retracted it, but here we are, several days after the block, and he has yet to do anything in response. Why do you suppose that is?— DædαlusContribs 22:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)That's the way it looks to me. Regardless, he intended to intimidate, which is what the NLT rule is about, as it goes on at some length to explain. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I note that neither of you has answered my simple question. --Lambiam 06:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Mostly because your circular logic, horrible analogies, and refusal to be reasonable has probably caused everyone here to throw their hands in the air and turn their attention to more useful endeavors. Tan | 39 06:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You are saying: We don't like your arguments, and therefore we do not need to address them. An editor has been indefinitely blocked by what I see as an unjustified stretching of policy. This is a serious matter. I am attempting as well as I can to explain the situation, but no one addresses my objections; all I see is doing away with them by calling them a "red herring", "straw man", "circular logic", and even "refusal to be reasonable", which I find deeply insulting. --Lambiam 13:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree that this is what NLT is all about, but there should be some recognition that here on WP we're careful with copyright and BLPs at least in part because failing to adhere to WP policies on those topics can cause legal consequences. After all, legal considerations are implicit in many of the guidelines here, and issues arising from those guidelines should be resolved with some recognition of those legal considerations. Without referring in any way to the specific editor and circumstances here, it should be noted that not every comment that acknowledges the legal implications underlying BLP should be interpreted as indicating an intent to intimidate. Steveozone (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(OD)If I may, I don't think Milo was threatening that he would sue. I don't even see that as a possibility. However, it seems very clear that he intended his words to intimidate, to threaten people who disagreed with him with the possibility they could be served with legal action. To me, the primary purpose of NLT is not to prevent lawsuits. The chance of a lawsuit being filed because of something on wikipedia is very slim, and should be handled by Godwin anyway. NLT is there to protect people, especially new editors, from being bullied and intimidated by the threat of legal action.
As I stated above when this all started days ago, I really don't understand the point in all of this. When the discussion started Milo came here, refused to directly address the questions, began to wikilawyer about NLT, then started telling us which editors he'd be willing to discuss this matter with and which he would ignore. Since the block, he hasn't returned to discuss the matter at all when a simple good faith discussion of what happened would more than likely get him reinstated. This all seems like a waste of time. Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Milo was essentially saying: "what you guys are doing is not only immoral but also illegal". I have reviewed all cases I could find of users who were indef-blocked because of legal threats. In all cases except this one, the user was, or suggested to speak for, the "injured party" and stated or implied that they might institute legal action, which is what is blockable by the WP:NLT policy. Just stating that some action is illegal and that a user might run afoul of the law, also when the aim of the statement is to make that user refrain from the action, is a normal thing to do,[179][180][181] and has never been considered a blockable offense. Milo was not wikilawyering; he was merely explaining the policy, just like I have tried to do – thus far in vain. If, as he explained (and I agree with him), he did not issue a legal threat, he can obviously not retract it. Milo could modify his statement to say: "Knowingly publishing false statements about people that are damaging to their reputation is a right protected by the First Amendment and may win you the Presidential Medal of Freedom", but then he would be lying. --Lambiam 13:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You guys all realize this all goes away when Milo makes an unambiguous statement that he will not take any legal action, right? We can debate this all day, but it is Milo that made the initial statements, so it is Milo that needs to tell us what he really meant. If he has not intention of taking any legal action, he is free to state that, and as soon as he does he will be unblocked. --Jayron32 13:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It is completely obvious that Milo never had the intention of taking any legal action, and his statement could not reasonably be understood as a threat that he might take legal action, but hey, we all make dumb mistakes every now and then. But, when asked for clarification, Milo clearly stated: "I'm simply warning you of your theoretical legal problem that has nothing to do with me. See shooting the messenger fallacy." Accusing him of wikilawyering and continuing to label his comment as a legal threat, instead of simply accepting his explanation, is a totally unwarranted and indefensible assumption of bad faith. --Lambiam 13:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the post Milo was replying to:
The content is non-free. While the fair use laws and policies which allow that in some cases, I see no need to consider that unless using it benefits Wikipedia. Since the text is used to decorate a user talkpage, I cannot see what we lose by simply cutting it off. It's not as if the talkpage is degraded by losing the text. Using a risk-benefit analysis I see a risk that the content is in violation of our policies on copyrighted material, and no counteracting benefit to suggest that we should examine the legal aspects more closely.
Milo's reply to that post:
...your claiming of "risk" (along with four previous posters who similarly claimed "probably" (00:15), "possibly" (12:41), or without condition (23:06), (12:19)), alleges that Jack Merridew's uniquely link-transformed Atwood quote may not be (or is not) a fair use. If the quote is not a fair use, then you and the other four posters also allege that Jack Merridew has committed an illegal copyright-violation tort. If you (or the others) can cite reasonably believable evidence of not-fair-use – no problem. But, if you (or the others) cannot cite believable evidence that Jack Merridew is a civil law violator, then that is a libelous (written) defamation.
If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom.
So, User A comments on a deletion discussion mentioning their belief that Wikipedia policy may have been violated, and User B replies with a wall of legalese, says User A has now accused someone of violating civil law, accuses five users of defamation, and instructs all of those users to immediately strike their comments, lest they be sued. Is this reasonable, on User B's part? Is it appropriate, in a deletion debate, to repeatedly remind all users disagreeing with you that they're in legal distress? If we -- purely hypothetically -- apply Milo's apparent logic to this discussion, it would follow that you, Lambiam, have supported Milo's claims and effectively accused these users of defamation; would it be appropriate for me to repeatedly remind you of hypothetical liability in that scenario? To insist that you and anyone who agrees with you strike your comments and stop posting against my position, to avoid such liability? If I were to do so, would I be acting in good faith and for your sake? You've repeatedly made comparisons to arson, murder, and so forth; do any of your scenarios involve the dastardly crime of commenting in Wikipedia process discussions? – Luna Santin (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The example involving arson aimed at eliciting a response that could clarify how others in this thread understood the term "legal threat", which is an issue that is at the heart of my argument; it could have been any illegal action, but I picked one of which I expected everyone would agree it was illegal, so that there would be no secondary discussion whether the hypothetical action was actually illegal. Every example differs in at least some respects from what it may be applied to – otherwise is not an example but the same thing – and a favourite diversional tactic in argumentation is to attack an example by pointing out there are differences, so that it is not the same thing and can therefore be ignored. In the three links to diffs I give above in my reply to Dayewalker the scenario involves in all cases nothing more dramatic than posting material to Wikipedia. I can't follow how application of Milo's apparent logic to my contributions here is supposed to lead to the conclusion that I supported his claims, but that is besides the point. If, using whatever arguments, you made statements to the effect that I am effectively committing defamation of some other persons (who have nothing to do with you) and thereby make myself liable to legal action by said persons, I might shrug it off or if I feel harassed and simple conflict resolution fails, I might start an RFC or file a more formal complaint. What I would not do is label your statements as a legal threat and claim your actions constitute a blockable offence per WP:NLT. That is a dangerous widening of what that policy is meant to cover. --Lambiam 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So, in short, you believe that threatening users with legal action is an appropriate debate tactic? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If you consider the three diff links above to be "threatening users with legal action", then, yes, at least under certain circumstances, it may be an appropriate thing to do – because I think that in all three cases the editors acted appropriately. This does, by the way, not follow in any way from what I wrote before; it is an entirely new piece of information about what I think or believe. Here is another "horrible analogy". Suppose somebody breaks a vase in a porcelain shop, whereupon they are arrested and convicted of battery. Now someone else says: "Wait a minute, that's not battery!" Does that now imply that the last person considers breaking earthenware an appropriate thing to do? No, it does not – maybe they will consider it appropriate under some circumstances and inappropriate under other circumstances. The only thing it implies is that the person objecting believes it does not fit the requirements for being labelled "battery".
This discussion is going nowhere: it's obvious that there is very substantial administrative support for the position that Milomedes' comments constituted a legal threat and that an indefinite block was warranted; far fewer administrators do not construe the comments as a legal threat, and oppose the block. Therefore, unblocking Milomedes based on the discussion here, without any retraction of the comments in question, would be inappropriate. If you disagree with the indefinite blocking of this user, you are welcome to appeal the matter to the Arbitration Committee. Erik9 (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
My point was more that your argument seems to hinge on the perception that Milo's expression of legal risk was a legitimate notice, rather than an attempt to stifle discussion; because of that, it seems reasonable to assume you consider his concerns valid, or at least genuinely intended. Now, of the three diffs you've linked, this one is from 2004 and does seem at first glance to express a legitimate concern; this one from 2006 was made using a standardized template ({{defwarn}}); and this one from 2008 doesn't seem to be targeted at any specific editor; in the case of Milo's post, the legal concern expressed strikes me as entirely spurious, it was not made using a standard template, and it was targeted at very specific editors (who, oddly enough, were guilty merely of disagreeing with Milo in a deletion debate). Above, you seemed to claim ignorance of our community's past handling of legal threats, and now you've suddenly pulled three diffs spanning the past five years of editing history out of the nether -- I must admit I'm a bit baffled. I'm getting tired of running in circles about arson, murder, and now porcelain shops. If there's nothing substantive to be added, here, I think consensus is pretty clear for the time being. If Milo returns and clarifies his position satisfactorily, I imagine the chances of his being unblocked are quite good; if he continues to play mum, I guess we'll see where that goes. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record: after I wrote 'How do I go about checking the "historic application" of WP:NLT?' (and received no answer), I spent a large amount of time (many hours over several days) trying to find cases of indef-blocks by appeal to WP:NLT. I have not found a systematic way of going about this, and so the search was rather haphazard. In the end I have found a total of eight other cases (all of which appear to support my position), which you are free to peruse at User:Lambiam/NLT blocks. There are probably many more, but I just did not encounter them in my quest. Finding the three diffs that I've "suddenly pulled out of the nether" was a completely separate endeavour – after all, they involve neither blocks nor claims of NLT violations – that took less, but still considerable effort. --Lambiam 18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
BlackpoolKickboxer2008 in a deletion discussion[edit]
I'm not sure on a technical level much can be done. He doesn't really edit the actual encyclopedia that much, so it's not like we'll miss him for his nonsense and if yes, he creates a ton of socks who just create sandbox pages, the only thing I can think of is a Wikipedia:Edit filter to alter us of his nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he will sock-recreate the pages for long if the pages are deleted and the socks blocked quickly. What's the point of publishing scoreboards if they'll stay online for only brief periods? Kotiwalo (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
ALSO: 2 IP accounts that voted on this AfD had also contributed to BlackpoolKickboxer2008's sandboxes. Notice that the AfD is related to WP:BIGBRO, which BlackpoolKickboxer2008 is a member of and continually contributes to. Dale 09:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
– Socks gonna get such a washing... HalfShadow 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This user has a history of deleting articles that are South Korea unfriendly or North Korea friendly in content. He has, again, deleted any mention of political refugees from South Korea in the articles Koreans in the United Kingdom, Koreans in Germany and Koreans in France, and called for the article Dong Tsoe to be deleted. (In spite of all those having references.) This user CaliforniaAliBaba is biased for South Korea and against North Korea. Administrators please look into his case and don't allow his continual politically biased editing of articles relating to Korea. Wikipedia should be neutral on North-South Korea and not pick and show South Korea friendly ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrogean (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine any situation that would result in favorable commentary and article for North Korea. seicer | talk | contribs 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I suspect Retrogean is another sock of User:Yoland83.--Atlan (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I listed him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoland83. I have been reverting all edits by these users due to the massive WP:BLP issues involved --- they have been running all over the internet, not just on Wikipedia, spreading rumours about this guy Dong Hyun Choi (aka Dong Tsoe). I can't tell whether it's just the usual kind of astro-turfing campaign to raise awareness about a non-notable issue, or whether there's something more sinister going on like an attempt to perpetrate a hoax or defame the guy by implying he's a North Korean spy. cab (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was going through new page patrol and noticed this user, tagged one of there artices for deletion as WP:CSD#A3, but after looking at there contribs most of them seemed to only be adding an external link to random articles. Not sure this is spamming, could someone look into this. FeinohaTalk, My master 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the 4 most recent diff's and they looked ok to me, relevant and not under WP:ELNO, the links weren't added with any promotional intent from what I saw. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
User notified about this thread, this is mandatory. Exxolon (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In addition, typically all sites that are owned by a single company or individual, its about generating traffic and increasing exposure. The big picture shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. from, Special:Contributions/Mcalison
23:03, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Karmapa (→External links) (top)
22:59, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Warlpiri (→External links) (top)
22:58, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Warlpiri (→External links)
22:50, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Prison Dharma Network (→External links) (top)
22:42, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Thomas Keating (→External links) (top)
22:39, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Duane Elgin (→External links) (top)
22:32, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Indigenous peoples in Ecuador (→External Links) (top)
22:30, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Indigenous peoples in Ecuador (→References)
22:21, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Dean Radin (→External links) (top)
22:18, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Dean Radin (→External links) (Tag: repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user)
22:13, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa (→External links) (top)
22:12, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Cliff Curtis (→External links) (top)
22:06, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Kagyu (→Drukpa Kagyu) (top)
21:55, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Bob Randall (→External links) (top)
21:51, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Ngarrindjeri (→External links) (top)
21:50, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Ngarrindjeri (→External links)
21:50, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Ngarrindjeri (→External links)
21:47, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Wananga (→External Links)
21:46, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Wananga (Added External Link)
23:34, 26 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Angel Kyodo Williams (Added External Link) (top)
23:32, 26 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cuenca (Added External Link) (top)
Asside from the obvious SPAM and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, one needs to consider a Wikipedia pillar...neutrality, adding the same domain over and over is contradictory to this. The account appears, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting this one website in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Yes, the internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content.--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Mcalison's only activity on Wikipedia is the addition of these links. I would support undoing all their edits up to this point. We should listen carefully to any response they may give to this complaint, but their record so far is not promising. Video interviews may conceivably have value, but mass addition of such links is hard to accept. Seventh Generation Fund and Freddy Ehlers, now deleted as A3, seem to have been created only so that they could be a receptacle for the added link to the respective interview. We depend upon our editors having good judgment and we don't want them to be entirely devoted to promoting some external activity, like the site that hosts these interviews. No objection if this editor wants to add some relevant content to the respective articles that could be sourced to the interview of the subject. If some random editor who was trying to improve article content had come across one of these interviews and felt it belonged as a link, that would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I've reverted this users edits. Additionaly it would seem those two article above were in fact only created for, and only contained a "link" to globalonenessproject.org. I've also found a more IP's;
Also although it may not be related, when you link to the root domain (globalonenessproject.org) it closes the browser. weird...--Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
– Talk page history merged. --Gigs (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
User:NikFreak seems to be attempting to purge the history of his talk page by moving it to Junk:3862340023750. I know we used to allow good faith requests for deletion of a user's own talk page, but I'm hesitant to tag the "Junk" page for CSD given that he seems to want to suppress the history of being warned for incivility. I'm not sure what needs to be done about this. Gigs (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've done a history merge to put it back in. He's welcome to remove the warnings, but the page history should remain where it is. Hersfold(t/a/c) 19:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Good deal, thanks. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted this and I'm wondering what to do next. Wondering: Is abuse happening, or is this just a perfectly happy kid/family that wants to state their opinion? I was going to send a welcome note and/or a note to seek police/school assistance, but IP appears to be an Alabama ISP and could be a shared home PC (would be bad if the wrong person received the talk notice). Any thoughts? 7 01:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Although yeah that could be a child in trouble, it could also just be a random 13 year old who has an opinion about the subject of Child Abuse worthy of only a level 1 vandalism warning, there isn't really evidence of anything happening, it might not even be a child who made the edit! Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, could be completely innocuous. However, at this point I'd rather not warn them for the edit which might draw attention to it from the wrong person. Unless someone else disagrees I'll just watch this IPs contribs for a few days and make sure nothing else pops up. On this topic though, are there any WP specific guidelines for how to handle these types of issues (where there might need to be some official notification made to authorities) for my future reference?7 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, a common form of edit is to click an edit link and add a self-evident statement to an article; my guess is that it's done by a child wanting to leave their mark on an article. I don't see this edit as being any different from adding "Catapults were used to throw rocks" to Catapult, or "The Spruce Goose was a big airplane" to Spruce Goose (both of which I've seen). --Carnildo (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
– Re-resolved: Giano creates joke accounts that are all obviously run by him. There is nothing wrong with this. --Jayron32 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a sock of someone, or someone returning, but who is this? Prodegotalk 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that Giano? –xenotalk 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Such a well-disguised alternative account may be difficult to identify *grin* Black Kite 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Nothing to see. Move along. --Jayron32 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't this be marked somewhere? Prodegotalk 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much declares it as Giano on the user page. This is freaking hilarious. -- Atama頭 19:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It says Lady Catherine was the muse and great great grand aunt of Giano. It's in character, but it's identified.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Would spoil the joke to make it any more obvious... –xenotalk 19:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we have any requirement for people to declare their alternate accounts as long as they do not violate the sock puppetry policy. Chillum 19:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well apparently the wit of that is above me. I need something a bit more obvious to identify alternate accounts, personally. Otherwise they just end up looking like sockpuppets to me. Also: what joke? As for declaring, I would like to know who feels they need to judge my impertinence and manners, rather than hiding behind some account I do not know who is. Prodegotalk 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, do we really want to drag out another Giano debate over another one of his obvious joke accounts? No one is going to block him or this account, it's CLEARLY one of his cadre of similar accounts (there are dozens). No one has done anything wrong. I am re-resolving this before it gets out of hand. --Jayron32 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Prodego registered on 23 September 2005, goddam n00b that he is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're not born on Wikipedia, you're not a native. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Giano most certainly does not boast dozens of "similar accounts." There is, or was, User:Catherine de Burgh, and that's pretty much it, as far as I can recollect. After her Ladyship's untimely demise, she has been editing as User:Ka of Catherine de Burgh (very reasonably so IMO, see wikipedia's article Ka), while usually signing as "Lady Catherine de Burgh (the late)". Giano has never been partial to alternative accounts, and if the thing sounds a bit complicated, that is simply caused by Lady Catherine's unhappy departure for greener pastures. In other words, unless I've accidentally mislaid some sock, Giano has one alternative account. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
Correct link: Egyptian soul#Ka. FWIW sock pupptry requires a forbidden use of an alternate account. Thus, sockpuppetry reports require diffs. The obtuse should re-read the instructions at the top of this noteboard, specifically the one that says where to file sockpuppetry complaints. JehochmanTalk 07:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Throughout the project, we do not include album covers on their artist's page. They are permitted on article about the albums in particular, but unless there is substantial notability of, say, the cover design related to the artist we don't see album covers on artists page. They are routinely removed for failing WP:NFCC.
In this particular case, we're being asked to host an album cover for an album that was deemed, via the AfD, to be non-notable. I fail to see a reason why we should retain a non-free cover of a non-notable album any more than we retain articles of non-notable bands. I've directed User:Ebonyskye to take the issue up at WP:DRV, but he is reverting to push the image back into the article [183].
Related to this, User:Ebonyskye has thrice put album infobox template onto the article after it was removed by others [184][185][186].
Please note that back in 2007, Ebonyskye was topic banned from Nox Arcana and related articles (and Michelle Belanger is related; in fact the album in question was performed with Nox Arcana. The topic ban was later lifted. However, I see signs of the behavior resurfacing, along with a sense that WP:OWN is being violated.
The FfD on this image is devolving into wikilawyering, over something that we handle on a routine basis without ever touching FfD; non-notable album, we remove its cover. This is pretty simple. An administrator to step in would be useful. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noting, but as the article was merged I've moved the history back to Blood of Angels and left it under the redirect, so everything's hunky-dory copyright wise. Hammersoft, I suggest an RFC about the user's behavior, if necessary, and to just let the FfD run its course. While there may be some disruption there, it doesn't look like consensus is actually moving for it, and the usual outcome is going to happen anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The FFD is moot anyway. Even if it results in a Keep, the image still needs to be removed from Michelle Belanger as failing WP:NFCC, and it will then be orphaned and, as a non-free file, speedy deletable anyway. Black Kite 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If the FfD results in the image being kept, and it's removed from the article, an edit war will result to push the image back on. It won't be speedy deleted. That's why I'm asking for action now, to avoid the unfolding drama and take an action that is already blatantly obvious as to what to do. We just have one editor standing in the way, an editor previously sanctioned for this behavior on tightly related articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You're asking on AN/I for an early / speedy close of an FFD as delete? Is there any reason to think FFD process won't work as intended? A decision to delete makes the issue moot. A decision to keep is an endorsement that the image belongs, no? Results you don't agree with are not necessarily a process problem. Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking for deletion of an image that should never have been listed at FfD in the first place. We routinely delete images of non-notable album covers. If we instead took all of these to FfD, we'd be overrun by them. The album was already decided to be non-notable by the AfD that deleted it. There's no reason to keep around an image of a non-notable album. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Please keep Note that I am not banned[187] from the topic that Hammersoft claims. The ban was something in effect for another user. I got involved on the topic months later, but when a checkuser came back negative, the ban was lifted. User:SilkTork [188] originally suggested the album be merged with the author page and suggested I find more news, which I did. I was only following instructions. I added a lot of sources, and it was approved. The question here is not an orphaned file nor an issue of notability. The album is part of a larger discography for Nox Arcana, and the band has already been deemed notable (charted on Billboard, and have been covered in major media such as The Plain Dealer and Fangoria and other newspapers and magazines worldwide), likewise so has the vocalist - and per WP:Music#Albumsif the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia is permitted to have an album page. If you'd permit for the album page to be reinstated, I think this would alleviate all problems, and I would be happy to add the new citations that were gathered since. Please note that the original vote to Afd the album was populated by sockpuppets User:MarkChase, so although it was deleted the vote was stacked. I believe the deletion to have been wrong in the first place. Ebonyskye (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I note again that your pleading in the wrong place. Please go to WP:DRV. Until the AfD is overturned, the presumption is the album is non-notable, as that is why the album article was deleted. If you are successful at WP:DRV, then the album can appear on the article. This isn't hard. The album cover has now been deleted, and the FfD closed. if you want the album cover to appear on Wikipedia, then your first step is that way. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What Hammersoft said. If the album is notable enough to have its own article, then a single non-free image is unexceptional. But the place to argue that is WP:DRV. Black Kite 10:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that I quite badly fudged up a pagemove at Ophelia (see Talk:Ophelia (character) for move request), so some help would be appreciated. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am confused... what did you mess up? Just the talk page needs to be moved now... –túrianpatois 02:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The deleted history of Ophelia was restored, accidentally history merging the 2 together.
I manually un-history-merged 92 of the 97 revisions of the old disambiguation page, and moved them to Ophelia (disambiguation)
In the process of doing so, I found some old history that was at that title, but had been redirected to Ophelia. I moved this history to Ophelia (disambiguation) (old) - someone still needs to figure out where this goes, maybe just deleted, or history merged with the current disambig page.
The revisions of the main article are restored, with 5 old (pre-April 2007) revisions of the disambiguation page mixed in.
Ok, this is ridiculous. This user was blocked twice revert-warring in support of copyright violations, continues to revert war, and has had an RFC against him/her and still has effectively never responded to any message. I'm in favor of a long temporary block (say 1 week) to make the point that this user needs to start talking to people. Not to mention this user is probably editing an article on a family member. Mangojuicetalk 16:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
However, the charges of continued prose copyright violation, along the lines of the now-deleted edits, are not borne out by the recent edits. As can be seen from this diff, the edits are simple, and somewhat inept, content blanking. The repeated edit summary is that this content is "libellous". The charge of non-communication is also not borne out. This account has communicated with PhilKnight on xyr talk page, here, stating again xyr assertion that xe is removing libellous material.
I recommend taking the libel charge seriously and checking the content for neutrality and verifiability. I have taken the administrative action, based upon the fact that several prior "Dr. Mashkevitch with …" image uploads by this account have been deleted as improperly licenced and having insufficient/misleading authorship information, with no attempt by the uploader to remedy this continued problem despite requests on xyr talk page, of speedily deleting all of the suspect "Dr. Mashkevitch with …" images, on the grounds that it wasn't true before, several of the images are just re-uploads, this person's track record with copyright is clearly not a good one, and xe has even acknowledged the improper authorship statement in one case.
By the way, given the account name, given that this account created Tsotne Bakuria, and given the "I made this." at File:Tsotne 3.JPG, File:Tsotne Two.JPG, and File:Tsotne One.JPG, there's a far more likely and straightforward possibility than that this person is a relative of M. Mashkevitch.
I repeat, for emphasis, that the libel charge on the living person biography should be dealt with seriously, and not casually dismissed just because this is an edit warrior who violates copyright. Uncle G (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, of course we should take the libel issue seriously too. I think there might be some real cause for concern: I left a comment on the talk page about the material Sbakuria was removing. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look and seeing what they think of my comments, soon, so that if a change is necessary it can be made quickly. Mangojuicetalk 14:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand the claims made in the article are a problem, but its difficult to check the claims made and decide which sources are reliable and which aren't if Sbakuria won't communicate. Are there any guides for checking reliability of sources? Rtdixon86 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the steps you've taken are fine for now. If Sbakuria won't be more specific, other editors will just have to use their best judgment. The important thing is that we don't ignore the issue just because the one complaining hasn't gotten the hang of Wikipedia yet. Mangojuicetalk 05:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There's Wikipedia:Reliable sources. See also User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources. I suggest that you review the sources for reliability, and look to see whether other sources cover the subject, who wrote and published them, and what they say. As noted on the BLP noticeboard (q.v.), this issue actually covers multiple articles. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, was running an unauthorised bot. I agree that he shouldn't have been, but it was a fairly minor task that has now completed, and per his talk page he does not intend to run the task again. Any further usage of that bot outside of his userspace needs approval, but I do not see any admin intervention as necessary at the moment. ~ mazcatalk 10:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw that. He was using it to change his signature from an "Ohm" to the formula for "Ohm's Law". Kind of obsessive, frankly, but apparently harmless. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 10:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys... now I know what it's like to be wikistalked, at least. Sheesh! I'm not sure what all of the excitement was about, to be honest. It was a one time task which remained completely clear of the mainspace, it only touched my own signature (which actually took a bit of testing, you know), and I felt that it was important. I guess that is a little obsessive, but I thought that it was important to ensure avoiding the appearance of trying to impersonate User:Ω, who I didn't even realize existed until Jafeluv brought the issue to my attention a couple days ago. Anyway, back to work for me! — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Just try to understand that most, if not all, of the talk pages you edited are watchlisted by people. Hence, hundreds and hundreds of people will happen to notice an unusual edit from a user account called "bot" but not marked as one, and a minority of them will raise the question. It's not wikistalking, you just drew some unwelcome attention to yourself! In any case, no harm done - happy editing. ~ mazcatalk 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Humm... good point. I did mark the edits as minor, but... it felt as though I was being followed, certainly. meh, anyway... — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, running an unauthorized bot is a bit serious because of the problems it can cause (see the bot policy). As mentioned above, it was harmless so I'm mentioning this to make sure you'll be aware of that in the future. ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very aware of the bot policy, no worries. The whole reason that it's not approved for anything yet is that I'm working to ensure that it's up to spec. Anyway, I came back here just to (re)remove AN/I from my watchlist. Carry on, folks! — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hooray. Marking resolved. ~ mazcatalk 12:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Cosmos416 has been highly disruptive in this article lately by making tendentious edits, edit warring when other undo them, and showing extreme bad faith and incivility. Examples:
Tendentious editing: He is particularly focused on promoting the POV that R1a originated in South Asia, rather than elsewhere, and labels everything agains this POV as "bias": [189][190][191][192][193][194]. He is particularly insistent on placing "south Asia" subsections on top of every section, claiming it is "alphabetical" when it is anything but.
Extreme incivility: Virtually every single one of his edit summaries is a personal attack against some editor, getting more and more shrill lately. Displays extreme bad faith, accuses users of being sockpuppets or being "connected". Rarely participates in talkpage discussions, and when he does, it consists of statements like this: [206][207][208][209][210].
This behavior is extremely disruptive and has got to stop. --Athenean (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out, while he has certainly been edit-warring he hasn't broken 3RR. Per WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I see a total of 3 reverts in 24 hours: this on the 27th, this today, and this just after. Another revert and he can be reported to WP:AN3 but he's not there yet. -- Atama頭 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, he has not actually edited since a recent series of warnings left at his talk page (warnings left 18:12 and 18:17, last edits at 17:20). I don't think a block would be appropriate UNTIL he edits again. However, the very next personal attack, or the very next time he attempts to edit war at the article in question, he should be blocked for either. This has gone on long enough, and I think we can call this his VERY last chance. Also, since no one else did, I notified him of this thread. --Jayron32 19:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to comment here. Cosmos words that he left on my talk page were also very uncivil. Please make note of these for the case. Thanks.Geog1 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Cosmos has been uncivil, and his edit summaries are not really correct or helpful. If that is what is being discussed I leave it to others. But keep in mind that at least so far the substance of the edit war he is involved in is this matter of alphabetical order. Cosmos is not one of the editors currently pushing non-neutral and non-consensus POV in the content, like Jamesdean certainly is. Furthermore as I pointed out to Athenean on the article talkpage I don't see that reacting to such a thing by ALSO moving things around based on (another) alphabetical order is any less tendentious than being the first to do move things around by alphabetical order. I do think this case could be considered for Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually check out his 23:07, 24 August 2009 edit on the R1a page. We were trying to keep the Oppenheimer info in the right place(s) but he kept putting it back in the Eastern Euro section after myself and other editors tried to keep it in its rightful relevant place numerous times. I believe this constitutes as a non-neutral POV maneuvering of sorts...I think all edit wars are lame but there were some things seriously wrong with this article as well as many other topics related to R1a but the pushing was done consistently by Cosmos.Geog1 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Why are most pages on subclades of haplogroups just sitting there, while we are geting silly edit wars on the R1a one? Because that is the one associated with "Aryans". Cosmos416 is the typical kind of editor we get there who is interested in Indigenous Aryans, not genetics.
Keep that in mind when assessing the situation. The task of admins in this case is clearing the air for an editing-friendly atmosphere for editors with expertise and interest in human genetics which means putting a leash on the "Aryan" tourists popping up at the article. --dab(𒁳) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for two weeks. Tan | 39 16:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I became aware of the Heal the World Foundation article because of a report here. It's relatively straight forward - Michael Jackson run the charity and it was shut a few years ago. Then a new charity sprung up with the same name and an investigation by CBS revealed that they are completely unconnected and they have a direct quote from the Estate saying they are unconnected. This of course is not pleasing to the people running the charity and they would prefer this wasn't mentioned. I (and from the history others) have tried to explain to them about RS and are getting nowhere. They have no reverted to their perferred version and have stated they will take legal action against anyone who changes it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Edits rolled back; article semi-protected; IP blocked for a month per WP:NLT. Black Kite 16:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked this editor indefinitely. A quick review of their contributions shows a history of personal attacks and disruptive editing. TNXMan 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Beat me to it. Resolved. Tan | 39 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict, meant to add this above) It's obvious that your block did nothing to deter the behavior, so unless they can get their act together, they can sit in the corner. TNXMan 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help folks. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sweetfornow (talk·contribs)
I reported this user before, because of an IP editing a similar page I suspected sock-puppetry. It was determined that sweetfornow wasn't related to the IP, however the user still engaged in numerous problem edits 99% of which ended up reverted. The account didn't edit for a few days and I just thought to check. First edit back, was reinserting a copyvio [212], and most recently here [213]. The user has a serious problem with copy and pasting and their only response is to blank warnings.--Crossmr (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Er … what? The edit to Paris Hilton that you point to is nothing but the insertion of two paragraph breaks that turns one paragraph into three. There's no change to the prose at all. Where is the copyright violation? Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, a bad google search mislead me. Normally it seems these days that google filters wiki mirrors when you search for text, but for some reason it didn't this time and I saw a facebook and a couple paris hilton domains in the search results and thought it was a copy and paste off a press release or something. I misread the breaking up of the paragraphs. I thought the second paragraph was a new insert, but their first edit back was still a reversion of a removed copyvio and still no communication over it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia mirrors come up all of the time on Google Web for me. You're right about the other edit being word-for-word identical with the source cited. I've looked over the other edits made since the 23rd and nothing leaps out at me. You've reverted the copyright violation, and there don't appear to be others. Is there any other problem that you have seen? If not, there seems to be no basis for any action. Uncle G (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? Lately when I've done searches for text, google has been collapsing all mirrors into a single result. Only when I click "see similar" on the wikipedia entry does it then turn around and list tons of mirrors. The editor has also been using bad sources (imdb repeated times) or otherwise inserting bad info into some articles. This edit to Lindsay lohan [214] inserts info known to be bad several weeks ago[215], and info that is even corrected on IMDB[216] which the user seems to often be using for source. Both before and after the break they've tried to change info in one article with bad sources [217], [218], reverted both times, but at no point has this user ever acknowledged the warnings, or said anything to defend themselves. Given that the bad edits are still going on as of a couple days ago, I see that to be a significant issue with a new account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, really. I put "user crossmr" into Google Web, and the first Wikipedia mirror of your user page is result #17. Other mirrors are listed as results #46 and #49. That was from just a quick skim of the first five pages of results. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, I'm not sure why some of my previous searches have resulted in google collapsing all the mirrors to a single result (obviously not this time). In the meantime we still have a user who has under 100 edits, has engaged in an edit war, inserted multiple copyvios, BLP issues, restores a fact tag from months before their account was created, blanks warnings, and refuses to respond to any concerns about their editing.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Since then the editor has gone on to try and push some POV text into two articles (both reverted) [219] and [220]. The editor is was using the second source falsely. Nothing in it supported the text the editor was trying to claim. The source is just a list of accrediting bodies with no links. There is no way for any editor to check that loaded text with what they were claiming as a source.--Crossmr (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
and after being told that material was inappropriate, they reverted each article a couple times to try and force it in [221], [222], [223], [224]]. In a very short time the editor has shown a willingness on 3 occasions to edit war if they can't get their way. On the plus side they actually used an edit summary, but rather than take the issue to talk, they just reverted over and over. But hey if no one else sees a problem with a new account doing this, so be it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Mephiston999 using AWB to change the spelling of book titles[edit]
Resolved
– Some typo fixes will be wrong, they should be checked and antiquated spelling restored using {{sic}} tags where appropriate... Thank you to User:Reconsideration for volunteering for this task. –xenotalk 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where else to go to complain about this or even where to start a discussion about this because it involves multiple articles.
Mephiston999(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) is running the WP:AWB bot and fixing spelling errors, including in "[year] in poetry" articles that have come up on my watchlist. Mixed in with this good work, his edits are damaging the articles by changing the original spelling used in the titles [225][226][227][228] (often antique spelling or alternate spelling that the author chose -- here's an example: (M's edit) [229]; (what the source says) [230]crossed out -- as Uncle G noted, I'm incorrect here and the edit was a good one). This means Mephiston999 is using the bot to introduce errors in Wikipedia articles. The information on the books and poems is sourced with footnotes, and the spelling of titles is the way it is given in the sources. Using the original spelling also helps readers who do an internet search under that spelling (the original spelling and title is usually the way the book is known -- if not, both the best-known and the actual titles are listed, for example "Songes and Sonettes, written by the ryght honorable Lorde Henry Haward late Earle of Surrey, and other, now better known as Tottel's Miscellany" -- 1557 in poetry).
I politely asked Mephiston to stop on the editor's talk page. [231] (02:15, 27 August)
Without replying, the editor has continued. [232] (22:35, 27 August 2009)crossed out -- as Uncle G noted, I'm incorrect here and the edit was a good one). So far, this is the only edit to a year-in-poetry article after I asked the editor to stop. But there are hundreds of these quirky spellings.
By continuing, Mephiston goes against Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use: Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding.
If Mephiston999 wants to make the case that we should update the spellings of book titles in Wikipedia, that's a content question we can discuss and reach a consensus on, maybe at Talk:List of years in poetry. (Some sources do use updated spellings, but we use the spelling that the source uses.) But the editor is silent when it comes to justifying this, and he or she is just continuing to make controversial edits across Wikipedia with the bot. Those edits are going to be very difficult to sift through if the damage continues. Please tell him to stop and get consensus first before continuing. If I'm the one that needs to get consensus to get this to stop, tell me and I'll go do it.
I put a lot of work into getting the proper spellings into these pages and getting footnotes for information (footnotes are rare in year-in articles). Why should I continue if my work is going to be wrecked by someone who won't discuss the problem? If I just revert, the bot will do it again. (Incidentally, Mephiston999 seems to be doing the same thing in "years in literature" pages, but there are no footnotes there, so it's hard to prove that the edits there, like this one [233], are creating inaccuracies. I could actually look up this example in an instant, but I can't easily look up a hundred bot changes.)
Here's what I'm asking:
Tell Mephiston999 to stop using the bot to change book titles; or
Tell Mephiston999 to stop using the bot to change book titles until consensus is reached to do so; or
Tell me I need to go get consensus and,
If I'm the one that needs consensus, tell me either that I can come back here to ask for enforcement of consensus or what I should do if Mephiston999 ignores consensus with this bot.
Can I do anything to prevent this from happening again? Reconsideration (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like he is running typo fixing without actually examining whether said typos should or need to be fixed. –xenotalk 15:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Look more closely. Reconsideration did point to a source. You can also go and look the contested book title up through other means. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Some are right, some are wrong [235][236]. If I were to hazard a guess, he is taking AWB's advice at face value and not checking the source. –xenotalk 15:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
You can start by explaining why the diffs directly contradict your claims. Mephiston999 changes "Brebeuf and his Bretheren" to "Brebeuf and his Brethren"; you link to a book that quite clearly gives the latter spelling; and somehow this is "introducing errors in Wikipedia articles"? Your own pointers to sources are contradicting your claim to have got "the proper spellings into these pages" before these corrections. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have left him a follow up message to your messages. It looks like this may not be the first time he has used AWB without the necessary due care (see prior sections on his talk page). Are there still non-fixed errors he made? I am considering a mass-rv of his recent typo-fixing AWB edits. –xenotalk 15:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Consider carefully. The spelling of the John Beaumont poem title that Mephiston999 used is the spelling that is given on page 495 of Robert S. Miola's Early modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources (OUP; ISBN9780199259854). Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like his edits have only been correct when AWB's preferred spelling is used in the original. In any case, this is still a haphazard way to go about using AWB. –xenotalk 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It's a foolish move to apply a 20th/21st century English spelling-correction tool to the titles of 17th century works. But it's also true that some of these titles weren't as correctly spelled in the first place as was being claimed by Reconsideration. And titles like Brébeuf and his Brethren are titles of 20th century works. Uncle G (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I personally don't have time to comb these one by one. But as you note, some were correct to be fixed, so perhaps mass-rollback isn't the best way to go about this... –xenotalk 15:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to take a closer look at what Uncle G has pointed out, but I also note that when his access to AWB was granted he was specifically asked not to use it for fixing typoes: [237]. –xenotalk 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G is right about Bretheren, Brethren -- Mephiston999 actually did good work on that one, fixing a mistake that I had made. He also fixed a typo I had in a John Donne work (changed Aniversary to Anniversary as in the original). He's also fixed many other typos/spelling mistakes on the year-in-poetry pages. I'm not complaining about actual corrections to actual spelling/typing mistakes. I've praised him for doing that. Now that we've narrowed down the problem by one edit, please tell me what I can do. Keep in mind that the edit that Uncle G identified is the only one to a year-in-poetry page after my comment on Mephiston999's talk page, so maybe he's stopped. -- Reconsideration (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G says Consider carefully. The spelling of the John Beaumont poem title that Mephiston999 used is the spelling that is given on page 495 of Robert S. Miola's Early modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources (OUP; ISBN9780199259854). Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Is Mephiston999 changing the spelling of a title because that editor has found a source? If there is a reason to change it to the new spelling, then at least the source should be cited and the old source in some cases removed. That's a content question we can discuss on an article talk page. Is that the kind of editing that AWB is used for? There are sources that give modernized spelling, and I've used them myself (but only when I couldn't easily find a source with original spellings, and I plan to change them when I find those sources). Wikipedia editors shouldn't be deciding on book title spelling, we should be using the spelling that we find sources using -- or explicitly tell the reader otherwise. Unless the editor is relying on sources, this is a kind of spelling WP:OR with a bot. Reconsideration (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding Uncle G's astute observations, my gut feeling says that Mephiston is taking AWB's typo fixing suggestions at face value without consulting the sources. The best thing to do would be to examine each edit and check it against a Google book search as has been done above and make a firm determination one way or the other. When you restore an antiquated spelling, you can wrap and obfuscate it in a {{sic}} template (probably using hide=y to suppress the [sic] display e.g.) to prevent careless typo fixing in the future (i.e. {{sic|Libel|ls|hide=y}} results in: Libells). –xenotalk 16:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll look into doing that immediately. Will that definitely hide it from AWB? Is there a Wikipedia page on that? It'll be a lot of work, but I'll do it. The diffs I cited at the top, other than the one I got wrong, were cited after I double-checked by looking into the original source I used when I first inserted some of those titles into the articles, The Concise Oxford Chronology of English Literature. Justification can be found for some of Mephiston999's title changes, and some works today seem to be better known by what looks like updated spelling (example: Deffense to Defense[238] seems justified by comparing Google searches, with 10 times the hits for the latter, both versions having reliable sources [239][240]; yet that edit was one of seven the editor made from 18:16 to 18:18 that day, and it's hard to believe sourcing was looked up beforehand). Thanks again for your help. Reconsideration (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
AWB will most certainly ignore anything wrapped in a sic tag like that. The template is explained at Template:Sic. For more information on AWB typo fixing, see WP:AWB/T. Thank you for volunteering to check through these. –xenotalk 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
i am sorry for the mistakes i have done and i now understand them and i promise it won't happen again. Mephiston999 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
these pages were suggested to me for typo fixing by a bot within AWB and i was initially thinking that it was because there were actual mistakes to correct. i now understand it is only a bot that gives article which could contain some mistakes without a deep analysis of each case, i am once again sorry for the misunderstanding. Mephiston999 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Helping check through them for errors would probably be appreciated by Reconsideration. –xenotalk 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your comment. Yes, reverting the changes to the titles would be helpful. I also appreciate the typo- and spelling-fixing in the other parts of the articles. Bot spellchecking of the titles would have happened sooner or later, I think, and I'm glad I now know how to prevent it. Reconsideration (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
An anon editor keeps adding a commercial website as an external link in the black garlic article even after repeated explanations, reversions and a warning. [241]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This has degenerated into more heat then light. Removing the source of much of this drama just to have it pop back in from other angles is absurd. If this is going to continue, move it to User_talk. --Mask? 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.
Someone can go on and block me for reporting this but since no one has seen it or done anything about it, contrary to all the claims during my topic ban circus that someone else would handle any violations by this user, I'm reporting it here.
Kudos to whomever gets the honor of blocking me for making this report. See you when I see you. - allstar▼echo 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Article pages. Not talk pages. This is exactly what we ask article subkects to do. Stop this wikihounding and honor your topic ban. --Mask? 22:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It says pages, plural.. that means all pages related to the article. That's obvious. - allstar▼echo 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed plural. The matt sanchez article, and the beauchamp controversy article add up to two article pages. When we mean talk pages we say talk pages, not article pages. --Mask? 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As I read the full discussion, he is allowed to edit the talk page of Matt Sanchez but is prohibited from other LGBT articles and talk pages. However, there seems to be no clear statement of the conditions posted to his own talk page, which is an oversight. I am prepared to impose the ban as previously discussed
“
Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a ban from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages. He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Wikipedia collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator.
”
with the clarification that it does not apply to Talk:Matt Sanchez. Should an extension of the topic ban be needed, we can always discuss it later. Thatcher 23:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually if I remember correctly, it was if no one reports the issue (something Matt Sanchez did) then ASE would be allowed to do so after a set amount of time. I think the set amount of time has passed and this is a good ANI report. Let's not turn this into something about ASE and stick with the subject at hand. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about ASE. There are two factors here, 1) if you read the whole discussion, it seems that it was intended that Bluemarine be allowed to edit talk:Matt Sanchez but was banned from other LGBT talk pages. 2) he was never formally notified of the terms of the ban on his talk page, so even if he is banned from Talk:Matt Sanchez, he can't be blocked for it now. Thatcher 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
He was notified August 3rd here on his talk page. And when that discussion was had, it was with the understanding not to touch the article or its talk page and if he had any issues with the article, to raise them on his own talk page but not to touch the article or article talk page. Now others want to interpret it differently. - allstar▼echo 23:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I note a conflict between noting the ban regarding the specific article pages, and the terminology of "LGBT.. talkpages, broadly construed", as regards Sanchez and the understanding that this talkpage editing is permissible; The Sanchez talkpage has a LGBT portal box on it, and I would then consider it falls under "broadly construed". If this were an exception, I should think it needed placing prominently in the wording rather than being something tagged in a (subsequent) discussion. If "uninvolved admins" are to be expected to act upon ArbCom wordings then I would strongly suggest that the relevant findings and directions are placed only in the released wording - I am not going to be happy that I was expected to review an entire discussion rather than the notice in acting upon a ArbCom decree. How can sysops be uninvolved if they are going to have to read case histories rather than AE wordings - and how quickly will they be able to act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just as a note this is being discussed on the Functionaries-en mailing list (and was started before ASE raised it but he wouldn't have known that...) ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Could be because of my discussing it with User:Keegan yesterday? As much more time had passed, I figured it was dead, so I brought it here. - allstar▼echo 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it could. You asked for a review as this is a long running and complicated issue for Wikipedia functionaries. Unfortunately, you did not give us time to adequately review what the implications related to ArbCom decisions were and how should be handled. This could have been much more quiet and less intrusive for you. Keegan (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are we dealing with this Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez character anyway? He is allowed to run roughshot around Wikipedia, violate the rules, is under restriction from editing certain pages (which he doesn't follow, obviously), is creating disruption...why don't we just outright block him indef and move on. I recommend at full block for User:Bluemarine. Enough is enough, time to move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
He's under an edit restriction - and though there's disagreement, there are long time experienced admins / former arbs / etc who are indicating that they read the restriction as not covering what he just did. I am not sure, personally, having looked stuff over once. Whatever is finalized (yes/no on article talk page) needs to be reinforced to him and logged on the editing restriction as an amendment. If whatever it was confuses Lar and Thatcher, then we should probably give Matt some benefit of the doubt.
If the community felt that he was beyond hope they would have indef'ed him rather than the edit restriction, last time. There was no support for that, at the time, and given widespread confusion now I don't see blaming him for it now and responding more harshly as reasonable. People can exhaust the community patience, but this was not blatantly pushing that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we can't blame him for doing bad things, it must be someone elses fault. When are we going to stop covering our eyes and blinding disregarding people's actions. An edit restriction means something. Bluemarine clearly and blantantly violated it and he is still allowed to edit....but we blocked the reporting editor. What sense does that make? I think a couple people need to hand in their adminships and find something else to do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I see Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages and I see LGBT article topics and related talk pages. And this is in a discussion of a proposed ban. Allstarecho proposed topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page but ChildofMidnight took out the reference to the talk pages and Allstarecho said Looks fine to me. Other than Allstarecho, I don;t see a strong feeling in the prior discussion for a ban from the Matt Sanchez talk page. If the community wishes to clarify that, do it now. Thatcher 00:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Past experience has demonstrated that Allstarecho's assertions with regard to Bluemarine and potential violations of editing restrictions should be read with a skeptical eye. For example, Allstarecho misidentified a sock of Eleemosynary as Bluemarine in an SPI filing. Anyone with experience in the dispute would recognize that those two users have the opposite POV. Durova306 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the edits that ASE pointed out. Thatcher 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Allstarecho - this was a self-acknowledged violation of the topic ban imposed on you earlier, for which you were just blocked for 24 hrs a couple of days ago.
Even assuming good faith that you noticed a violation which needed attention, I believe that you taking this to ANI as opposed to asking an uninvolved administrator in private was a knowing and reckless violation of your topic ban.
You and Bluemarine need to stay apart, period. If you cannot do so, and stay so, for real seriously, you need to stop editing here. If we have to enforce that with a long block or indef, that may happen. Please step back and stay there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replying to myself - While I was posting this and mulling it over, Viridae blocked A* for 31 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice. We have turned another thread about another user doing something bad into a thread about the reporting user. So, what are we going to do with Bluemarine...or did you all forget about that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Clarify whether the community supports the topic ban covering his article's talk page or not; if yes, then amend the topic ban on the editing restrictions page and notify him of that.
I can see that your patience is exhausted at this point. Either you represent the community writ large and community user ban will fly, or not. That many experienced admins seem to be wanting to clarify not club to me indicates that a community ban won't fly right now - however, I could be wrong. If you feel like proposing one start another subsection and propose one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(after ec's) Since no other mentor has stepped forward yet through this long drawn-out mess, it would have been nice to have gotten a heads up about the talk of the day. Was being a good Wikipedian and building content editing a photograph of a president shaking the hand of a baseball player. How can quiet intervention make this situation better rather than worse?
Offering one solution: in future Allstarecho is welcome to abide by the terms of his ban and email me. He is welcome to cc any willing administrator to ensure proper handling of his complaints. Durova306 00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest NOT encouraging that. The topic ban is an effort to get him to disengage from BM, having the ability to to stalk his edits (and he pretty clearly does that) and then get satisfaction by email an admin is not to be encouraged. Better off that minor violations from BM slip by unnoticed, than to encourage the sort of behaviour the topic ban is supposed to stop. If there is a major violation of BM's part it will be noticed. ViridaeTalk 00:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So, you are saying that if ASE sees Bluemarine doing something bad and no one notices (and that happens with other users too) then he can't report it even by email? I am going to request you check your pillow for your brain, I don't think you woke up with it in your head this morning. Come on. We can't have Bluemarine running roughshot around his edit restriction and blocking the reporting user. Makes no sense. If ASE can report what he sees by email, I see no harm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec, to Viridae)If you say so. At the time when Allstarecho's restriction was imposed one of the principal concerns was how it might restrict him from filing legitimate reports. Most of his reports during the past half year have been either baseless or misleading (by omitting relevant information or providing information out of context). So the question is what to do. I strongly encourage any administrator or functionary who receives a complaint to consult me, due to the strange and quite serious turns this particular BLP issue has taken (including impersonation, hacking, and spoofing). Durova306 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Durova, I wasn't sure about your current feelings on mentorship. Thatcher 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you; understandable. Durova306 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Durova - you have set yourself up as one of Bluemarine's main enablers - why on earth would ASE want to have any more contact with you than he absolutely has to? DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
People who mistake "mentor" for "enabler" are among the reasons it is becoming harder to find Wikipedians who are willing to mentor. This hard work exposes the volunteer to gratuitous insults which sometimes come from Wikipedians of experience and standing who ought to know better. Durova306 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Allstarecho isn't getting it. He violates his ban again in the edit summary here.[242] In addition he responds to the offer with two personal attacks against me: both name calling and an unsubstantiated allegation that I am a habitual liar.[243] This adds up to a total of four times in less than a month that Allstarecho has violated his restriction. The first time was a blatant BLP violation at RFAR,[244] for which he received a warning.[245] During the original restriction discussion Allstarecho repeatedly and vehemently declared his intention to ignore the sanction,[246][247][248][249][250] finally calling it "horseshit".[251] His actions now demonstrate that these weren't just heated words; he was perfectly serious.
For nearly two years I have undertaken the thankless task of attempting to normalize what is arguably Wikipedia's nastiest long term BLP problem. Every time an evenhanded assessment favored Allstarecho's POV he accepted the advantage, but when things haven't gone his way he has been quick with insults and allegations of bias. The latter has been difficult to endure, because for religious reasons I would no sooner discriminate against Allstarecho for being gay than against Matt Sanchez for being Puerto Rican. Most of this summer I have sought to pass the mentorship to other hands; Allstarecho's persistent interference has brought endless delays. My last effort at extending an olive branch was the restoration of Noel Coward's portrait shortly before his featured biography ran on the main page. It was intended as a good faith example of how many LGBT topics are far more important than Matt Sanchez. Now there are three novice image editors who need coaching; please give us breathing space from this nuisance so we can return to content work. Durova306 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, when ASE made this comment, he was already blocked. I think the issue of Bluemarine needs to be addressed. No Bluemarine, no problem with ASE. It actually works itself out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
BM isn't ASE's only problem. He was very closed to being indeffed recently. ViridaeTalk 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Bluemarine hasn't violated his editing restriction since his return, and he hasn't sought contact with Allstarecho. It makes no sense to sanction somebody based upon a frivolous report. Allstarecho was causing the same problems before Bluemarine's ban expired, so even if one's sense of wikipolitics could stomach that proposal it would make no sense. Durova306 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC)You do realize we are making this whole thread about ASE when it is about Bluemarine. We need to get back on subject and stop blocking others for other people's behavior. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Il ne viole pas son interdiction. Er hat nicht gegen seinen Bann. No se violen sus prohibición. I thought perhaps you might get it if it were presented in a different language? ViridaeTalk 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, don't speak the funny different languages. Let's stick with English, since this is English Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
私は日本語で話している！これはすごい！ハーフ影の 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The original complaint has been investigated; it appears everyone other than Neutralhomer agreed it was baseless. The filing editor violated a restriction, and since getting blocked for it has repeated the violation with multiple personal attacks. Please address this problem so it wastes no more of my time; three people are waiting for assistance with image restoration coaching and no one else can help them. Durova306 01:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's make it very simple then. AllStarEcho is not to mention, in any way, shape or form, User:Bluemarine, Matt Sanchez, or User:Durova. AT ALL. If he does, the next block will be 1 week. After that, 1 month. Then indef. Too much drama and noise created by ASE. He's as much (if not more) of the problem in this situation as User:Bluemarine. SirFozzie (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Feel like putting that (and this) under a new subheading? I support that proposal. ViridaeTalk 02:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sim-Salabim!. Your command is my wish.. or something like that. SirFozzie (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems sensible to me as well. IronDuke 02:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support as well. Exponentially growing drama helps no one, and Bluemarine has shown a willingness to accept and work within his sanction, ASE has shown nothing but derision and contempt with his while openly flaunting it. --Mask? 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I support that proposal. It seems like the best way to deal with the situation. hmwitht 02:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support and I'd just go straight to indefinite. He's shown more than enough contempt for what the community asks of him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I support this proposal, but for one teeny concern: this is exactly the restriction ASE was already under, but with Durova added. So um... what is the point here, exactly? Is this yet another of Wikipedia's Double Secret Probation arrangements? And the next time he violates it we'll impose... the same restriction all over again? → ROUX₪ 03:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support. This disruptive obsession has gone on long enough. Will Bebacktalk 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Why would he be banned from speaking to Durova? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Because he has made personal attacks against Durova, amongst other things, calling her a habitual liar? (see Durova's post above) SirFozzie (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm also confused about this. Without supporting or opposing, I think this restriction should be kept specific to BM, and not throw in Durova just because he made a few comments about her in the foregoing. –xenotalk 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been the target of many more personal attacks from Allstarecho than Durova (just check his talk page history and edit summaries for examples), but I'm not clamouring to be added to this. Let's keep it to the main issue which is Matt Sanchez. Either extend Allstarecho's current block for the personal attacks on Durova or wait until they happen again and deal with like any other personal attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support. The entire situation is ridiculous and has eaten up seemingly endless hours of time, a fact of which I am aware even though I have largely ignored the matter. It needs to be clear that the 1 week, 1 month, indef block sequence is essentially automatic and not up for debate at a later time. There have been plenty of chances already, and it should be incredibly easy for ASE to hold to this restriction if he puts his mind to it. It's also a net positive for everyone concerned and for the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support We've been here before, done this before .. it's getting old. — Ched : ? 06:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support after coming at this cold and reviewing the history - how it got this far is beyond me. Those blocks should not be upto debate and I would support 1 week, 1 month, please leave as proposed above. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - would anyone object to wording SirFozzie's proposal in the following way? "Allstarecho(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Bluemarine (talk·contribs), Durova (talk·contribs) or Matt Sanchez, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. If Allstarecho violates this sanction, he will be banned from Wikipedia for 2 weeks for the first incident, 1 month for the second incident, and 1 year for the third incident." I propose this because (1) this is easier for logging at WP:Editing restrictions, (2) 1 week is too lenient given the history here, and (3) I don't think think it is good to have to have another discussion regarding a community ban (if it comes to that - which I hope it won't). If the blocks are to be lifted or changed in duration, it needs to be by community consensus or appeal to the community. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That formula is more precise and more practical. I endorse it. Will Bebacktalk 09:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm neutral regarding the use of this wording or SirFozzie's, but this sounds very practical. hmwitht 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I oppose this very strongly. Bluemarine is an outspoken homophobe, and ASE is an out gay editor. Some editors, Durova in particular, have clearly committed themselves to enabling Bluemarine's continued presence and disruption of Wikipedia, and in doing this they have chosen to pick on ASE (I'm not saying he is blameless, so let's not have any more of the lies from editors saying that I am blindly defending him or am unfamiliar with his history). Bluemartine is playiong you all for a bunch of fools. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on that point and I don't understand the point of allowing Bluemarine around. However, we don't say "you have free reign if the person you are attacking deserves it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support Ncmvocalist's proposal. Mostly because of its wording and slight tweaking, it's essentially a better proposal than above.--The LegendarySky Attacker 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Vehemently oppose. Besides the addition of Durova, which has no bearing on AE's problems and is not germane to this discussion, BlueMarine/Matt Sanchez is being allowed to do whatever he damn well pleases and nobody is discussing his behavior but AE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support: I once gave praise for ASE's edits, but that was many moons ago and I have felt he has worn out his welcome. seicer | talk | contribs 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support this expanded and more clear topic ban, as well as today's block for violating the prior (and clear enough) ban. Nathan T 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support, ASE needs to disengage permanently. --Andy Walsh(talk) 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Late support. I forgot I hadn't expressed that. ViridaeTalk 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have notified Allstarecho of his restriction from this discussion. [252]. SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
And the response, was, well, I think we all saw it coming. [253]. Do we consider this to be a violation of his restriction, or consider it venting while blocked, and wait till the block expires and see how it turns out? I don't think it'll make much of a difference, myself... SirFozzie (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
He didn't specifically name any of the forbidden names. Grumping that we're all evil gorillas is venting while blocked. That's about the limit of how far he can go without being in trouble again, but I don't see any good would come of further followup just for that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I saw it as following up on his accusations on Durova, but, I'm willing to let it slide. :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have restated and clarified the scope of the topic ban. The restriction can be extended to the talk page of Matt Sanchez if necessary, but hopefully it never will be. Thatcher 02:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I support extending it to the talk page and also support the new clarified scope of the topic ban. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thatcher has not made a proposal to it to the talk page. Durova306 03:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
He said it "can be extended...if necessary", I support that. I also support the clarified scope, so I put it all in one sentence. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thatcher also hopes that it never will be. If there were a basis for doing so I would raise no complaint, but consensus agrees he has abided by his current restriction. Durova306 03:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Y'know, while we're chewing this particular bone... Durova, it might behoove you to step back from ASE. Your statements on the subject are growing increasingly... forceful. → ROUX₪ 04:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's just say tired. This thread keeps interrupting this restoration, which is done now (easier than expected) but turns out to have been from the New York University campus in the Bronx (not Greenwich Village), which got converted into Bronx Community College). A bit discombobulating. Durova306 04:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to make a note here, that I realize I am in the losing end of this whole discussion. I am trying, my best at this point, to defend my friend ASE. I don't think this "don't edit here or here or here" is the way to go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand and even in a way consider it laudable, Neutralhomer.. unfortunately, we've been here too many times, and his crusade against User:Bluemarine has generated enough drama and bad feelings for a month of sundays. He's seemingly expanded his targets to those who mentor or support Bluemarine. We're all united, we don't want to ban anyone, he doesn't want to be banned, therefore, it's time to see if he can live with being on WP but not commenting on or about Bluemarine or Durova. It's really simple, either he can or he can't. SirFozzie (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I know and I understand, I wish it wouldn't have to come to this, but to be honest, I don't see any other way. :( - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully I'm not butting in here unwelcomed, but feel that I have to say that I think SirFozzie is right. I've run across ASE a few times on Baseball related topic pages, and I've always respected him and his contributions, but all of this is getting... well, would describing it as WP:LAME fit at all? It's not just ASE, of course, since it takes two, but... there seems to be a building feeling of "let's just eject the distracting troublemakers", if you see what I'm saying. — Ω (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Right university; wrong campus. This used to be New York University, now part of Bronx Community College.
Nothing against ASE on a personal level. He's done good work with Mississippi and most LGBT-related topics. Please understand; this type of thread becomes a distraction. Wanted to do an NYU-related restoration tonight and forgot to check whether the image was from the campus that's no longer part of the university. Got pulled away too many times; didn't double check. Now starting over with a portrait of one of the old NYU chancellors. Will gladly initiate a motion to lift restrictions if ASE settles down. Durova306 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me how wikipedia benefits from the extraordinary tolerance extended to the self-promoting bigot going by the username of Bluemarine? He is only here to polish the article about him and attack gay editors. I would particulalrly like to know what Durova's motivations are. DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Why is he being tolerated? Are we afraid he'll go running to the national media to complain about how Wikipedia is picking on him? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is he being tolerated? Because he hasn't violated the sanctions on him that was put there by ArbCom/community, unlike others. And regarding Duncan's insinuation about "Durova's motivations", how about this.. She worked hard to mentor users who can be of benefit to Wikipiedia (ScienceApologist, amongst others) without having them edit in areas that led to problematic behavior. Instead of being thanked for the work she's done, instead she apparently has to put up with blatant attacks on her character and her good name. It's no surprise to me she's decided to stop mentoring folks.. after all, no one will call you a habitual liar or cast aspersions on her person for restoring a jpg file. SirFozzie (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, SirFozzie. It's good to know that AGF hasn't withered entirely. Nearly two years ago there was a content an RfC about the Matt Sanchez biography. Supposed the input might do some good, especially since the underlying dispute regards a topic that few of the site's predominantly male heterosexual editors would want to address. Mostly since then it's been a matter of follow-through. Things were already bitter: one editor had been community sitebanned. Other sanctions have followed including sitebans on both sides. I supported Matt's siteban when it was proposed in 2008; afterward mentored him at Commons where he made encyclopedic contributions. As stated above, this has been one of the site's nastiest BLP disputes. Half a year ago I announced a decision to stop accepting new mentorships due to the increasing politicization of mentorship by non-mentoring parties. Afterward I became the target of severe offsite harassment in retaliation for assisting SA with the optics article improvement drive. The individual who harassed me was someone I had never interacted with before who held a grudge against ScienceApologist. At that point I wrote to the Arbitration Committee announcing the intention to retire from mentorship and graduate/hand off all five mentorees. Bluemarine is the only one remaining. Under these unstable and difficult circumstances it has been hard to find a replacement (offers are welcomed). Durova306 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't think anyone will support it, but I feel, as ASE's friend, it is worth a shot. I tried to incorporate some of what is being discussed above into this along with my own ideas. Please excuse the length of this post.
ASE is banned from posting on the Matt Sanchez article and talk pages and User:Bluemarine user and talk pages. ASE is banned from discussing Matt Sanchez or Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia with the exception of the below.
If he sees a violation of policy, vandalism, etc. by Bluemarine and after 12 hours has elapsed (giving time for other users and admins to report themselves), then (and only then) would ASE be allowed to report it to ANI or AN.
One instance of a violation of the "No Report for 12 Hours" rule and the rule is rescended.
ASE may email an admin of his choice before the 12 hours is up and let them know what he sees and allow that admin to look into it and if they see fit to take it to ANI or AN. It would be recommended that ASE go this route before taking it to ANI himself.
ASE would have no contact with Durova since he appears to have a conflict with her, with personal attacks being flung around. If contact were needed, a neutral party could pass the messages along or take care of the issue themselves.
If any violation of the terms were to take place, ASE would be blocked for 72 hours, then 1 week, then 1 month, then 6 months, then indef...in that order of progression.
I feel this is the best that allows ASE some freedom, but also reels him in and keeps the BM/ASE "feud" to a minimum. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally believe that Allstar shouldn't even be monitoring the article now. He should knock it off his watchlist and never look back - leave it to others that aren't emotionally involved. If he does this, he'll never have a reason to make AN/I reports so I don't support this. He seriously needs to move on to another part of the wiki and remove himself from this area completely. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That is a good idea, but sadly we can't control what is on user's watchlists, else I would add that to the list above. Good idea though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that Allstar needs to recognise that he's not needed (and frankly not wanted) in this area anymore. We shouldn't be going out of our way to allow him to still edit there or even make reports - there's plenty of other people and his obsession with Matt is slightly unhealthy. He's been told what his restrictions are (no mention of Matt on the site) - if he doesn't like it then he can go somewhere else. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say. Kinda part of the reason I don't think this proposal will do well is I am giving ASE that freedom to report BM to ANI (after 12 hours or before to an admin via email). I guess I am just trying to help a friend keep as much freedom as he can get. Like I said, that is part of the reason I don't feel this proposal will do well, but I do understand what you are saying. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, your proposal does not prohibit ASE from commenting on or to BM anywhere else on the wiki apart from the pages you have mentioned. This is essential - he shouldn't be commenting at all, anywhere, ever again. Black Kite 11:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I knew I forgot something. I really tried to add everything that is already out there. I will add that to it. Sorry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This is where wikipedia often goes wrong - we aren't here to help users modify their behaviour, we don't provide a social working service. If people can stop themselves in engaging in certain behaviour after being told by the community to stop, then that is their problem not ours. The message here has been fairly consistent, he leaves the editor alone, he leaves the area alone. The easiest way to do that would be unwatchlist the stuff - if he's unable to do that or refrain from holding his tongue, that's his problem not ours and should be managed as such. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"We can always see what who he writes in the email archives setup" huh? If this says what I think it is saying (that we can review email sent via Special:Emailuser), it's plain wrong. –xenotalk 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It does say "A private log of this action will be retained for the purpose of preventing abuse, and can be viewed by certain privileged users", but it also says that "This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail", so I guess that is out. I was trying to cover all the bases, but I guess I didn't read things very well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and that is only used in extreme and severe cases of abuse. –xenotalk 13:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, my goof :S I removed the section in question cause I was obviously wrong about it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries. As per my comments above, I don't think ASE has had a history of issues with Durova, and the present issues appear to only be because of her mentorship of BM. Without supporting or opposing this new proposal, I think the explicit Durova mention should be removed. The other restrictions wrt to BM would cover him commenting on anything related to Durova's mentoring of the same. –xenotalk 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Amended per [254]. –xenotalk 02:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This is too complicated and unnecessary. It's pretty clear what everyone is asking ASE to do and what we need to remember is that this isn't a negotiation with him. Following Cameron Scott, we aren't here to help people develop themselves emotionally: if ASE simply refuses to follow what is asked of him (or offer a reasonable alternative that is agreed upon), then screw him and we move on. If he wants to follow the guy around and comment on him all day, he'll be blocked and he can continue to rant on his own space. There are plenty of jerks and jackasses in our midst and we cannot follow a policy of "I know you told me not to interact with them but they deserve it." That are a million quieter ways of doing this and ASE knows it. He's just putting himself out there so he can play martyr. To me, this is no worse that numerous editors' logic of "I know you all told me not to do these things but it's SO crucial that I tell everyone that it doesn't matter." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - ASE was restricted, he knew he could contact any admin privately, instead he decided to ignore the restriction (as he had previously announced he would) and play the martyr (as usual). Frankly I don't understand why we are wasting our time. The endless copyvios (and lies about them), the bullshit about the glory hole photo, the bullshit about the cross-namespace vanity shortcuts, the Bluemarine stuff--which he was just blocked for a couple days ago, and now again... why are we wasting our time with him? He's not here in any capacity that includes behaving in a reasonable manner or fessing up once caught; the repeated martyr complex and the--I'll be charitable--disingenuous claims of innocence are ridiculous enough. → ROUX₪ 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
To be quite frank, I really don't care who is "gay", "straight", "conservative", "liberal" ... whatever. Guidelines were put in place in an attempt to limit the disruption here. ASE willfully chose to test those guidelines. ASE does some damn fine work here, but the emotional outbursts, and refusal to accept the community's will simply has to stop. I think it's time for ASE to sit down for a bit and consider his approach here. No "kick-him-to-the-curb" thing, just a time-out for reflection. This project is an encyclopedic effort ... not an emotional discharge station. ASE ... THINK before you hit that "Save page" button. Stick to the facts, the references, and the topic at hand. The community is not a foolish one, and it is quite capable of dealing with the inevitable errors that happen here. Take a break, admit when you're wrong, and come back with a dedicated NPOV purpose. — Ched : ? 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Bluemarine must be laughing. He has a tame editor prepared to edit the Matt Sanchez article for him and he has prominent defenders and enablers to ensure that legitimate concerns about his behaviour can be dismissed solely on the grounds of the person reporting them. The community is not a foolish one? Pull the other one. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, given that there is consensus that Bluemarine did nothing wrong here while ASE did, your hyperbole is even more off the mark than usual. → ROUX₪ 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Bluemarine's behaviour was in clear breach of at least the spirit of the restriction, but as was to be expected, discussion of Bluemarine was rapidly, deliberately and misleadingly turned into a chance to beat ASE with a stick. Your opinion is just as valued as usual. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Woah. I see no such consensus, since it's clear the he did violate his restrictions, but is allowed to get away with it over and over again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's fairly clear in reading this discussion that the consensus is that he did not violate his restriction. He was not prohibited from commenting on the talk page of Matt Sanchez, only from mainspace editing on that article. --Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we already have a clear restriction and ASE was told clearly how to report infractions by BM off-wiki when he lodged the declined RFAR. That ASE chose to ignore that instruction and put their opinion over that of BMs appointed mentor is frankly, well, stupid because ASE must have known it would get them blocked. 31 hours is pretty generous for a block if you want my opinion, I would have gone for a minimum of 72 hours given the recent block and the deliberate nature of the infraction... The enxt one will be much longer I'm sure. I'm tired of the disruption and ASE needs to stand back now and stop precipitating drama. SpartazHumbug! 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Who is Bluemarine's mentor? I thought Durova had resigned. ASE did report by email and had no response, and there is no facility for ASE to get community feedback on such matters without getting a further block. The problem isn't ASE, the problem is Bluemarine and ASE. Attempts to fix things by picking on one editor are bound to fail, and to fail in a way that leaves the situation worse than it had been before. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it BlueMarine's behavior which precipitates the drama? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) (ec) To DuncanHill: Bluemarine did nothing wrong in this instance or recently and did not violate his restrictions. On the counterpoint, ASE has crossed far over the line here and recently. This is clearly supported by the general consensus here and there is no evidence that Bluemarine is gaming the system. That is not a defense of Bluemarine's views, purported or actual. We're not here to debate who has the more palatable views. This is simply a matter of basic conduct expectations. Muddying the waters with personal accusations, debates about the desirability of certain views, and so on is simply disruptive. On a related point specific to you, many of your comments in this discussion have been not only counterproductive, but in explicit violation of two core common sense policies (no attacks and "BLP"). If you continue to violate either or both of these principles, you will be sanctioned to curb the disruption. --Vassyana (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Woah, woah, woah. Wait. You are threatening people for daring to disagree with your opinion? May I suggest a similar threat to Vassyana, that any such action result in Vassyana being "sanctioned"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know what our standards of behavior are any more. It seems that unless you tell another editor, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on and if you don't shut the fuck up I'll rape your sister" then you are pretty much free to say anything. DuncanHill's recent comments ("Bluemarine is an outspoken homophobe", "self-promoting bigot", "enablers") are far outside the bounds of what I would consider decent conversation. Editors ought to treat each other with respect and decency, and find civil ways to express disagreements. Imagine if we were professional encyclopedia editors sitting around a common conference table in a real office. Would people dare say some of the nasty things they write if they knew they might run into their target in the parking lot or at the market? The only thing wrong with blocking DuncanHill for being rude and making personal attacks it that Wikipedia's standards are so far out of whack that a block would be considered too controversial. Bluemarine will be dealt with if he continues to act out. Name-calling is for children. Thatcher 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Your conjunction of "fuck you and the horse you rode in on and if you don't shut the fuck up I'll rape your sister" and "outspoken homophobe" reveals much about your confused state of mind, as you say. And in reply to your question "Would people dare say some of the nasty things they write if they knew they might run into their target in the parking lot or at the market", the answer is an unequivocal "Yes, of course. To do otherwise would be cowardly." --MalleusFatuorum 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. I am saddened and somewhat depressed that calling another editor an outspoken homophobe and a bigot is taken as a sign of courage. Although, since Bluemarine's last block was for calling Allstarecho a "pervert" and an "idiot", wasn't he being courageous too? Thatcher 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It saddens me to see that "signs of courage" are met with threats of sanctions. Calling someone what they have demonstrated themselves to be would only considered a "personal attack" here in the wikiwonderland of fluffy fantasy. --MalleusFatuorum 20:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Bluemarine is a homophobe, or at the very least a very confused person given to homophobic utterances. That is a label that he has brought upon himself by his own actions and comments; courage doesn't enter into it, since it is likely he sees nothing wrong with disparaging somebodies orientation. Calling someone a pervert because their sexuality is not one the same as the majority, even though in these enlightened times it is legal and nominally tolerated, is a scandalous breach of NPA and civility which seems to have been pushed to one side. I consider that calling Bluemarine a homophobe is simply attaching an appropriate label that the editor has deserved by his comments - calling AllStarEcho a "pervert" for his orientation/lifestyle choice is a violation of policy. Very different things. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(To Thatcher, after ec) If you can't see the difference between calling a gay man a "pervert", and calling someone who has made many public homophobic comments "an outspoken homophobe", I feel truly sorry for you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone close these threads. Calling people names is inappropriate and unhelpful to this discussion. The comments Bluemarine made some time ago were wrong, but have not been repeated recently and there was no violation of his editing restrictions in this instance. His restrictions and Allstar's have been clarified. Let's get back to POV pushing editing articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago = this month. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The Matt Sanchez biography has been abused as part of a wide-ranging campaign of Internet harassment. An individual runs a spoof site that purports to be Matt's personal website and also maintains a noticeboard for the purpose of making Matt's life difficult. Matt has been impersonated at various websites including Wikipedia, and there have been times when those impersonations have been cited at Matt's Wikipedia biography as if they were self-published sources. During the Bluemarine arbitration case Matt's personal computer was hacked and his bank account was emptied. Other offsite harassment has followed which remains very serious and ongoing. None of this exonerates Matt's past conduct; he was banned with good reason. When people attempt to reform they get another chance after a while. Matt speaks four languages fluently, travels to Europe and Asia regularly, and has an Ivy League education. I have encouraged him to rise above the provocations and earn respect within the Wikipedia community. This should not prevent him from seeking assistance to correct the real problems at his biography; experienced Wikipedians are welcome to help achieve the appropriate balance there. Durova306 22:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we're all done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, we aren't all done here. It's great to have a lynching party when the person being lynched is blocked and can't participate in the discussion, to defend one's self or defend the lies that have been stated in this thread...
Fact: I did report the topic ban violation to an uninvolved administrator off-wiki. Ask User:Keegan. As nothing appeared to have been done a day later, I then reported it here at ANI.
Most Important Fact: The topic ban was violated.. it said he was banned from the article pages.. plural. Aside from that, the ban also says he's banned from LGBT related articles and talk pages "broadly construed", which the related article is - LGBT categories, LGBT project tag.. but no one cared to look at the facts, they just wanted more blood from me.
Fact: Aside from me calling Durova a liar yesterday, her and I have never had a fight or any other bad blood. It was stupid and jackassery to add her to my topic ban. While it may seem like a personal attack calling someone a liar.. when they are lieing, that's what you call them, period. I called her a liar because of this comment she made in this very thread. She conveniently left out the fact that another user tagged the IP as a sock of Bluemarine. All I did was file the SPI case to make sure.. to prove it's him, or clear him of socking allegations. I'll provide diffs as proof upon request. But of course, as I said, Durova leaves out this fact, knowing full well while I'm blocked, I can't prove her wrong in this ANI thread. Reminds me of when she blocked User:!! - screaming that user was a sock but no proof. Well, now the proof is present for what really happened with that SPI case I filed and for her lieing. If she feels that's a personal attack, then please accept my apologies here and now but I stand by it.
Fact: It would have been much more simpler and we all got on with our lives if people had said "OK, we recognize you reported this privately to an admin. Nothing was done in a day. Now you've reported it here at ANI. No, we don't think that's a violation of Bluemarine's topic ban, thanks for reporting it. Now move along"? But naw, that wouldn't be the way things are done on Wikipedia. Instead, we have a lynch mob circus who instead of dealing with the message, want to shoot the messenger.
Well, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. If you feel this is another violation of my own topic ban, then by all means, please see who can cross the finish line first to block me.. frankly I don't give a shit. Sorry to come off like this but if you wanna treat me like a thug, I'll act like one. - allstar▼echo 07:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if everyone feels good about themselves now. You all have placed more unneeded restrictions on a user, you all have allowed another to run rampant unchecked, you essentially have acted like bullies on a freakin' power trip. When you start putting unrealistic restrictions on a person, you are taking this WEBSITE waaaay too seriously and need to take a nice long wikibreak and come back with fresh eyes. This is sad...very sad. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:58, 28 August 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.
Bluemarine, Possible Violation of Restrictions[edit]
With regards to this striking edit of another users text, I believe this is in clear violation of his "prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed" rule. Since the the subject of the post is LGBT related, that would be a violation in my eyes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Since his talkpage makes it clear that he *can* edit the talk page of the article on him, I guess you need to head back to the ranch and ask the voice what to do next. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh nice, a schizophrenia joke. So, he is allowed to strike other users comments? When did that become allowed? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I was not suggesting the voice was in your head. I mean.. come on.. AGF does not require us to be stupid. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You are over-reacting and acting as a bad-faith drama-queen because your friend was restricted on the voice of community consensus and blocked for violating prior restrictions. seicer | talk | contribs 11:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly who are you refering to? If it is me, I just report 'em like I see 'em. You want to let Bluemarine run rampant around Wikipedia, you be the hypocrite. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Seicer made a homophobic personal attack - proving I think a point I have tried to make before. DuncanHill (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Pretty obvious - "bad faith drama-queen" combined with the unnecessary emphasis on "friend". DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Everyone, please assume good faith, tone it down and don't escalate this so that another case is needed amongst yourselves. DuncanHill, I didn't read it as a personal attack - I think you're adding meaning where there was none. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Cameron, pull your head of your...and look at the big picture instead of going after me. BLuemarine struck comments made by another user, even if he didn't violate his restrictions, that is still silencing a desenting voice and should be addressed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears that ChildOfMidnight has advised him of this and the edit has been reverted [255]. I'm not sure what you're after - would you like an uninvolved admin to give him a formal note about it on his talk page so that it doesn't happen again? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe one of those harshly-worded letters from the United Nations? DuncanHill, can you please provide citations where my comments were homophobic, and where I have made them in the last few years that I've been here? You are the first to call me out for that! Here are two definitions for your reference. If you can retract your bovine comment... This in no way offends steers, bulls and calfs. They are very delicious. Kthxbye. seicer | talk | contribs 12:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Just that he (Bluemarine) knows he is not allowed to strike others comments he doesn't like. If no one sees a restriction violation, then a formal note on the striking is fine with me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll write a note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I would particularly like to draw editors' attention to the comment by Bluemarine "The comment directly above this one are from a very strange detractor of mine at cplsanchez.info--a fetish fan site authored by a somewhat disturbed individual who has an unrequited attraction to me", and remind them of Bluemarine's previous history of personal attacks based on the sexuality (stated or assumed) of other contributors. I am sorry that Cameron Scott feels that this sort of language is acceptable.DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The attack on the IP is most definitely not in order... MLauba (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
ASE's first substantial edit after his block ended was to yet againbring up the blue marine nonsense, and edit Durova's comment, both of which are violations of his topic ban, and kicked this thread back up after the whole situation had died down. Why do we need to keep adding drama to this situation? Let it die people. He got testy with an IP, but it wasn't anything beyond the pale. Leave him a note if you have a problem and things might get done. It certainly worked when I did. Running to tell and jump on anything are unproductive. Drama is considered harmful. --Mask? 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion that wasn't a violation of the ban, but he should be instructed not to repeat it. NetralHomer please be aware that repeating the behaviour that got ASE the topic ban will likely get you the same. The point of it was to stem the flow of "teh drama" surrounding BM ASE and now apparently you, you would do well to disengage from the situation as well. ViridaeTalk 12:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted everyone's opinion on the situation, I got that....but I also get threatened for a topic ban. I say go for it. You want to topic ban me, by all means. Totally unnecessary, dude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Should BM's community sanction be amended to include "you will not be blocked for personal attacks on IP editors"? As that now appears to be the case. DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think BM's community sanction should be recended all together as it is not being enforced. No admin is enforcing the restrictions, so why have it. BM will be the new Betacommand. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Un-archiving because this segment was not resolved. The people who watch this situation should be aware that Matt was referring to Pwok, who has been sitebanned for two years and apparently continues to evade that ban in attempts to degrade Matt and occasionally to impersonate him. There actually is an impersonation site dedicated to Matt Sanchez under the domain cplsanchez.info. It appears to be operated by this banned user Pwok, who for over two years has demonstrated a hostile and persistent interest in Matt's former pornography career which would be difficult to describe without the word obsessive. In short, what Matt was attempting to do was the policy-compliant act of striking an edit by a banned user. His accompanying words were not well chosen--he didn't consult me about it--and the circumstances are so unusual that a plain description can be mistaken for attack or hyperbole. Situations like this are why mentorship exists. To both Matt and the other editors who involve themselves in this matter: please make use of it. Durova306 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the only unresolved issue in this segment was that the banned user was not specified until now. Although I can't speak for others interpretations or misinterpretations, prior to making my note, I looked at it again and noticed BM trying to refer to a banned user in his comment. Accordingly, I did not touch on his choice of words in my note. However, I did note that he knows that he should not be modifying others comments, particularly due to the current climate surrounding him, among other reasons. I don't believe substituting this with any other step would have efficiently resolved this segment in the way it needed to be, given the progression. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Allstarecho in obvious and unambiguous violation of editing restriction[edit]
Enough drama on this. ASE has already been warned, several admins reviewed the edit cited and declined to block. Take it to your talk pages if you want to bicker and argue amongst yourselves. –xenotalk 14:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As AKMask pointed out above, Allstarecho has violated the terms of his editing restriction. I know, I was as surprised as anyone. Can someone thick-skinned please issue the block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
He's already been sternly warned by an admin - can you just for one day stop your despicable behaviour? DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, this might not be the place to discuss it, but what part of my behaviour is "despicable"? Far too much time and energy is being taken up by this drama (on all sides). There were several long discussions about this. I didn't happen to agree with the addition of Durova to the restriction, but it was enacted, so it should be enforced. Allstarecho knew what he was doing when he decided to violate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If the goal is to reduce drama, follow up on all the bluster and noise of recent days by actually enforcing the terms of the editing restriction. Otherwise, it just sets up the next round of accusations, evasions, and arguments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Xeno, who first deleted the entire thread and now seems satisfied to simply move my comments into the collapsed section so they won't be seen, moved my last comment about reducing drama with the edit summary "moving hab lower. replying in edit summary only: i believe the reasoning was to give ASE a little break to allow him to settle into the new , more stringent , editing restriction, which will likely be strictly enforced". I'm adding it here so that it will be visible as part of the thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't find it ironic that you're pleading for a drama reduction by insisting on re-doing dramatic messages here? You're being dramatic about dramatic removal of your previous dramatic postings about AllStarEcho's dramatic postings. You're going to collapse in on yourself and become a dramatic black hole soon. Wknight94talk 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It's always a danger. I don't intend to add anything else here, but since the thread has been started and Xeno offered a rationale of why there was no block, it seemed like it should be here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for commenting on the apparent tail end of this, but what Wknight94 just said is both well said and very amusing at the same time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no proof that 24.18.136.188 (talk·contribs) is a sock of anyone yet this user's comments are being removed with the rationale that it's a banned user. Someone have proof for this? Not just "I believe it is.." and not "I know it is.." Proof people. If not, the user's comments at whatever articles they have been removed from, need to be restored and I would suggest an SPI case be opened instead of the bad manners that's been shown. The user's page isn't even tagged as a sock. - allstar▼echo 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not ask the user who removed it? wodup 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
ASE, I'm not sure if you're testing the limits of this, but whatever you are doing please just stop it. If Wikipedia had physical geography, you should be about 50 million miles away from the place where that IP made her or his edit. If your objective is to get blocked indefinitely, then by all means proceed as you are. But I don't think you want that, and a lot of other people don't want that, and there are so many other useful things you could be doing around here. I wish you would just pick a few of those and go do them, or sign off for a little while and go do something else that makes you happy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, seriously, leave the drama to those who have allowed it to remain; if that article is compromised? So what. Let it go and invest your energy in subjects worthy of your time. If that user gets away with crap and you're maligned instead, well Wikipedia is not fair quite often. Let the justice wheels grind without you under them - getting yourself sh*tcanned is not helping any long-term goals here. -- Banjeboi 05:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even talking about an article or any person that is part of my topic ban. Only talking about an IP that is being accused of being a sock without proof, not even WP:DUCK proof. Geez, I'm just not allowed to say shit, am I? Ridiculous. - allstar▼echo 05:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This was, sadly, too flimsy of an excuse for violating the recently reinforced topic ban. I have blocked Allstar Echo for 2 weeks under the most recent community editing restriction.
I have requested that A* consider simply leaving now, if he is unable to restrain himself from interactions with Sanchez that the community have determined are terminally disruptive. I do not wish to see all of A*'s good deeds on Wikipedia undone by a legacy of pathological inability to stop obsessing on this particular topic, leading to a permanent ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Have to agree. The fact that he didn't discuss this with the admin who removed the comment, but instead came here shows that the intent is drama and boundary-pushing, not resolving an issue. --Mask? 05:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with this as well. Camw (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have done that George, but it's an understandable response, and one could certainly view the above report as violating the topic ban (it skirts right on the edges of it, perhaps intentionally). I wish a wiki-friend of Allstarecho could convince him to do as Benjiboi suggests above, i.e. just say "fuck it," chalk this all up to injustice if he likes, and move on to something else. Unfortunately ASE seems pretty locked in on this issue. I would have let this one incident slide, but I'm not surprised that we ended up with a block here. I'm certainly not going to reverse George's action. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope I am a wikifriend of sorts of his - I've respected his good contributions and said so several times - and I have sincerely asked him to walk away from / unwatchlist / etc the topic. But this is the third time he's pushed the limit on the topic ban this week - and even as someone who I think gets along with him well and respects him, what he's still doing here is directly contrary to the topic ban's intent and letter. He covered it in a very flimsy tissue of "focusing on the IP", but that does not fly - it's transparently an excuse, and it demonstrates clearly that he will not leave the topic alone. He needs to stop - community has clearly telegraphed its exhausted patience - and he does not understand or acknowledge that. Until he understands and acknowledges that he's digging himself a hole. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Good block. I'm sure there are plenty of other editors like myself who are sick lately of seeing constant threads concerning this subject. Drop it already.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
(lots of ecs) I was about to make a request for enforcement of the 2 week ban; it seems Georgewilliamherbert has beat me to it. This is exactly the sort of thing that falls under "indirectly commenting about". Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A* has rejected comments by myself, Viridae, Sir Fozzie, and Spartaz' unblock decline, and posted another unblock request.
I believe more uninvolved administrators commenting there may be helpful to communicate the point, but please do not do so if you are inclined to be abusive to him. I think that type of treatment will simply drive him further into his denial over this and be ineffective. If we can continue to reason with him and be respectful we have a chance of convincing him that the topic ban is real, necessary for his own good, and to respect it. I would much rather not drive him away in spite or cause him to simply not believe any admins anymore. Kid gloves... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
He has now blanked the talk page and requested we blank his user page and protect both. I hope whoever does so offers that should he decide to return, that unprotecting/unblanking could be done. I wish he had just understood why everyone found his behavior frustrating.. SirFozzie (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I blanked and protected his user page and protected his talk page. I had a think before the second as he can't edit anywhere else while he is blocked but ASE is more then capable of contacting someone off wiki to fix it. SpartazHumbug! 07:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this will make any difference with anything, but I'm always curious about things, so I went ahead and asked the editor (the admin User talk:Horologium) who did the reversion, "which banned user" he attributes that IP address' lone edit [256] to - since ASE apparently did not ask the editor that question directly. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 07:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently it has to do with a user named Pwok, referenced in a previous section. Thanks to Ncmvocalist for pointing that out. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 07:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, there are socks on all sides of the Matt Sanchez drama, some, who apparently have lots of time, imitating each other so as to build sympathy or disdain. In hindsight I wish we had deleted the article as a drama magnet. To be clear ASE was more correct than not on the problems there so it's unfortunate they devolved into letting the, how shall I put this, clusterf*ck get to them. As an upside we might finally see that after years of abuse from the subject of that article that even BLP subjects should be held to stricter civility threshold. It's a good test case for how not to treat good Wikipedians. Sometimes messy people are good for bringing out the fun in others, in this case the community has been subjected to all manner of nonsense and Sanchez/Bluemarine playing us all for fools ... for years. -- Banjeboi 07:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to comment upon any other element, but vigorously agreeing with Benjiboi about wishing we could just delete this article. It meets the dead trees standard--or to put things simply, more trouble than it's worth.Durova306 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I would think that deleting the article as you suggest would only be appeasing Pwok (if he is behind all the disruption). According to Bluemarine, Pwok runs a fetish site that is the #2 ranked result for Google search = "Matt Sanchez". That fetish site would jump to the top if we give in to Pwok's demands. The most responsible thing to do would be to retain the Wiki bio and allow Bluemarine some limited access in order to verify its content. In previous cases of this type of multi-user targetted range point/origin IP, the SPI or backlogged BPS was restored in favor of increased credibility. In light of Bluemarine's previous compliance with staff actions, I think it proper to restore his profile authorization. At a time when our country is still at risk from extremist Islam, I think the least we can do is show those in uniform a modicum of respect. Those like Bluemarine who defend our freedoms overseas and put their lives on the line, deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt by those who hide behind cute user names. Semper Fi and God Bless!
Actually it would give relief to the entire Wikipedia community from Sanchez's/Bluemarine's relentless campaign to promote ... himself. That he "reports" on US troops is yet another red herring. If we get rid of the article then Sanchez and his peeps and those who oppose him all have to scurry back to blogland and leave the encyclopedia writers to work on articles that are actually worth reading. -- Banjeboi 05:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should let Google's rankings influence what articles we keep or delete. It's our job to manage wikipedia, not to manage google. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 05:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Good block, it's sad that he simply could not leave it alone and had to pushed out of the door. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank Baseball Bugs for alerting me to this thread, since ASE didn't have the common decency to let me know about it. There is a fairly comprehensive rationale for my removal of the comments on my talk page, but suffice it to say that the duck was quacking very loudly. Four IP addresses from the same ISP, all resolving to the same city, and focused on the same (marginally notable) individual's alleged activities, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with a banned user, whose edits may be deleted on sight. Horologium(talk) 13:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an update for the original purpose of this topic, the /25 that IP Address is in is an open proxy, and has been rangeblocked. SirFozzie (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
– consenus support for block based on editing restriction violation
I think it was a bad block. I'm constantly surprised by the lack of restraint shown by our admins. Yes, it was a gray area. But expressing concerns about how an IP was being treated wasn't a particularly outrageous or disruptive issue to bring to the community's attention. I think ASE was trying to abide by the restrictions and that the best response would have been to simply answer his concerns or even to ignore them. But to block him for it for two weeks seems like a particularly absurd example of over the top enforcement. Things were dying down (maybe) and this just added an enormous amount to the drama. Sometimes people need to be given some latitude. There wasn't a personal attack involved in this instance and the concerns expressed were quite reasonable. I actually share some of them. The duck test is convenient and easy, but I don't see a reason why due process couldn't have been followed. None of the anon comments were particularly outrageous. If investigation showed them to be a banned or blocked user fine, but I think our admins need to do a better job resolving disputes instead of hammering away at them with sledgehammers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It is also ironic that the civility police patrolling Wikipedia so aggressively are the ones showing such a lack of civility and empathy for good faith editors. Clearly the issues involved are emotional for Allstar and others. Granting them some latitude and consideration would be a humane and respectful way to go about our business, just as we are asking, expecting and enforcing toleration from them for editors with whom they vehemently disagree. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've spent all of last night trying to figure it out, but I still don't understand.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion I encourage those with the power to do so to unblock Allstar and to apologize, noting that while it may have appeared that he was flagrantly violating his recently imposed restrictions, they now realize and understand that he was not intending to do so and that he meant well. This good faith report where he expressed a reasonable concern wasn't worth blocking over, especially when there was no effort to diffuse and resolve the issue in a collegial manner. GeorgeWilliamHerbert as Chairman Emeritus of the civility police seems a particularly good candidate to lead by example in reaching out with an olive branch. A similar effort should be made with Duncan Hill, some of whose recent comments were unhelpful, but whose emotions and feelings deserve consideration and whose contributions and dedication to Wikipedia should be recognized and appreciated with an expression of goodwill. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)CoM, I'm just as gay as ASE and yet somehow have managed to avoid causing intense disruption around Sanchez/Bluemarine. Due process was followed here; ASE had already been restricted, it was reiterated to him, and he very deliberately decided to nibble at the edges of the restriction, as usual. For once, an admin grew a pair and said "Not this time, sonny." ASE has a long history of significantly bad behaviour, disingenuous claims of innocence, and deliberate envelope-pushing. The blocking admin--and the admin denying the unblock request--decided that enough was enough (as should have been done ages ago with ASE) and it was time for a vacation. He has now left the project (my bet is for a week, or possibly as much as two), which means all of the craziness he instigated here is now over. Should Sanchez/Bluemarine continue in his objectionable behaviour, something will be done about him. Until then, your posts here are more inflammatory than useful, and one might almost go so far as to say they are aggressively clueless--that is, if one weren't to say based on the evidence that they are quite deliberately disingenuous and disruptive. It would behoove you to drop the issue and let--as you claim you want--the drama die. → ROUX₪ 20:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
After ec: hahahaha. AHAHHAAHAHAH. There is no way on God's green earth that is happening. You know this, of course, and that tilts the obvious interpretation of your comments here rather more to the second one rather than the first. → ROUX₪ 20:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replying to CoM - I think we have a strong consensus above that he did break the topic ban. He disagreed, but "the community" seems to feel otherwise.
If I believed he would accept and work within the topic ban going forwards I would have offered an unblock last night. But his responses last night indicated that he didn't see anything wrong with what he'd done. To summarize the community position, I think we feel that he needs to truly have no interaction with Sanchez going forwards - no comments on article or talk or user pages, no ANI comments about anyone else's participation or comments there, etc. I think everyone else intended and perceived the topic ban as an absolute stone wall - nothing shall pass. A* seems to disagree that it's illegitimate for the community to impose such an absolute ban, and that he has no reason to respect the ban as written as a result.
I did't want this to happen; when he sticks to other topics A* is a productive and cooperative editor. But every time he comes near Sanchez a disaster ensues. He does not seem to understand that, or feels it's Sanchez' fault. I and the community disagree and feel that it's his fault, which is why the topic ban was imposed. He tried to wiggle past that, repeatedly, and that can't stand.
I was hoping that it being an administrator who thought well of his contributions that blocked him would help convey the message. I contacted him extensively on his talk page before he blanked it, trying to reason with him further.
As with anything else - build a bigger consensus here and you can override the block, appeal it to Arbcom if you can't do that and still feel that this was an abuse of policy or process or behavior on my part. But I think that from above, the community consensus is that he's exhausted community patience. If he won't listen to an admin who likes him telling him that, he at least needs to go take an enforced break for a bit, and may not be able to contribute in a constructive manner at all anymore. It sucks to have to tell someone whose contributions you generally admire and appreciate that - but I really don't see any other alternative now. If he accepts the topic ban and abides by it, his block is over in 2 weeks and he can come back. If he wants his talk page back he can email myself or any other admin and we can unlock it for him. If he wants to talk offline in the meantime, he can email any of us. We can't force him to talk to us though.
The situation sucks. I hated doing this last night. But I remain confident that it was necessary and have not yet seen signs that he will accept the community issued topic ban going forwards.
You and others have asked for more admins willing to sanction longtime contributors or friends, or fellow admins, when people cross the line. I think I count A* as a longtime contributor and someone who was widely respected by myself and the community as a whole. But he repeatedly and relentlessly crossed the line and has so far not shown an inclination to stop. I would like to see him get past this and come back - but that has to be on the communities terms, without involvement with Sanchez in any way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
GHW, I'm sure you're aware of the assume good faith protocol. ASE's response, my comments, and ABCE's (sp?) make clear that ASE did not intentionally violate his new editing restrictions. So his comment was made in good faith. It's not appropriate to block people for two weeks for making a mistake, without first trying to alleviate the problem through collegial discussion. Several editors disagree with how the situation has been handled. If the consensus is that his comment was unacceptable fine. Tell him why and not to do it again. But basic courtesy and civility suggests that there was a better way to resolve this than wielding your mighty banhammer to teach someone a lesson. You freak out if someone calls another editor an idiot, but appear to be okay with treating someone who makes a mistake like a piece of crap. That's discouraging, but in this case it's fixable. I hope you will take the opportunity to make it right.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
CoM: ASE was fixated with this whole situation, and had been told in plain language that the community wanted him to disengage completely and totally. This was not an isolated incident, in the less then 36 hours since the topic ban had been applied, he had engaged in testing the boundaries of his topic ban in three seperate areas. He was aggressively trying to game the boundaries of it. We reached out a hand to him several times during the discussion. If he had agreed to abide by the terms of his topic ban, GWH has stated above that he would have unblocked him right then and there. I offered to copy any Arbitration Committee request to review the community topic ban to the proper page for him. I'm saddened that he decided that he could not obey the rules and instead apparently from Wikipedia, but to pretend that this is a situation is not of his own making is foolish. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between "someone who makes a mistake" and "someone who deliberately pushes the boundaries of his restriction three times in five days". I was the first blocking admin - you can look at ASE's block log for the reason - that one was probably the most flagrant violation of his ban and he even tried to claim that there was no reason for a block on that one, either. I like ASE and have worked with him in the past blocking and reverting homophobic socks and IPs on articles he was working on - but I can't defend his inability to just leave this situation alone. It wasn't difficult, but he couldn't do it. The community only has limited patience for editors that can't comply with a very simple restriction, and so, unfortunately, we are left here. Black Kite 23:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly possible you gentlemen are correct. But you'll notice that I haven't contested any of his previous blocks. I'm well aware of the history. The question Allstar posted was in a gray area that he clearly believed was within his editing restriction. There was no discussion or warning before the block based on that particular edit. He was not offered an opportunity to withdraw his comment. It's obvious that he was upset over the restrictions and felt that an abusive editor and the article about him are being unfairly protected. I completely disagree with him and I think it's good that we give second chances to people even when they aren't likely to succeed, but I do have empathy and I understand that sometimes things take time and people who are upset need to be given some leeway. The disruption caused by his query seems minute to me (and the concern fairly legitimate) in comparison with the impact of an aggressive 2 week block. If you guys think this is the best way to handle editors in a civil and collegial manner then I disagree. Maybe I'm missing the big picture, maybe this will turn out to be helpful, but I notice there are several others who share my concerns. And whether the block was right or wrong has nothing to do with making an attempt to reach out to Allstar after the fact. Maybe y'all are planning to do that soon anyway. I have no idea. I hope so. I'm okay with this tread being archived unless someone has something more to say. Thank you for your responses. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the block. He was gunning for one anyway. Better it happen sooner rather than later. Protonk (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. He was testing the limits of his own sanctions and got burned. All-Star Echo should heed the advice of others and simply unwatch these pages and forget about it. Resolute 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
^Kaptchuk, T. J. (1998). Intentional ignorance: A history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 72, 389-433.
^Hacking, I. (1988). Telepathy: Origins of randomization in experimental design. Isis, 79, 427-451.
Resolved
Done***Alex Sanders (pornography) - best known as actor
Unresolved
Fixed, thank you. –xenotalk 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xenotalk 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Indef blocked for making legal threats. If he should make a full retraction in an unblock request, any admin may unblock him without consulting me first. --Jayron32 05:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
