::::Except he's no longer blocked, as Ched backed off when another admin questioned it. So presumably a consensus is building here for a re-block. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Except he's no longer blocked, as Ched backed off when another admin questioned it. So presumably a consensus is building here for a re-block. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::First, pardon the non-logged in post, I'm not on my PC, and not in a secure location. Yes, when there were questions brought forth about the appropriateness of the block, then I did unblock because I'd rather error on the side of being fair, and allowing explinations. I will revisit this and review the info when I return home later tonight. Thank you all for your input, and I appreciate the community's indulgence in the matter. {{User:Ched Davis|Ched]] [[Special:Contributions/173.88.220.161|173.88.220.161]] ([[User talk:173.88.220.161|talk]]) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Redking7 has been nothing but a timesink for many editors and admins for a long time (and over numerous areas, xe isn't quite a SPA). An indef is, IMO, not harming the encyclopedia in any way. Black Kite22:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather extreme, I should add. I don't see any reason for this, just the rationale, "give a dog a bad name". Can you admins not wait until something actually happens, then you might be able to justify what is technically an editor ban. Tfz22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to give a dog a bad name when the dog insists on gaining one themselves. This is an editor who is persistently tendentious on RoC issues, but also previously were obsessed with the same thing on Ireland-related nationalist disputes (this edit revently and dozens like this; they were even blocked for edit-warring over Ireland-related articles at one point) and has recently managed to unhelpfully join in with the Macedonia-related one [2]. The phrase "drama magnet" springs to mind. Black Kite23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never remember Redking7 being "persistently tendentious on RoC issues, but also previously were obsessed with the same thing" on Irish related disputes. Maybe you mean British related disputes, because that's where the trouble often starts, but of course none of those British editors ever get blocked. Tfz23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. Redking7's two blocks were for edit warring on The Troubles and List of diplomatic missions of Ireland which strangely enough, are Irish-related articles. The "British editors never get blocked" straw man is probably not worth waving around here, to be honest. Frankly I'm not particularly bothered whether xe's blocked or not; merely pointing out that mine (and probably many other) editor's experiences of him are a net negative. Your mileage, as always, may vary. Black Kite23:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The troubles are British/Irish related in my experience, and wrong to blame Irish editors for that. I have said what I have to say on the Redking7 issue. Tfz23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redking7 (talk·contribs·logs) does seem to have had some problems over the years here, although I'm not sure he's to the "indef" point yet, he may be at the one to two week point. (depending upon the circumstances of the block) Looking at the contribs., I'm not sure the "SPA" moniker is entirely accurate, although there is a pattern to his edits. If you're looking for a consensus on an unblock, I'd be in favor of a mod. to 1 or 2 weeks, but not an immediate unblock. — Ched : ? 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This block should just be scratched and re-evaluated on basic principle (and that's not to say the outcome will not be the same). The last three blocks on this user were from WMC himself, and then he indeffed him 8 hours before he gets his status as an admin removed by arbcom. This just looks like a last hurrah from an admin who knew they were about to be canned, and as such it should not be allowed to stand unreviewed, or be given the cursory 'you didn't say the magic word' unblock decline. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) WMC does not strike me as the kind of person who would make "last hurrah" guestures. Had he received any warnings that his behaviour was contemptable? Did he know he was on thin ice? If he did he would have modified his behviour, or at least defend himself.
(2) A number of admins endorsed the temporary blocks imposed by WMC whenever RedKing sought redress. Nobody criticised WMC's actions.
(3) RedKing7 displays no capacity to debate issues in good faith. Bystanders to a debate generally only need three minutes to understand "we are including missions in Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and elsewhere because they are de facto missions, even though no diplomatic missions exists between those states". RedKing7 still doesn't seem to get it.
In my opinion, a long block would clearly be deserved, but I don't think it would cure the problem. Instead, I propose an editing restriction.
Redking7 is a long-term edit warrior on the subject of diplomatic relations between Taiwan and various countries. His changes are constantly being reverted, but he won't participate in any proper form of dispute resolution. In the boxed section below I've packaged up some diffs.
I would support lifting of the indef block, if he will accept two conditions:
A 1RR restriction on all articles: no more than one revert per article per week
No edits or discussion regarding Taiwan, or on Taiwan's relations with other countries.
I'd also warn him that violation of the 1RR could lead to an indef block. Since he is currently requesting unblock, I'd make the unblock depend on him voluntarily accepting these restrictions. Since he still sees no problem whatever with his editing, it's an open question whether he will accept the restrictions. If he doesn't, I would leave the indef in place.
Extended diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see three cases involving Redking7 at the 3RR noticeboard between April 2008 and the present. My search did not find any occurrence of his name at WP:AN or WP:ANI. My own memory of the events I am familiar with indicates that the 3RR blocks were well-deserved (I issued one of them). He has been arguing for nearly a year (since November 2008) that Wikipedia gives too much prominence to the liaison offices that many countries have established in Taiwan. Other editors have argued that these offices are a form of diplomatic relations, and they've added them to the list of diplomatic missions of some countries. This is, of course, arguable but Redking7 (it seems) is never going to take no for an answer, and won't participate in any proper form of dispute resolution. He just keeps on reverting and reverting.
He has edited List of diplomatic missions in the Republic of China to revert to his own view of the diplomatic situation regarding these quasi-missions. His change was reverted by another editor. This shenanigans was going on as recently as 13 September, and came after expiry of his previous block on September 9. (The last block was by WMC for some kind of canvassing regarding Taiwan on the talk pages of many different users). So he hasn't given up POV-pushing on his favorite topic.
Reviewers can see details of all the past blocks on his current Talk page, since he didn't remove the old notices or the unblock requests.
Some very old stuff there, and he was entitled to change RoI to Ireland, because that is the name of the country, and the Wikipedia entry is quite wrong in this regard. There has just been a poll concluded on this issue, and it is contentious with many editors, and quite wrong to single out Redking. If this is the evidence you are offering for long block, then I can think of many many more editors who should have long block too. I propose a shorter block of a week at most, but no new parameters included. Tfz13:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what was the upshot here? A block just before one is about to lose one's bit seems... unseemly. But apparently the issues with the user are non trivial. Is there consensus here to leave things be? To go with a conditional unblock subject to the provisos given? Thanks for clarification. ++Lar: t/c03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support replacing the indef with something much shorter, but with the topic ban on anything to do with Taiwan/ROC and the People's Republic of China, either the pages or the talk. He is POV pushing, has been uncivil, and generally disruptive. Bevinbell13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1RR on all articles is very extreme, it's impossible to edit anything under those restrictions. Maybe 2 month ban on the pertinent articles would be a safer course to follow. WC does seem to have a "thingy" with Redking and really shouldn't have indeffed when he knew his adminship as effectively terminated. On the balance of probabilities, this block is very unsafe. Tfz00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible to edit under 1RR, but quite difficult to edit war, which I rather think is the point. A two-month article ban sounds like a remedy without any teeth, to me. I might prefer we leave talk page editing open, tentatively, but in general I agree with the thrust of Ed's proposal. I'm not sure how we should handle this, in the event Redking refuses to acknowledge any sanctions. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two months topic ban on diplomatic missions does have very big teeth indeed, and if Redking agreed with that, then that would be a sign of working with consensus. Wikipedia should have more confidence in itself in resolving simple issues like this, and be prepared to move forward. Tfz22:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where a problem has obviously persisted for some time, and an editor at the root of that problem seems unable or unwilling to even acknowledge concerns regarding their disruptive behavior, what exactly is shoving the problem under the rug for two months going to accomplish? A 1RR restriction allows editing, but prevents edit warring; a short ban, in the absence of some other, enduring limitation, strikes me as unlikely to bring about a long-term improvement in the situation. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page protection
I've reblocked to protect the talk page. He doesn't seem to be doing anything useful with it, and given his long history, this "what did I do" bit doesn't seem to be going anywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Just took at look at his most recent talk page postings - he does not seem to be willing to support any editing restrictions and has continued his rather uncivil approach to discussion. Maybe I would add he needs a mentor along with a topic and talk ban. Bevinbell13:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page lock seems unnecessary, at this point; is anything being posted there particularly dangerous or exacerbating, in this situation? Bear in mind that talk page blocking was originally designed as a measure to mitigate flooding and other exploits. I think it's best if we keep communication open as long as is reasonably possible, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following stems from this edit by User:Stevertigo, an issue which arrived here very recently. The fact that "the Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to the destruction of more than the Jews of during World War 2, is not under dispute. However, as can be seen on the talk page, myself and a couple of others have outlined to Steve several times - while pointing to a preponderance of reliable sources, that regardless of how "The Holocaust" is defined, "Holocaust denial", refers (with the exception of a few passing references regarding the implicit denial of Roma peoples, as one user brought forward) virtually exclusively to the denial of the destruction of the Jews during WW2.
Steve has responded with an eye-watering amount of wikilawyering, the most I have ever seen in my Wikipedia tenure. Some comments directed at Steve have undoubtedly been less than diplomatic, but this, and then amending it with this, frankly, is absolutely repellent behaviour in my opinion. I believed that I have exercised considerable discretion in this matter, such as by inviting Steve to suggest how he would amend the article, which he has responded to. However, it has occured to more than just me that Steve's desired prose not only misses the relevant points, but tacitly suggests that Steve is making his own extrapolations, then trying to find sources to support them. Well, not remotely tacit at all, in fact.
Judging from Steve's other edits (and pages in his userspace) such as this tremendously protracted redirect he established, not to mention this very recently written item or this BLP minefield, or what can only be described as a contemptuous attitude to other people's comments, I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that the interests Steve is interested in furthering are not Wikipedias. WilliamH (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a block, indefinitely if necessary. It is abundantly clear that he is much more interested in tendentiously furthering his own interests, as opposed to Wikipedia's. I need hardly point that that is detrimental to the project, and I see no reason why so much volunteer time should be used to appease it. WilliamH (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a community ban discussion would get us anywhere, nor would it be all that constructive. We haven't eliminated other options yet, so I suggest we use them. How about an WP:RFC/U? lifebaka++14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the discussion, and it seems that Steve is now trying to talk in a more civilized manner, accepting what people have to say. I don't pretend to understand the large amounts of philosophical debate flying back and forth on that talk page, but it looks to me that he's calmed down considerably and stopped making threats and stupid comments. A little insignificant (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disinterested observer checking in. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, it appears to be a discussion, and not at all heated to the extent that is seemingly being portrayed. The ripostes are rather courtly and just because there is a dispute does not necessitate a call for admin action. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, try the Reliable Sources noticeboard. And throwing words like "Holocaust denier" around with hopes they will stick to an editor, is not going to further constructive debate. If they do not stick, they tend to boomerang. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a good night and have not yet gotten any sleep, so I will keep this short.
You paint a very good one-sided story William. I do mean that. Note of course that neutral observers appear to disagree with your one-sided portrayal and aren't hesitant to say so quite straightly. Your comment above (to those who took the time to review your concerns), "Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward[?]" should be understood as evidence of the weakness of your claims. Their comments above explicitly testify of their literacy in this matter. You have no evidence to show otherwise, and you have no cause to insinuate their negligence in that aspect.
WilliamH wrote: "How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable?" - Your linkage to my subspace (which I on rare occasion use in certain mundane ways) pointed to a draft for an unrelated topic. How do you conjecture a connection between this topic and that one? If you are building an overall case against me, please do so: Elicit help from others and put together some kind of comprehensive report on my behaviour. Not only would I welcome one, I would take the opportunity to demonstrate every weakness in your claims, arguments, and conceptions, and will do so with gusto and sarcasm in full measure to even the slightest vexatiousness shown to me. Your title for this thread already strikes me as a bit vexatious.
I have made the title more clear in that it is about the article and you, rather than somehow implying that you might ascribe to the theory. I assume this is better. lifebaka++04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that the thread title is completely benign, and all suggestions otherwise are tremendous assumptions of bad faith. WilliamH (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few people have checked the discussion page and note that the discussion seems less heated. Indeed. But this is beside the point. The question - and really, the only question for AN/I (as Protonk points out, this page is dedicated to specific kinds of problems) - is: is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor? The thing about disruptive editors is, you cannot make a judgement based on just one glance. By definition, disruptive editing manifests itself through a pattern of edits across time or across several articles. That is why WilliamH provided a number of edit diffs. To those who say things have quieted down, I would point out this: Stevertigo has dominated discussion on the Holodcaust Denial talk page for quite some time, occupying quite a bit of space, and all this discussion has lead to not one single improvement of the article. Moreover, it seems to me that the rest of the participants in the discussion do not see any point to this lengthy discussion, do not feel that it is leading to any improvement of the article. This is an abuse of the talk page, which is meant to discuss improvements, and a perfect example of "disruptive" editing since Stevertigo's repeated comments, which never engage what other editors actually point out, is simply displacing any constructive discussion. Stevertigo's MO is to make things up, call it a "concept," and then refuse to provide any verifiable sources. He is a disruptive editor at best - the worse possibility is that he is here to push his own personal point of view with total disregard to our NOR policy. Here is another example [3]. Slrubenstein | Talk15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced Steve is completely gone, yet. As I've seen, he is improving little by little, as we make it apparent that pieces of what he's doing aren't acceptable. I don't know that we can change him completely, but neither do I know that we cannot. Steve is capable of taking the hint from this thread, I know, and is capable of changing his behavior. For the moment, it would be best if we issued a warning about some specific behaviors (such as starting talk page discussions whose purpose is not the improvement of the article) and see if he does in fact stop. Cheers. lifebaka++19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am not "gone yet," Lifebaka - I was editing here five years before you showed up. I've yet to see anything more than a few insinuations and complaints, so I don't quite understand how anyone would think I would just go away and leave things in a depressed state. I likewise don't understand how some people can go though life thinking everyone else is just stupid, but that's a little off topic. Anyway, I've written down a few thoughts regarding this thread and others, and put them in my log. It's a bit fluid and maybe wanders a bit, but the gist is fairly straightforward.
My experience with Stevertigo has, unfortunately, been pretty unchanged over a number of years. He generally shows up at an article and decides to put his own unique and idiosyncratic spin on whatever is there, either by modifying text to suit his own opinions, or by adding his own mini-essays. Though he has been editing for many years, as far as I can tell the WP:V and WP:NOR policies have made little, if any, impression on him.
Here is a perfect recent example of this; he showed up at the Reducto ad Hitlerum article, and decided to insert his own confusing digression on whether or not the National Socialist party were really Socialists. Aside from its tangential nature, note that (as is typical) the essay has not one source in it. As is also typically the case, on any article he is editing that is actually being watched by other editors, his insertions are deleted. As is also typically the case, he edit wars to keep them in.[4][5] When defeated, he drops it on the Talk: page, without any accompanying commentary.
Thus he showed up at the Holocaust denial article, with his own personal opinions of what the article should discuss - as it turned out, mainly a digression into which groups are covered by the phrase "The Holocaust" - something that is actually discussed in Wikipedia's article on the Holocaust. After days of circular discussion, including several suggestions by him that we should all be working together on a Holocaust comprehension article, he then proposed completely re-writing the lede, focusing in particular on his original point, and making his proposal without actually basing it on any discernible sources. Long exposure has taught me that every talk page discussion with him eventually comes to the question "Stevertigo, upon what sources do you base your opinions"? Constantly hammering on that statement usually makes him go away; unfortunately, in this case, many editors were unfamiliar with him, and gave him various openings to continue his digressions on his own unusual ideas. He has posted several thousand words on the Holocaust denial Talk: page without, as far as I can tell, bringing even one source that actually discusses Holocaust denial. At the least, this is extremely disruptive. Jayjg (talk)01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, was there any attempt, on your part or anyone elses, to ascertain what was missing in the reductio ad Nazium article? Indeed, as the term is said to not just refer to the Hitler fallacy, but to the Nazi one as well, I.. conceptualized.. a need for a treatment of the Socialism fallacy, and thought that article was the proper place, given the apparent ambiguity in the ad Nazium term.
So, I take it there was no effort on your part to ascertain what was missing in that article. Hm? Fine. But in the additions of others, do you at least attempt to ascertain whether or not the addition is actually true? Encyclopedic? Factual? Well-written? On-point? Relevant? Material? Substantive? Accurate? An improvement?
It strikes me at the very best "counterproductive" that you and others interpret RS in accord with only inane and destructive modalities that at best resemble deletionism. Keep in mind the context, these are articles in which you yourself neglect to detect any omission, and yet you claim to assert some kind of considered editorial judgment in simply deleting additions to them?
Steve, the way article writing is supposed to work is this: First, you find sources. Then, you write based on the sources. Then, you cite the sources you used. The issue appears to be that you are not beginning by finding sources, but instead writing and then attempting to cherry-pick sources which will support your text. Regardless of why you choose to operate this way, it gives the appearance that you are pushing a view. Please find sources as a first step.
Additionally, regarding the removal of unsourced content, WP:V stipulates that any unsourced contentious material should be removed. You shouldn't be too terribly surprised if, when you add material to a page without sources, it gets removed.
User:Stevertigo has been around a long time and made many contributions. He isn't some troll who suddenly appeared. So whence this talk of banning him? Can't we tolerate people with unpopular perspectives? Do we all have to be mainstream here? If so, then who should we start kicking out: the gays? the libertarians? the Christians? Please let me know, so I can align myself with the Grand Inquisitor, and feel like a good person.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting perspective, Anthon. Keep in mind also the issue is not about "mainstream," its about this obtuse methodology of cobbling articles together from "reliable sources" such that they don't always make actual sense. In some cases it's quite deliberately so. So some people of course are worried that any future requirement of "making sense" will inevitably cause localized and other special-point-of-view concepts to implode. In fact its just a matter of time.
Uh, Anthon, to be clear, Stevertigo is a troll who has been around over five years. The first encounter with him I recall (I could well be blocking out others) was when he showed up at "anti-Semitism" and argued that since Arabs are semites, anti-Semitism includes hatred of Arabs. This is the paradigm for how he operates and it has two major components. First, he claims he is using a conceptual method, but what he is really doing is taking actual concepts and breaking them down to parts that are actually not relevant to the concept. In the case of the name Ehud, he went so far as to do this with letters of the alphabet. It is true that Arabic is a semetic language. But "anti-Semitism" was explicitly coined to refer exclusively to hatred of Jews. Anyone who has done what jayjg and others call source-based research ... what I just call "research" ... would know this. As i pointed out on the Holocaust denial page, If Stevertigo really followed his method consistenly, he would be quite surprised to discover what the word "blowjob" really means. If Sgtevertigo really were commited to his "conceptual" approach, he would go the the article on blowjobs, and explain that since blow means a forceful expulsion of air, and a job is form of work, we need a section on people who blow out air for a living. This would be a violation of WP:NOR were it not just so ridiculous on its face. Anyway, the point is that he has done no research, he has no sources to support his claims, in the end it is simply what Stevertigo thinks a word or phrase should mean that he wants to go into the article. This of course never stands up to scrutiny, but Stevertio argues the point for days, weeks, and this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Second major element: Stevertigo has a clear preference for screwing with articles that have to do with Jews or topics sensitive to Jews. Although by his method we would have a long debate at the page on blowjobs, or "logrolling" or "parkway" or "driveway," Stevertigo prefers "Anti-Semitism," "Yeshu" "Ehud" and "Holocaust Denial." What do these things have in common? They are all issues sensitive to Jews, and Stevertigo has never done an iota of research concerning them. His is a simple, close to banal form of anti-Semitism. He has never directly insulted any Jews at ikipedia. But if left to his own devices, slowly, every article here relating to matters of Jewish interest or concern would be corrupted into meaningless garbage. I do not know if this is because this is his actual objective, or because he knows that it will draw some of the Jewish editors at Wikipedia, and force them to waste their time on the talk pages explaining over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again why he is wrong.
Please note my excessive use of "over and over and over." It is not a personal attack as such. It did not violate any content policy. But can anyone deny that its only effect is to irritate? This is Stevertigo in essense. It is why he is a disruptive editor. That he has gotten away with it for five years is no defense. In no other kind of violation, would we say that "well, he has been violating NPOV for five years so it must be okay." The only time editors say "Well he has been doing it for five years so stop complaining" is in the case of disruptive editors. That is because disruptive editors, by constantly shifting their targets, and by merely disrupting, rather than attacking, are generaly detected only by a small group of editors who for one reason or another (in this case, Jews or non-Jews who care about Jewish related articles) keep encountering this editor. But we have a policy, WP:DE that describes Stevertigo's MO almost to a tee! Folks, this is precisely why we have a DE policy. Generous editors here will say "let's give him anothe chance." That is because they weren't around for the over a month long "anti-semitism" saga (in which, after Stevertigo started introducing neologisms to support his argument, and created articles for his own neologisms, and was told, No, Steve, you can't create your own word and then create a Wikipdia article about your word, that is a neologism, and then we had to explain to him what the word "neologism" meant, then he went and created an article on neologisms! I kid you not! It is amost funny). But if we let him go this time, in a few nonths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for Yom Kippur. Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it? Probably me and just a few others. And we will bring it up at AN/I and a different group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance." Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors. Let's use it here. Slrubenstein | Talk09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One could take all of that, substitute "Obama" and "liberals" in place of "Jews" and "antisemitism", and we would have an accurate description of Stevertigo's antics that led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles as well. Sooner or later the ones with the proverbial mops around here have eat the spinach and say "that's all I can stands and I can't stands no more!"Tarc (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein, most likely you'd get someone to act if you put some examples around, other than just the Ehud one. For instance, can you link me the threads from Anti-Semitism that you're talking about? Cheers. lifebaka++14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently attempted to warn Stevertigo on Talk:Holocaust denial that his repetitive arguing was becoming disruptive; he responded by misconstruing what I'd written, wikilawyering over policy, trying to score points, and making some rather odd allusions that I might be in off-wiki contact with other editors there to silence him ([6], [7], [8]). I don't intend to second-guess why he does this, but regardless of the reasons the resulting disruption, bad feeling, and general unpleasantness caused by his actions are what matter. I would support removing his editing privileges; although a topic ban would be my first choice, I think his interests are wide-ranging enough that this would be ineffective. Note that because I consider myself marginally involved on Holocaust denial, I don't feel comfortable blocking Stevertigo myself. EyeSerenetalk14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deplore this dogpile.
The consensus is against Stevertigo in a number of areas, and he has some controversial views. He also occasionally takes an unfortunate tone with people. But this AN/I thread is totally unwarranted.—S MarshallTalk/Cont16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example of a "controversial view" he has? The problem I have, and have raised, is not that he has controversial views, but that he is always promoting his own views. Wikipedia allows controversial views, as long as they are significant and come from notable sources. Not our own ideas, right? Slrubenstein | Talk20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I greatly appreciate the "dogpile" conceptualization, S Marshall, I have to disagree about it being "unwarranted," when in fact it's ridiculous. Particularly so when they don't bother to treat my arguments seriously to begin with, and then, instead of dealing with the concepts, they accuse me of "wikilawyering," which is precisely what this report itself actually is.
Note how easy it was to deal with William, who filed this report?
Slrubenstein wrote: "It is true that Arabic is a semetic[sic] language." - Actually, that's not accurate.
Lifebaka asks for some more links. Here are two:[9][10]. I must point out that archives from back then are sketchy - some articles were deleted, and then recreated when people had more research; we didn't have the same procedures for keeping records or archives of everything. In archive 4 of the anti-Semitism talk, Stevertigo makes his argument that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so the article cannot be just a definition of "anti-Semitism." Fair enough. On this I agree fully. Here is where we differ: i think that instead of just defining the term, we need to see what sources exist concerning its history and the sociology of anti-Semitism, or whatever other research there has been, if any. Steve's approach is to apply his own brand oflogic, and this is used to make his own points (note: what is wrong is not that they are controvesial, but that they are his i.e. an editor's). In archive 4 he claims that anti-semitism has two meanings: first, it means hatred of Jews. Second, it is a term used to attack people who disagree with Jews. Uh, well, you can see how Jews might take exception to this second meaning of "anti-Semitism." Now, there may well be people who are anti-Zionists yet who are accused of anti-Semitism - this in fact is now the subject of a couple of articles, all backed up by research. Again, my problem with Steve's argument is that he is relying on his own argument, not research. In archive 6 he refers to himself, ironically I am sure, as an "anti-Semite." I really do not believe that he thinks he is an anti-Semite or was confessing to be an anti-Semite, I am merely pointing out that six years ago he was aware that there were other editors who found his views anti-Semitic. In archive six there is another classic example of his using his own kind of logic, rather than research: anti means opposed to, so anti-Semitism must mean, opposed to Semites, including Arabs. I and RK and Danny argued strenuously that anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred. RK points out that the person who coined the term meand, "Jew hatred." And here is the crucial thing: Stevertigo says it does not matter what the inventor of the word meant, words have meanings determined by logic. As RK points out, the reason that the inventor of the term is important is because there is extensive published historical research on the historical meaning of the term. Steve's insistence on logic is an insistence on his own beliefs. I am sorry I could not provide edit difs but it is hard with my connection to go back six years to find edit difs, but these archives are pretty short - I believe they are incomplete - so just search a bit and you will find all the pertinant stuff. Note: there was a separate archive for anti-Semitism talk, I do not know if there was a separate article or just some talk was being archived back then under a different system. The point is, those archived talk pages are all blank and I cannot recover the content, so some talk is missing. Slrubenstein | Talk20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lifebaka, here is another link, to an article written entirely by our boy, Stevertigo.[11]. It is pure crap. Let me be clear: it is not his "controversial views." It is his bullshit. I really am waiting for an example of some meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. Anyway, his article on a neologism that he himself invented is a perfect example of what I have been saying about his MO, just making stuff up and calling it logic to justify why he didn't need to do any research. Slrubenstein | Talk21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(continued)
Honestly, take a step back. You're accusing a long-term editor of anti-Semitic views and being involved in a plot to corrupt every Jewish-related article on Wikipedia. That I think is bullshit. The link you just provided was from 2003. A little insignificanttalk to me!(please!)22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior in Archive 4 is similar, yes. I cannot find any place where Steve states/asserts/implies that antisemitism is hatred of Semites (including various Arab groups) in any of the archives, though this may merely be because the archives are incomplete (there are certainly responses to such a statement, but I'm unsure if they're putting words in his mouth, as it were). Cheers. lifebaka++16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Slrubenstien above) Keep in mind that there are historical concepts of editorship and controversy involved. For example, you now say that "ant-Semitism" has a pejorative meaning, but at the time you rejected the notion altogether - not just that there were no sources. In fact the sources I provided, Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc., were met by you with extremely prejudicial rejection. Hence you've been working with a concept of authorship that defies higher conceptualization, frankly because you think it has no relation to your own. Note for example how you surreptitiously promoted Trinitiarianism as an absolute condition in the Christianity article lede, when in fact there is some variance. I discussed this a bit in my wlog.
So, yeah, this has been going on for some time. The important thing though here is for you to build a case, and approach it rationally. This works in any context. For example you and William both above cite a number of diff-links, but you fail to put them into context, and thus fail to make an actual case.
And what is the case you are trying to make here? That I be banned? That my arguments, regardless of substance, simply be ignored? That you can continue to simply reject anything I might have to say, even when I do provide sources? (Which I have done on a number of occasions). That you can continue to take my arguments out of context, or otherwise misrepresent them? Do explain.
Likewise we will have to deal with some issues that transcend us both, even though Arbcom has some notable impotence in dealing with matters of its own fundamental legislation. One thing that has to go is this notion that RS's dominant modality be a deletionist one. I say so just in case collaboration still has anything to do with this project. Keep in mind that you appear to have no issue of collaborating when it comes to dealing with views which are in agreement with your own conceptualizations. Keep in mind also that because you reject collaboration with those you disagree on the fundamentals, you thus demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of what collaboration means, and what it can ultimately do. So I really do want you get your arguments in concise order first, and if that means filing some kind of formal case, I can then refute each.
Getting you and Jayjg to do something other than whine about "reliable sources" all day long - particularly when I referred 38 times to just one - would be good for everyone. My sense of things is that if I can't get obstinate persons to deal with just one reliable source, there's no point in me trying to introduce a second. In fact our presence here means to some degree my success in making you deal with just that one source. The rest is just a logical argument that says that "car parts" has something to do with "cars" and to a lesser degree "parts." Your completely irrelevant counterargument, which says essentially that an article like "cheesing" need not at all mention any definition of "cheese", is interesting. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your post opens with a typical example of the source of my frustration. Nowehere have I said "anti-semitism" has a pejorative meaning My position has not changed since 2003: I believe that people can use the term incorrectly. My analogy would be to call an appale an orange - it is simply incorrect. But the word apple continues to refer to a certain kind of fruit. The term anti-Semite can be incorrectly applied to another person, but it is not pejorative, it is a term that refers to people who, among other things, say pejorative things. We went over this six years ago. I continue to see you violating NOR, se,dom using sources and when you do, using them inappropriately, often violating SYNTH, or taking them out of context, all in order to develop your own arguments about a topic, which violates NPOV. Do I want you banned? Well, yeah, until you show evidence of being able to work in a collaborative way with people. Ehud is a perfect examplke because so little seems to be at stake. You insisted it came from Yehudi and I insisted you provide reliable sources for that; instead you provided your own personal interpretation of Hebrew grammar. I said you were violating NOR (which you took to be pejorative). Another user provided the correct etymology and a source, and you had the gall to tell me that I should learn a lesson, and provide sources rather than just argue with people! When my "argument" with you was my insistence that you provide a source! If this is not trolling, what is? Slrubenstein | Talk10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement with processes and policy is fair, but even if you are totally correct in your views of RS, V, etc, article space is not the correct place to implement them as folks just want to edit (and collaborate!) within the existing consensual processes and not entertain these "conceptualizations." You mention how long you've been editing here pretty frequently, so I guess you know better than us newbies how wikiprocesses were formed and what you can do to change them. Propose your changes inside the WP process space - a great place for conceptualizing with folks who focused are on that topic. RS's are required because V / NPOV are required. Deviating from current, consensual policy inside of article space is hugely time consuming and disruptive as evidenced by all of the text here and at Talk:Holocaust_denial. Until and unless policy changes, threads that propose material changes to content without reliable sourcing should just be summarily closed until sourcing is provided. Doing this actually supports the process of collaboration as finite resources don't need to be endlessly engaged with discusses content changes that fail (current) policy. cheers, --guyzero | talk02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to go very far in terms of the policy route than to cite WP:LEDE/WP:LEAD. The fact that much of the substance in that policy's own lede comes from my own conceptualizations about what an article lede needs to do, should not be an obstacle to your continued faith. In short, the substance behind WP:LEDE is higher, relevant conceptualization.
Keep in mind, I did provide sources. They simply rejected their relevance. So the extrapolated principle in this case is simple: If a topic is a specialized one, we need to explain why it is so. Also, if the topic likewise uses more general terminology, in some specialized way, then we need to explain why. There is some historiology for the relevant terms, which is not too controversial. However if even simple, concise, and relevant explanations of these specialized ("denial") and subjective ("motive, scale, intent") historiologies are rejected without substantive argument, then this rejection is easily understood to be based not in policy or a reliable interpretation thereof.
The common-sense explanation for this type of rejectionism is simply that these explanations give some sense that the specialized terminology is actually a specialized one. And thus they are not rejected because they do not fit policy, but because such explanations defy certain ethnic conceptualizations. This is basically what Slrubenstein was referring to when he said above that 'conceptualization destroys meaning' (paraphrasing). My translation-reparsing of this is something like 'such conceptual explanations can only contradict the ones written down in scrolls.' Now granted, these are "reliable scrolls" to be certain. Most of them anyway. But these have no meaning at all here if no efforts are made to unroll them,read them to people, and gain new understanding from their unconstrained resonance.
I have always known how to express myself with "sensitiv[ity]," as Slrubenstein calls it. That I often do not is simply a requirement of the age, an instrument of the times, a necessity of the context, and due in no small measure to the lack of good faith that I have grown accustomed to dealing with. I am always pleased, however, to find I am not right in this regard. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you really responded to anything guyzero said, nor have you given a reason why we should be doing anything other than what he's suggested. lifebaka++16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"deal with William". Oh dear, Steve, there's this thing called real life, which I, judging by your elaborate responses, have to be a part of more frequently than you. I do not have the time or interest to appease your wikilawyering. Incidentally, I have abolutely no qualms about the thread title being changed, and even offer an apology for the impression it falsely/inadvertently suggested.
Consequently, this is the first time I've checked this thread since my comment 2 days ago. I'd just like comment on one thing: on Wikipedia, it's always been my intention to keep controversial articles, such as Holocaust denial, as they should be, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Indeed, I was selected - and supported unanimously - to be an administrator largely on that basis. The fact that all hell breaks loose when someone leaves a few daft opposes on requests for adminship, yet the general response to someone who - on top of all the disruptive editing - systematically rejects core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR and (by his own admission) cherry-picks material to push his agenda on an encyclopedia page viewed thousands of times a month is largely "uh, nothing to see here, move on", in my opinion, encompasses everything that is wrong with Wikipedia if this individual is not sanctioned in some manner. WilliamH (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think.. anyone reading this no doubt thinks we are all talking past each other. (Note, I wanted to keep this extremely short, but I failed in that regard): WilliamH above, just to take one example of this 'talking past each other,' references my example of an argument, but he misses the point behind it entirely that it represented Slrubenstein's actual argument, simply putting into a rather absurd reformulation. Slrubenstein's argument is certainly valid in cases like the example I used ("cheesing") which are entirely idiomatic and unrelated to their apparent core terminology. In cases like this one (Holocaust and Holocaust denial) where the terms are entirely related, his argument is so utterly irrelevant that it constitutes a demonstration of a deeper capacity on his part for fallacious argumentation.
Slrubenstein and Jayjg have echoed this same argument several times, stating essentially that "Holocaust denial" is so far removed from the term "The Holocaust" that no mention of the latter is required in the former. The underlined portion is oversimplified, but these are the essentials of his argument. The underlined portion can be augmented with something like matters of subjectivity in its definition.
The background is straightforward: term "The Holocaust" first split off from its apparent original definition of "all Nazi murders," and became used to refer exclusively to the mass-murder of Jews alone sometime during the 1960s. That's according to the Columbia Guide. Naturally, there has been a concerted effort to promote an entirely Jewish definition of "The Holocaust," to the rejection of several million other victims. There are of course explanations for this selectivity, and these invariably employ concepts of "motive, scale, and intent" (Columbia Guide). The issue then is an editorial one which can be broken down into two basic counterarguments of somewhat differing validity. We've seen examples of each. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sigh* this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Now I have to go and explain that I never suggested that Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Nor have I ever suggested that the Holocaust refers only to the genocide of Jews. In fact, far from it. But by misrepresenting me and the argument, I have no choice but either to disengage (and people will have an unfair representation of me) or repeat what I have said many times ... thus ... further ... delaying ... any ... improvement ... on ... the ... article ... We can go back and forth cand back and forth and back and forth and just let SV continue to use Wikipedia like his own little ball of yarn. I'd rather we didn't. Slrubenstein | Talk18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS (Slrubenstein): BTW, Salvation needs reworking to get it somewhere back to neutrality. Its upfront usage of "..from eternal damnation" is just the start of it. Please have a look, if you're not busy. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 19:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either one of you are understanding each other. At all. I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations. I think if people can know for sure what the other side wants, and not respond to what they assume the other side is saying, this issue can be resolved a lot easier. A little insignificanttalk to me!(please!)16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding our understanding, to a certain extent. Keep in mind we have been crossing paths for seven years. In any case It's not really about what I want to do, or what Slrubenstein wants me not to do, but how you and others can help us by sorting out the arguments and giving us your input. So I appreciate the questions.
As far as the article issues go, my argument is that including a reference to the core term's variance (such that arises from a subjective definition) is simply good explanationism, and necessary to move forward in the direction of dealing objectively with issues of terminology and etymology, as well as comprehension, which I feel is an essential dimension within the whole sad topic. As I understand them, Slrubenstein presents two main arguments for dis-inclusion: The first one (m1) is valid only in unrelated contexts wherein a pair of terms might only have a superficial relation, and the second (m2) is implied based on his various expressed concerns for how his own subjective ethnic lens relates to the article/concept. His arguments related to sources are likewise twofold: The first (s1) that I have not provided any sources at all is nullified by my presentation of a very ample and relevant one (Columbia Guide). His second argument (s1) alleges the irrelevance of the above source in the current context - an argument that itself rests circularly on one of his main arguments (m1).
With regard to what do I want in general (which is the other way I interpreted your questions), it's about how to formalize and broaden what I do, which is to turn an articulate wreck into a clear, concise, and conceptual statement of the subject. With regard to Slrubenstein (since we are talking about what the other is supposed to be doing), I'd like to see him transform his acuity for detail from its current expression as a modality of exclusive expertise, into a helpful and outgoing movement based on the assisted procurement of citations and the qualitative adjudication of sources. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is familiar with Linas (talk·contribs), you might want to have a chat with him. You'll have to tweak his block first since I've tried to stop his meltdown there. I have no idea who he is (I was led there by a crazy edit summary on my watchlist) but his user page indicates this meltdown has been brewing for a while. Maybe someone can talk him down? Wknight94talk01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually block #2 in the last couple days. There is a ban in the near future if this continues. From his user page, I think he's forgetting that we're all disillusioned by the same things he is disillusioned by. But we don't all start screaming at people because of it. Wknight94talk01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having been involved in this, can I suggest that if his incivility just amounts to saying "fuck the admins" a whole bunch of times on his talk page, people try to ignore it if possible? He's been a very valuable editor in the past. If he actually does damage it's a different story, but that kind of stuff is pretty harmless. Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The premise to your first question is a false one, so what you build upon it is ill-founded. Go and look at edits such as the one given below or this, which are not addressed to an administrator, or this. This is not lone-good-editor-versus-the-evil-administrator-cabal. This is I'm-an-expert-and-you-are-a-moron, directed at other people regardless of account privileges. Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One cure for such disillusionment is perhaps a realization such as the following: Linas has spent quite a lot of time berating people here (see User:Linas for starters) for not doing things as they are done at, say, Citizendium. The irony is, of course, that an edit such as this one made by Linas made over at Citizendium would result in an immediate, unequivocal, permanent expulsion from the project. Here, Linas has had xyr editing privileges suspended for a short while, and that only after having been warned first. So maybe the illusions that one might have had of an ideal encyclopaedia project, filled only with experts, all telling one other to fuck off, are good ones to have shattered. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Looie496: An off-color comment? Sure. But these are going way too far:
Fuck off asshole ... assholes like you never actually look at the article edit history, or realize that their bullshit is captured in that history ... Figure out what's wrong with your brain, and go fix that! ... Stop assaulting total strangers and acting like a total A-1 dick-weed![13]
When he was blocked for these outrageous comments, his response included:
...too many assholes like User:Aboutmovies ... So I called him an asshole, which he richly deserves ... Fuck off tedder. You are part of the problem, and not part of the solution. The sooner we get rid of fucking asshole admins like you, the better wikipedia will be[14]
FUCK YOU! ... my user page ... says YOU'RE ALL ASSHOLES! ... You are fucking stupid![17]
He asks if we "want correct articles written by foul-mouthed assholes like" him, and I'm not sure he's going to like the answer to that. If he wants to point out the problems with this system, I'm all for it, and I'll probably agree with most of what he says. But if he's going to scream and hollar like a pissed-off teenager, then I've got better things to do. Wknight94talk03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I intend to take his good advice and fuck off. If we all did the same, maybe he'll come back in a few weeks, apologise, and get on with contributing solid content. Hesperian03:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Hesperian on this. I'm not familiar with Linas, but if this is not a long-time issue of incivility, then allow him to cool down and continue editing. The issue can always be reviewed in the future if this behaviour continues. Let's not keep stoking the fire. — Huntster (t@c)05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chain of events seems to have started by User:Aboutmovies using an automated script to search for occurrences of Beyond Words Publishing. He picked up by accident an unrelated mathematics article on Trace monoid being edited by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit. "Beyond words" was the title of a volume in a Springer series in the references there. In then trying to use the citation template, Aboutmovies missed the series option in the citation template. Although both editors were very polite, the automated script was not mentioned. A further discussion about citations for mathematics articles (with partially correct points on both sides) set the scene for linas' complete over-reaction. Best in the circumstances to blame that undeclared automated script as the true culprit here. These can often give rise to misunderstandings when there is a glitch. Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, my road map doesn't connect undeclared automated scripts with "Fuck off asshole" and "assholes like you" and "Figure out what's wrong with your brain" and "acting like a total A-1 dick-weed!"[18] Now I'm fine with Hesperian's idea of waiting for an apology when Linas returns, but I would need odds to bet on that happening. Wknight94talk12:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so desperate, and you seem to be, to include me in this discussion (about whatever, or whoever, it is you are discussing) get your facts straight. "Cocksucker" is not a word in my vocabulary, it is not one of the words I use. So on that premise, one can assume that all other that you say here is similarly badly researched and flawed. Now "go off" and do some basic research. Giano (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies for any inappropriate comparisons, implications, or misquotes. The point I was trying to make is that's way easy to present an editor's contributions as a net negative through a few well (mis)quoted diffs—something I've (inadvertently) done myself right above. Back to the topic at hand: I don't know if Linas is going to change his current attitude, but the vast majority of his past contributions have been a net positive to Wikipedia. Granted, it's entirely possible that he may have just decided not to do that anymore. But poking the WP:BEAR on his talk page is only going to make that outcome more likely... Pcapping23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, anything can become a Giano thread, eh? Big difference - in my mind anyway - is that Giano lashes out at people he has long histories with. Some people should just not approach Giano, and those people generally know who they are, and several of those people generally ignore that obvious fact and approach him anyway. Linas OTOH is in a state of lashing out at everyone and everything. We can't have that. Wknight94talk21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this section opened with a request for someone to have a work with Linas - did this happen? I also note that there seems to be a lot of swearing and stuff happening on this editors talkpage, and that a lot of people have got their knickers in a twist about the naughty words being uttered - and it appears to be that a consensus is forming that Linas should be indef blocked for getting over enthusiastic in the haphazard flinging of rude words about his talkpage. I am not sure that this is really appropriate, and, in the absence of there appearing to be anyone willing to do it, I am going to see if there is any point or comment that Linas has in this matter. If there is something that I feel is relevant to this discussion I will bring it up back here. Could we hold off on the ban discussion until I do? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that I started the discussion with a request for counselling. My attempt at giving him an alternative to a block was too late (he was blocked one minute earlier), so it was met with "Fuck you, Wknight94". I think that pretty much rules me out as a counselor, but hopefully someone else can be successful. Wknight94talk21:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, LessHeard, as I explained on your talk page, I've asked a couple of editors, who also happen to be admins, and which Linas may respect, to talk to Linas (privately); names withheld here because I don't want to repeat my mistake of involving 3rd parties against their will in a very public venue like this, as I've regretfully done with Giano above... FYI: I've contacted the first of them before I ever saw this thread. Pcapping23:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, LHVU, Pcap, and Wk94 for handling this. I really hope Linas can be a productive editor again, without the implosion that led to these blocks. Wk94, you said it well- "Linas OTOH is in a state of lashing out at everyone and everything." I probably didn't help by delaying to post the block notice, that was a WP:BEANS type issue, nothing intentional. tedder (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those advocating an indefinite block, I would just say that this incident strongly reminds me of outbursts that happened with User:Ed Poor and User:The Cunctator in the distant past. Both of those users went on to make huge contributions as Bureaucrats and Arbcom members. We all have bad days. Some of us (the most passionate types especially) can have REALLY bad days. Sometimes bad weeks. Manning (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few days ago i got topic-banned on some articles by admin Sandstein. Since I felt that the decision was unjust I filled an appeal on the Arbitration Requests for Enforcement page. Now admin AdjustShift decided to examine and rejected my appeal [19]. The thing is I had many issues with this Admin in the past (more than with any other on whole wikipedia), for example he once made a bogus accusation against me that "i'm constantly trolling", for which he made a half-baked appology only after i reported him, diffs of the case here [20], scroll down it is case 88 named "accusations of trolling".
In this comment made on my talk page(!) [21] he failed to asume good faith over a comment where i critised him for something, i don't recall what, and claimed i did it "to settle old issues", note that he also himself comments about "disagreements" and "normalising our relationship".
There were also other cases in the past where we argued because we had completely different positions (he usualy supported German POV while me of course Polish), on top of my head: the famous Molobo case, with secret evidence, Expulsion of Germans page (he made a controversial protection of the page, something i disagreed was necessary)
and other i don't remember. I can dig up the diffs if necessary. In any case given that AdjustShift and me had so many issues in the past and that our relationship was so bad that in his own words needed to be normalised, i think it is completely innapropriate for him to examine my appeal. Loosmark (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps at all, I would have closed it the same way. I have to agree with Sandstein that you've gotten so involved in the area, you're starting to confuse editor's opinions about the content with what the editor themselves might believe. He gave several good examples when closing the initial report. Taking a breather from the area for a bit may help get your focus back. Shellbabelfish03:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Whatever the merits of Loosmark's appeal, there does appear to be a serious conflict of interest with regard to AdjustShift here. I was under the impression that the action on such cases should be made by uninvolved administrators and AdjustShift, due to his previous disputes with Loosmark, is obviously not uninvolved here (I believe Sandstein excused himself, rightly, from ruling on the appeal since himself was involved). It's also unclear - and problematic in my view - that AdjustShift ignored (as he himself states) all the comments made by users other than Loosmark, Faustian and Sandstein. I understand that sometimes these discussions get long but what's the point of letting outside editors comment if their input is just flushed down the toilet?radek (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shell how was I so involved in the area if I only made 2 problematic edits in on a single talk page? Anyway with my appeal I was hoping to at least get a more narrow topic page on single a couple of pages (the reviewing Admin could have proposed alternative solutions). In any case i think I deserve to have my appeal examined by an Admin who wasn't involved in many disputes with me in the past. In my opinion what AdjustShift did sets a very bad example and should be reversed. Loosmark (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I didn't mean the usual Wikipedia meaning of "involved" rather that something about the topic appears to cause you to overreact to the comments of other editors there. However, if there's a consensus that AdjustShift shouldn't have closed the request (I actually thought those requests were supposed to go to the ArbCom clarifications board) then there's no reason it couldn't be reopened so another admin can evaluate the request. Having already given my opinion, however, I would recuse from closing it as well. Shellbabelfish03:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that reopening is the best course, however I'd like to hear from AdjustShift before proceeding any further. I've left an invite on AdjustShift's page to that effect. Manning (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with User:AdjustShift's decision to reconfirm User:Sandstein's original verdict. I also note that another uninvolved admin (User:CIreland) has also reviewed and concurred with the original Sandstein decision.
I'll acknowledge that admin AdjustShift could have been a bit more diplomatic in his/her choice of words for the closure summary as "I ignored the comments of..." is always likely to be inflammatory when read out of context. But after reading everything I can see that what AdjustShift really meant was that there was nothing in any of those comments which impacted the judgement. (And every admin has been guilty of over-summarizing at some point or another.)
If needs be we can reopen the case and I'll promptly reclose it in my capacity as an indisputably uninvolved admin. Or we can just leave it as is. Manning (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well rather than being a just a bit more diplomatic I think AdjustShift should have not examined the appeal in the first place since he was clearly involved in issues with me in the past. In regards with that I have a question, will AdjustShift's trying to pose as an uninvolved admin even be addressed in any way? I think it should not be swept under the carpet since otherwise such an incident can potentially repeat itself in the future. Loosmark (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well before responding let me say that I have had no previous contact with AdjustShift (at least that I am aware of) so I am not speaking out of any particular loyalty to that user. I'll also note that the rules about being "uninvolved" exist to prevent the exercising of administrative power for any reason other than justice, fairness and the well-being of the encyclopedia project.
If you attempted to launch some form of arbitration action against AdjustShift it would come down to an argument about the term "uninvolved". AdjustShift could easily argue that he/she had not been previously involved in this particular dispute so was acting as an "uninvolved" admin. (If admins were unilaterally barred from exercising authority over any and all users we had ever previously disciplined we would, as a collective body, become ineffective fairly quickly.)
As I see it, your complaint about AdjustShift being "previously involved" is effectively a claim that AdjustShift demonstrated "unfair bias" against you. However, so far two other admins (User:CIreland and myself) have reviewed and found no evidence of unfair bias and have supported User:Sandstein's (and by default AdjustShift's) decision. Until there is evidence of AdjustShift being motivated by anything other than the welfare of the project, I would expect that any further attempts at arbitration would fail.
This is naturally not a statement of Wikipedia policy - it is merely the opinion of a single administrator. Others may or may not agree - such is the consensual nature of Wikipedia. Manning (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manning I've a couple of comments: I think that "uninvolved" clearly needs to be understood in the widest possible meaning. If not then the thing just doesn't work : for example if editor "A" and Admin "B" argue over some content issue on a page and editor "A" is at the same time reported for some completely separated thing somewhere else, Admin "B" can simply jump there and claim uninvolvement. Regarding the statement that If admins were unilaterally barred from exercising authority over any and all users we had ever previously disciplined we would, as a collective body, become ineffective fairly quickly. i'd like to note that:
a) AdjustShift has never disciplined me, had he done that than yes i'd still have to prove he made a biased decision.
b) Rather he himself characterised our relationship as being in need of normalising (thus according to his own words it was not a normal relationship).
c) we argued quite a bit during the complain i filled against him for the trolling accusation
d) afterwards he wrote that i'm trying "to settle old issues". I have of course not done that, but even if we for a second asume the best case scenario for him that i was indeed trying to settle old issues it still comes down to has grievance because of it.
In my opinion this case is as clearcut as possible because i'm not trying to demonstrate those things, he simply stated them. We have a smoking gun so to say. Loosmark (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy about this, WP:UNINVOLVED, which says that interactions in an administrative capacity (or disagreements about them) do not constitute involvement. (For instance, I do not consider myself "involved" with respect to Loosmark in any future request for admin intervention just because I topic-banned Loosmark and he disagrees with it.) In this case, although not entirely clear, it seems that the dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#accusation of trolling involved content disagreements about Germany and Poland, which would make AdjustShift involved at least with respect to actions related to such content, but since the issues here concern Ukraine and Poland, I don't know whether the subjects are closely enough related to count for involvement purposes (I know too little about WWII history). That question seems to be moot now because the appeal has been independently reviewed by other admins here. Sandstein 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I'm sorry but AdjustShift is not an uninvolved administrator. The issue concern Ukraine and Poland during WW2 and German WW2 history is very relevant here. I remember AdjustShift being very involved and even defending German editor from being blocked while in dispute with Polish editors. Please look at his close relation[[22]] with the editors who appeared from nowhere and commented against Loosmark[[23]]. Sorry but he is DEFINITELY not an uninvolved administrator I'm sorry to say that, but there is a huge unfairness going on here and I'm being more and more disappointed with the whole Wkipiedia experience and you, administrators.--Jacurek (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember AdjustShift being very involved and even defending German editor from being blocked while in dispute with Polish editors. This statement is 100% false. I have never considered an editor's nationality while making any decision as an admin. I'm not a German, and I don't speak a word of German language. AdjustShift (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein would you please read this thread from the beginning including the the diffs that I've presented? Obviously I don't consider you to be involved in any future request against me based just on a ban you gave me, such a position would be completely crazy because we'd run out of uninvolved admins in two days that way. Equally I'm not saying that AdjustShift is to be considered involved based on his involvement in the German - Polish disagreements but rather on the things he said about me: that i'm trying to settle old issues with him, that our relationship is not normal, etc etc etc. (diffs are somewhere above). Loosmark (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loosmark & Jacurek: By all means launch any mediation/arbitration method about whether or not AdjustShift acted in an uninvolved capacity, as are your rights.
However in regard to THIS specific matter (regarding the closure of the arbitration appeal by AdjustShift), a number of uninvolved admins have already weighed in to give their verdicts and as such this matter is now effectively closed. Manning (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, how closed? The specific matter here was my complain against the behavior of AdjustShift, I even titled the report that way, sb then retroactively changed my title to "Loosmark Arbitration Enforcement closure" without even consulting me. I'd like to know the opinion of other community members on this matter if you don't mind. Loosmark (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While making the final decision, I ignored the comments of Dr. Dan, Jacurek, Piotrus, Radeksz, and Sciurinæ. So even if I have "close relationship with Sciurinæ", it had zero effect on my final decision. I concentrated on Loosmark's appeal, the original request filed by Faustian, and Sandstein's comments; others comments were not a factor while making the decision. My decision was fair because as an admin, I don't take any side. Loosmark's allegation that I support "German POV" is false. I'm not a German, and my knowledge about Germany is limited. John Vandenberg knows where I'm from; I'm not from Germany. Why should I support "German POV" when I'm not ever a German? I can't ever speak a word of German language. An as admin, I'm neither pro-German nor pro-Polish. The fact is certain editors who happened to be Polish have shown poor behavior on en.wikipedia. I don't care whether editors are from Poland or Greenland; if their behavior is inappropriate, actions will be taken against them. Loosmark's wikilawering is getting out of control; if he/she doesn't stop we may have to ban this editor from en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Loosmark's point is simply that closing the appeal by other admins is one thing - hence the "Resolved" - but that this report is another. Specifically it is about wrongful behavior by AdjustShift (and btw, it doesn't matter what a person's nationality is, one can still be involved or biased). An admin should not act on reports involving users he's had disputes (other than just ruling on reports involving them) with in the past and with regard to whom s/he has a potential conflict of interest. I think Loosmark was basically asking that this matter be clarified to AdjustShift so similar abuses do not take place in the future.radek (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Radeksz, I have no dispute with Loosmark on any Ukrainian-Polish article. The final decision of Sandstein was endorsed by two other admins apart from me. No abuse has taken place, I think we should move on. AdjustShift (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have explicitly stated that i don't consider AdjustShift involved because of some general involved in the Polish-German area, or his German POV, or the close relatioship with Sciunarae (i have not even mentioned him) but because of the things he said about me: bogus accusation of trolling, that our relationship is not normal, that i'm trying to settle old scores etc etc. diffs were provided above. I would also like to note that at least 3 other people here already tended to agree with my view. His direct threat above that i might be "banned from en.wikipedia" (!??) is a clear indication that he still holds grudges against me. As radek stated above I just want this matter to be clarified. Loosmark (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment that Loosmark might be banned from en.wikipedia is a clear indication that Loosmark's behavior is inappropriate, and his/her wikilawering is uncalled-for. AdjustShift (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? Your comment that Loosmark might be banned is proof that Loosmark's behavior is inappropriate? (I know that's verbatim but I repeated it just because it doesn't make any sense) As opposed to any kind of actual behavior on Loosmark's part? A "clear indication" does not occur because somebody says so without explaining why. This appears to be a clear cut example of circular logic. But it does show that you have formed some damaging pre-conceptions in regard to this user and should clearly excuse yourself from any future interactions with him, in all capacities as an administrator.
If I said that "My comment that AdjustShift is not qualified to be an administrator on en.wikipedia is a clear indication that AdjustShifts behavior constitutes an abuse of administrator privileges and his/her privileges should be revoked" how good of an argument would that be?radek (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment that Loosmark might be banned from en.wikipedia is a clear indication that Loosmark's behavior is inappropriate I think "your comment" that Loosmark might be banned comes a bit short of being a "clean indication" that my behavior is inappropriate. But you are of course free to report me if you feel so. Loosmark (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This attempt [26] to get me blocked while this ANI discussion is in progress is also a bit weird, because i don't think anybody here felt i was disruptive in any way and i think Sandstein's reply was quite correct. [27]. Loosmark (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, to the reviewing administrators; look, I know there's already a "resolved" check mark above and Loosmark's appeal has been denied by truly uninvolved, no COI having, admins. That's fine, except the check mark has been placed there without actually addressing the purpose of this report. I think it would really be 'resolved' if just a note is made letting AdjustShift know that he should not involve himself in ruling on reports which involve users that he's had personal conflicts with. That's all. Just a clarification here is sufficient and then that's it.radek (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loosmark has offered a deal on my talk page, and I've accepted it.[28] From today's onward, I'll stay out of Loosmark's business, and Loosmark will stay out of my business. I'll not close anything (AE thread, ANI thread) related to Loosmark. I'll not comment on Loosmark, and Loosmark will not comment on me. After thinking long and hard about it, I have concluded that it would be better if both of us will not poke our nose in each other's business. Loosmark will walk his way, I will walk my way, but we will not cross each other's path. AdjustShift (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BillTunell and userboxes
I recently discovered that BillTunell (talk·contribs) had been reformating several university student/alumni userboxes to include the school's (possibly) copyrighted logos. I've gone back and fixed all I could. I'm not exactly sure about the fair use/non-free content aspect of these images, but something should be done.
The short version: BillTunell (possibly) enabled fair use images to exist outside of the article space by using them in userboxes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have not inserted any images with a copyright notice (circle-c), and all the images I have inserted were tagged with the {{PD-textlogo}} template. Some of these templates have since been changed to {{Non-free logo}}, but using any images with such a tag was never my intention. If the adminstrators wish to consider some {{PD-textlogo}} images to be copyrightable under the threshold of originality standard (despite a public-domain tag and despite the lack of a filed copyright or copyright notice (circle-c)), then I will abide by those decisions. My problem is that Ryulong eliminated all my prior work wholesale, without prior notice or discussion, without bothering to research the underlying standard of threshold of originality, and while obviously suffering from confusion about trademark-versus-copyright notices/protection.
Four other quick points:
(1) Any number of other userboxes have been updated by other users with {{PD-textlogo}} images (e.g. Princeton, Michigan State, Stanford, Arkansas, Rutgers, Texas Tech) -- so if we are going to re-evaluate that policy, those images need to be deleted in addition to the ones I've worked on,
(2) Ryulong's revisions eliminated a lot of non-image-related work I did in terms of matching usebox colors to offical University-dictated web-publishing code numbers, eliminating category links, etc.,
(3) many images, including the Texas A&M image, have already been accepted on wikimedia commons as free images, and
(4) a separate user reverted my update to the {{User:UBX/MLB-Phillies}} userbox, which update is simlar in nature to this discussion, and which reversion I would seek permission to undo.
All of the above being said, I will not amend any further userboxes until this is resolved, and will, of course, abide by any decision of the adminstrators. BillTunell (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently being investigated, because many of them are unique and not simple typefaces and may not be in the public domain. I know that the University of Miami's logo is not a simple font logo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed it out to users who are savvy with copyright information and they are going to check the images to tell if they are actually not copyrightable and are merely trademarks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one user decided to assume that the image is in the public domain does not mean that the image is in fact in the public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the images in question; I believe the Vanderbilt image is public domain; it is a common V placed on a star with outlines. However, I do not believe the Arizona one is. Sure, the outline is easy to do, but I am thinking more with the way the red A is drawn with some sort of creativity. I am talking to other image admins now, but I don't expect this issue to be solved in the next few hours. To sum it up, there are some legit PD logos in the mix, but many are questionable. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that - the Arizona one probably crosses the threshold of originality, and of course we should default to it being non-free, whilst the Vanderbilt one almost certainly doesn't. One should not make the mistake of thinking that just because a logo only contains lettering it is PD. That is not necessarily the case. Black Kite06:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think it crosses the threshold doesn't make it so. Typographic ornamentation is specifically mentioned by the U.S. Copyright Office as something that does NOT make something copyrightable. — BQZip01 —talk07:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related issue with Nickelodeon logos
A second view needed; the Nickelodeon networks are changing their logos on September 28 and I uploaded this logo a month ago for TeenNick under a non-free fair use license, as is the usual case with all logos involving WP:TVS subjects. However Powergate has been modifying the license to be public domain-trademarked instead, claiming in a response to me after I reverted to fair-use licensing that they are PD because it is just a font and because of certain glyphs in the font cited, while I am under the assumption that the typeface is actually a copyrighted font custom-designed for Viacom and thus meets fair-use much more as a logo than as just an illustration of letters. I would like a determination if fair-use non-free is the appropriate license in these cases.
Other examples of Nickelodeon logos which I feel are incorrectly licensed as PD;
(I'm a lawyer, but not from the US and not a copyright expert.) AFAIK, and as explained at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, fonts are not subject to copyright, at least not their letter shapes. The font files may be protected as computer software, but that's not the issue here. The logos consist mostly of text and are therefore probably PD in copyright terms (trademark protection etc. still applies). Sandstein 13:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ask this in all seriousness, because it is the only possible explanation: do you have some form of visual impairment of which we should be aware? I'm not entirely conversant with the technical language of font descriptions, but the 'i' in Fraktur and the one in the Nickelodeon logo are similar only inasmuch as they are both recognisably the letter 'i.' As for claiming the rest of the Nickelodeon logo is in Didone... seriously? You're seriously saying this? Didone is a serif font, and the Nick logo is sans-serif. → ROUX₪22:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that your opinion means...well...anything to me at all, but the visual impairment question was in fact honest. There is no similarity between the 'i' letters at all (notice the serifs on Fraktur, the rounded nature of the Nick logo, etc), and even less similarity between the Nick logo (rounded, sans-serif, square bottoms) and Didone (slim, serif, angular, modern). Powergate quite simply has no idea what he's talking about. → ROUX₪03:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the top of the i in the image and then look at the top of the i in the Nickelodeon logos the top of i's are about same the only difference is in the Nickelodeon logos the bottom of the i is cut off, just because the bottom of the i is cut off doe's not make it copyrighted as it is not original enough, see Threshold of originality#Typefaces and geometry. Also "do you have some form of visual impairment" is a personal attack. Powergate92Talk01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Both Fraktur and Didone are serif fonts. The Nick logo is sans-serif. Do you know what these words mean? You are completely and totally wrong about this, which is why I asked if you had a visual impairment. If you are using screen magnification software or have visual problems your confusion would be explained. As it is, there is simply no way to state in any sort of seriousness that a) the fonts you stated are even remotely close to the font in the Nick logo, or b) that those specific fonts were used in the logo. None whatsoever. → ROUX₪03:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where some of the fonts look like, but other than comparisons, do we have anything from, lets say, a news release or something else? I feel the logos might be PD, but I am not fully convinced yet if this was using public domain fonts or some kind of special creation for this logo. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright isn't an issue anymore; with the changes of the US Copyright Laws in 1978, copyright is automatic. We have a burden to prove that these images are in the public domain. If not, then off to fair use land it goes. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is, in fact, the direct opposite of 'correct'. The specific wordmark could have been designed from scratch without creating a whole alphabet, making it a wholly created thing, instead of being assembled from an extant font. → ROUX₪15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:ZScout has taken it upon himself to unilaterally delete several images that consist entirely of text and/or simple geometric shapes. I request that they all be restored as improper speedy deletions.
While I view these as clear PD images, it doesn't mean they can't have a valid use and a FUR even if they aren't PD. Speedy deletion isn't appropriate here. — BQZip01 —talk05:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ive been running some text analysis scripts across wikipedia, and Ive discovered that we are missing a lot of vandalism and that we use a LOT of email addresses. This proposes several issues. having someone's email address on wikipedia is a really easy for spammers to get their email address and render their accounts useless due to spam. if we are going to include the addressed we should obsucate the address to reduce the ability for spammers to harvest the addresses. User:Betacommand/Log is a current logfile for the scanner. Any hands willing to help are welcome. βcommand18:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're worried about the use of email addresses in Wikipedia, so you've compiled a list of all of them on one handy page? For what it's worth I think your idea is useful. Real people wanting to use their own email addresses on talk pages is a bad idea, but it's up to them. But how do we know the address is theirs and not someone elses? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that page should be cleared out quickly so it will not be an issue, but verification of these addresses is a issue along with the fact that these are introduced with vandalism at times also. βcommand18:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the page. Compiling and presenting sensitive information like that is very bad idea. Admins who are interested can still work on it while it is deleted. Please inform oversight-l if there are any problems which appear to need suppression. John Vandenberg(chat)00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John where should i forward what Ive found so it can be addressed? its too much work for a single user, especially me due to the edit rate limit im under. βcommand12:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not automated editing. I don't think any restriction prevents BC from using a computer to compile stuff, and post it here (or from using a computer for that matter ;)). -- Luktalk06:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the restriction in question:
For one year, you are (i) topic-banned from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages; (ii) subject to a 0RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages; (iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature; (iv) prohibited from inducing or attempting to induce others to operate bots or run automated scripts; and (v) subject to an editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism). After six months, you may apply to ArbCom for a review of the terms of this condition.
Suggests that he shouldn't be running scripts.
Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom can only control what and how I edit, what and how I read wikipedia is not within their control. If arbcom really was talking about non editing scripts they would have blanked and protected my monobook also, but since I still have numerous tools that assist and change my wikipedia interface it must mean that they are only referring to editing scripts. (take a note a my toolserver access and the tools that I host there also). βcommand16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Beta, I'm not taking sides here. But this is really splitting a fine enough hair, I think you're asking for trouble. Trying to find a loophole here is just going to stir up more drama. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I'm no supporter of BC, but I can't really see any problem with using scripts or automated tools to read information, so long as he doesn't use scripts or automated tools to edit anything. And for what it's worth, I think this is quite a useful application of Beta's scripting skills. Lankiveil(speak to me)08:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed, by this logic, he would be unable to use the find command in his browser on wikipedia. He is basically generating management reports - how is that problematical? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand, I strongly advise you stop using scripts in any work you conduct in your life until this ban is suspended. Obviously, the people who are supporting this ban believe that their remit extends beyond Wikipedia, and you can not use any automated tools for anything. Turn off your coffee machine (especially if it has an auto-start in the morning function), your refrigerator (it has a self defrosting mechanism), don't use your car, and whatever you do don't even THINK of using your cell phone. Reality check; Betacommand's work in this section changed nothing on Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is assuming extreme bad faith. I am not aware who UNIUMIA is, but the issue as to his or her contributions should be kept solely at the AFD discussion, where the closing administrator will consider the response adequately.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
de.wp stuff does not necessarily affect en.wp, and vice versa. Ditto in regards to the other language Wikipedias. However, I would suggest that someone well-versed in the areas he edits in examine UweBayern's edits to make sure there's no POV-pushing here. -Jeremy(v^_^vTear him for his bad verses!)08:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note judging from his talk page [32] seems he's trying to edit war on the Hans Krüger page to whitewash some info he doesn't like. He also made some revert on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II page claiming consensus where quite clearly there was none. He seems to have a history of falsely accusing people of vandalism, too. Just an example today he reverted this very good faith advice given to him by Skaperod [33] with "rv trolling". Seems that the German Wikipedia got at least the disruptive part right. Btw I completely don't get why would anybody want to delete the Holocaust survivors category, it's a very important category. Loosmark (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which edit you mean, both edits he made today are problematic, I don't see any others. In any case having made a good edit somewhere is not an excuse for other behavior as i'm sure it would be hard to find an editor who never made good edits. Seems that his permanent block on German wikipedia made him more combative, describing reverts as "rv vandalism" or "rv trolling" where clearly they are not, can be seen as disruptive. Loosmark (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see little reason to link this userpage. If the Reads ranks are relevant to the articles then linking the source directly is obviously better. In general I see no reason for any links from article space into userspace. Taemyr (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Actually i think it's a piece of Original research. It's unfortunate that Nielsen takes exception to our use of it's system, but before we can use another system we need it to be published in a reliable source. So I think we should recomend to Ericson that he first gets his data material puplished in reliable sources before seeking to get it incorporated into wikipedia. Taemyr (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either it merits an article, and I think it has issues with that or it should not be linked to from articles. We should not link to userspace from articles like this. Chillum12:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's intended as a promotional tool. Assuming good faith I believe that the editor in question percieved the need for a rating system not under a propriatary license and set about creating one. However, lacking proper editorial control and fact checking we just can't use it. Taemyr (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sever all links to the userspace page. If this ranking system does exist, and isn't something they made up one day, then it should have it's own article. In fact looking at the page linked in that screen, it is indeed something they just made up to not step on Neilson's toes. Canterbury Tailtalk12:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From their website Q. Why does READS exist? Why not use the Nielsen DMA rankings? In 2008, Nielsen sent a cease and desist notice to Wikipedia over its use of the Nielsen DMA system. It was at that time that the determination was made to discontinue use of the Nielsen ranking system on RabbitEars and instead generate a solution. so it was made-up to solve a problem here. I cannot find any coverage of this system in reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the links from the article space to the user space. Perhaps someone with more time can talk to the user and/or nominate the article for deletion. Chillum12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, The links are too varied, there's people adding sigs because they don't know better, ones put in as vandalism, links to user sandbox articles, non-notable people linking designers, staff memberrs etc to their userpage, people putting "photo by....." that kind of stuff, it really needs a human involved--Jac16888Talk12:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's straight OR - in a number of places you yourself discuss how you are still working on the system or that it needs tweaking. Here's the very simple question - has any reliable source a) discussed your ranking system b) made any claim that it is a reliable ranking system? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declared it finished back at the beginning of August. The next update to it will be when Census data for 2010 is released, and that will only be an update of population numbers, not of which market which area is assigned to. Quite honestly, nobody is going to talk about my ranking system because the rest of the industry uses the Nielsen DMAs, which are themselves proprietary information Wikipedia is not allowed to use. I get lots of e-mails from TV station engineers who use the information on my site and enjoy the fact that the rankings are based on actual signal coverage rather than on political boundaries, and there's at least one person who is working on a thesis based on the information (not certain of the specific subject). I know Wikipedia likes to be able to verify things, but upon discussing it with a number of people, it was decided that having data that is prefaced as being not what is officially in use is better than having nothing. Something about ignoring rules to improve Wikipedia. Admittedly, I don't spend as much time around here as many others do, so I don't know all the details, I just went with the flow of others. TripEricson (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the alternative? There is no alternate ranking system available that I am aware of that isn't 40 years out of date or completely irrelevant to TV markets other than the Nielsen DMA system that cannot be used. TripEricson (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the alternative? That we have nothing. If we can't verify it, we don't use it, it's that simple. We most certainly do not engage in original research to fill the gap. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is original research? I've never seen anything that satisfactorily answers the question of why my website, which is fact checked thoroughly before being updated, is not more reliable than an article that has very clearly pulled incorrect information out of Wikipedia and is then cited as a source for that incorrect information. But because it was published by said source, that makes it more reliable than my edit based on multiple viewer accounts and/or communications with the station in question and/or multiple first-person observations of the station in question?
Admittedly, I know this isn't really relevant here, it's just upsetting that Wikipedia would rather include no information or incorrect information just because of its status being published elsewhere. It feels very inconsistent to someone looking from the outside. TripEricson (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason I can't start up a blog detailing my opinions on why "<insert political party> sucks", and then cite that blog in an article about <insert political party>. If your system started getting popular, media outlets began to use it, talk about it, etc... then you'd be on much firmer ground.
I'd also have to wonder why everyone buckled so quickly to the Nielsen takedown demand? "You can't copyright data" is a pretty fundamental principle. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My website overall has been cited by newspapers and magazines, but the rankings themselves have not. I understand your statement about blogs, but that doesn't seem to apply here since I make every effort to verify my information either with multiple viewers in a given area, or directly from the station in question. (There are areas in Wyoming and Montana where I have stations listed without data since I cannot confirm anything.) And I don't see what the conflict of interest is. My site generates no advertising and actually loses me money every month. I do it solely to provide the most accurate possible information.
I see total inconsistency in keeping inaccurate information posted simply because it ended up published. Some articles were published about Estrella TV that it had launched on July 1 when anyone looking at any affiliate could tell you that had not happened. The same thing with August 15. It wasn't until the beginning of September that a so-called "reliable sources" posted the new September 14 date that was actually correct.
In regard to the last point, quite honestly, I'd PREFER using the Nielsen data. However, nobody involved is allowed to actually see the Nielsen OTRS ticket, so nobody knows what is covered by it and what isn't. Yet another policy that I don't understand. TripEricson (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Wikipedia's policy on it, I see where the definition you have is coming from. I always considered a conflict of interest to arise only when one party has something to gain, or is working for the gain of a particular party. I am working solely to provide the most accurate information, and with no regard for my own profit or gain. I see that Wikipedia's definition is wider than my own. TripEricson (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) COI has nothing to do with profit or gain. If I write a book ranking Facial Tissue (ie Kleenex), ranking brands by some variables, it would be a conflict of interest for me to edit a bunch of sites related to the manufacture of facial tissue, specifically linking to my book as a "reliable" source. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got any friendly useful advice for that good faith editor about a suitable method to get this information into WP? Getting it published (but by who?) and then get consensus to add the information to articles? It's a shame when hard work and useful information is trashed, eh? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few days back we had a discussion on this page or over at AN about Kitty Brewsters site, and how all sorts of articles about nobility in the United Kingdom linked to his site and use it as a reliable reference. If you actually look at his site, it looks like an amateur hobby project from 1996 - but the discussion here ultimately (if I recall correctly) allowed those links to remain. What separates that site, maintained by a Wikipedian, from Trip Ericson's? Let's not mix up two issues - linking from an article to userspace is something that should be discouraged. Linking to the personal site of a Wikipedian, and using it as a reference, is a different problem and one that we don't always handle with a blanket policy of "no!". Nathan T 17:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns about the user space page; I admit that I don't hang around here as much as many, so I went by the advice of someone who told me I should put it in user space. Upon reading the rules, the admins were absolutely correct to remove those links to the user space. I will investigate these rules for myself in the future.
On the subject of the website overall, it is as you state not within the scope of this discussion, so can further discussion be had in a new topic? I know my ranking system isn't published, but I am very transparent about my methodology which means it could probably be reproduced by anyone using the same publicly-available tools willing to take the time to do so (and it did take many hours of work). And the site overall has been linked from the Washington Post in an article about the digital transition among other sources. TripEricson (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of different issues, let me concentrate on one - I don't think anyone actually thinks your rankings are wrong (or that far out) but wikipedia is based upon verification *not truth*, so we rely on independent reliable sources to tell us what is considered important - in this case, what would considered an accepted standard for rankings. Let's say the Michelin stars rating for good restaurants was not allowed to be used on wikipedia because of legal reasons. If I went out and designed the Cameron's and started rating restaurants and adding the Cameron rating to restaurant articles it would swift be removed. The fact that I could define my methodology would not help because my standard is not an agreed standard in the industry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less concerned about the rankings themselves right at the moment and more concerned about the overall reliability of the site as a whole. There are a number of pages on Wikipedia which use RabbitEars as a reference. Should those references and associated information be deleted? For example, the official website for Estrella TV doesn't even have a list of affiliates, so my website has become sort of the defacto affiliate list. Same goes for This TV, though it's not actually cited on that page. TripEricson (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This. It's not that your methodology is being called into question, it's just that - since it doesn't appear to be used by independent, reliable sources - it can't be used here as of right now. --Smashvilletalk18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trip, you said that your site was cited by the Washington Post, can you provide references for that or for anyone else? Let's get a Wikipedia page up about your site, the work that's gone into it, and how that work has been used (outside of just Wikipedia, to avoid too many self-references). I'v edone this sort fo thing once before, and getting an article up about the source that can survive an AFD is the real key. — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the website has identified editors, it has a clearly stated methodology which uses the census data for the towns and communities in each viewing area, the viewing areas are derived from an FCC database and if that website has been referenced by others (such as the claimed ref by the Washington Post) then it is reasonable to cite it as a basis for the ordering of the US TV markets. Clearly NYC and LA are big TV markets, while some rural area is a small TV market. A big company writing a dickish letter, which for some reason Wikipedia OTRS folks must keep secret, means we cannot use data published by the US government. So it is not too far fetched, nor scandalous OR, to link to a site which does arithmetic (addition) from 2000 census data and the names of the communities. Edison (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, you load up article talk pages with your WP:POV and then cry foul whenever anyone responds with a different POV and leave annoying "warnings" on their talk pages. Stop bothering me, silly person. ObserverNY (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Observer, I'm not blocking you at this point (though it's quite possible someone else will). However, I'm going to check your contribs later today, and if I see new personal attacks or use of profanity in discussions, I'll act accordingly. -- Pakaran15:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ObserverNY continues to push for violating WP:OR, and continues[35] to advocate the use of non-reliable sources. I don't believe he means to do harm to the article, or to Wikipedia, only that he feels very strongly that what the reliable sources say is not representative of "the truth". Unfortunately, his involvement is making the process of improving the article quite difficult, as he does not seem to be operating under the same policies as the other editors and many of his comments violate WP:NOTFORUM, which creates a great deal of clutter [36][37]. — Mike : tlk 17:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:An uninvolved administrator may wish to take a look at the talk-page conduct, as well as the edit history (assuming they haven't done so already). ObserverNY's recent edit seems to suffer from a POV issue. He doesn't state that the sign was not present, just that it is not the sign he wishes the event to be associated with. HAZardousMATTtoxic 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I'm going to strike my statement as the picture is could be construed as a WP:FRINGE violation. My apolgoies. HAZardousMATTtoxic20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I recognize what's going on here. When I first registered, I had a fit like this on Nanking Massacre, which at the time was in pretty bad shape (diff). I did the wrong thing, and attempted to neutralize the article by pushing the POV the other way. This earned me opposition from other editors, editors of whom I assumed bad faith and accused of causing the article to be in the shape it was. It fell into revert war, and as more editors joined the conflict I felt it become a me-versus-the-world thing.
Eventually, on the edge of being blocked for 3RR, I calmed down, settled back, and explained that I was trying to help the article in the only way I knew how. I asked for assistance from those other editors, and I got it. And now the article is in much better shape, and I'm on good terms with those I was once calling names.
I apologize if that experience has no relevance to what's happening here. I'm calling good faith on Observer NY's part, and I hope this helps. You can't build an encyclopedia alone. You need to learn to work with people and let them help you when you make mistakes. But more importantly, and I address this to admins in general, you cannot keep your finger over the block button when things aren't going right. Learn to talk issues out instead, with respect to the other person. I recently saw the phrase "good-faith vandalism" in a block summary. Please don't let me see that again. Put some effort into it. A little insignificanttalk to me!(please!)18:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, but ObserverNY does not appear to be POV-pushing-back deliberately. He seems to be unclear about how to document facts in a WP:NPOV way, what constitutes WP:OR, and what the requirements are for a WP:RS. I have made a concerted effort to explain what is objectionable as specifically as possible, but I'm not sure if my explanations are disregarded as "partisan". I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is unaware instead of uncaring of the policies, but it is nonetheless quite disruptive to the editing process. — Mike : tlk 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
APK, please provide diffs if you're going to make assertions like that, just to make sure that other editors can see exactly what was said instead of relying on your recounting of the exchange. — Mike : tlk 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will give you some perspective. Long-term disruptive editing, edit warring, outing, personal attacks, pushing POV, incivility, inability to distinguish between valid and invalid sources, pushing inclusion of original research...you name it, ObserverNY has done it.
Added diffs. If more diffs are needed, feel free to search through his edits. It's rather time-consuming. (note: slightly reworded my original statement) APKis a GLEEk22:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh joy! LaMome has joined the fracas! Another editor who thinks it's ok to delete/censor an editor's comments on an article's Talk page. You and APK make a very cute couple! Btw folks, I'm a she, not a he, and I don't have any hang-ups about being referred to by my proper gender. What a load of sanctimonious bullshit! (Please note, I am specifically referring to the charges being lodged against me, not the individuals who have lodged them and therefore am not violating WP:Civility). LOL! ObserverNY (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Agree with the above. ObserverNY has been banned once every month since she registered (three times total), and her behavior is only getting worse after each ban.Tvor65 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now Truthkeeper, be fair, I called LaMome an IB-nazi. Isn't this special? I feel so important! All of the IB fanatics who have nothing better to do because I haven't edited the IB article in a week or so and apparently never filed their "case" against me, have assembled to jump in on this lynch mob. Did you make signs? I love the signs at protests! ONY SUCKS! IMPEACH ONY! LOL! Seriously folks, get a life. ObserverNY (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
(unindent) The problem is this seems to be long-term issue. The way I see it, ONY has had extreme issues communicating in the past, and La mome seems willing to drop everything to continue berating her. This provokes ONY, which La mome turns around and uses as evidence, etc. See? Nobody benefits. ONY has been banned multiple times already. Is banning her again going to help?
I think this can all be fixed. Spread a little forgiveness around and start anew. I'm suggesting everybody walk away from this with a new goal in mind.
ONY, you need to communicate better. Here's what you should do (read the ENTIRE thing, this took a while to write and every word will help you):
Be willing to admit you're wrong. If people disagree with you on something, don't attack them, ask for their point of view, and make sure you understand it. Respect their opinions, respect their input, and respect their judgment. Be able to recognize and apologize for your errors. Learn from your mistakes.
Assume good faith in general. The people who disagree with you are not evil. As said above, respect them and know that attacking them won't make things any better.
Be nice. It doesn't matter how much you are provoked, things will only escalate if you let your temper fly. As in your comments above, sarcasm doesn't help, it only harms yourself. You can solve more problems by being kind than by accusations. NEVER let your temper get the better of you.
Finally, Ask for help. This ties in with the first bullet: if people object to something you're doing, ask them what you should be doing differently. People will give you help if you ask for it. You also have to be ready to accept that help and use their advice, or explain why you disagree. But back away from discussions that are going nowhere. It will all end in tears.
Those are all things I think you should work on, and once you master them, you can avoid further problems. Now, other editors. If ONY agrees to change her behavior per these guidelines, which I hope to God she does, I expect you to assume good faith on her part to honor those guidelines. No watching her like a hawk in case she slips up. You might check on her now and then to see how she's coming along, and that would be fine. But if she's having trouble, do NOT go reporting her to AN/I. Instead, try and help her with the issues she's having, and do so as a friend willing to help. And ONY, be willing to accept their help. There is no "lynch mob."
If you can all put the past behind you, forgive each other and look forward to a new relationship, this long-term issue can be truly resolved. I remain convinced that a block or a ban does not solve any problem, it merely silences it. This is the way you can solve problems, but it takes effort on your part, and on everyone else's part. I hope you can all learn something from this. A little insignificanttalk to me!(please!)00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, A little insignificant, but I think your suggestion above is rather naive. ONY's situation is beyond this kind of help, and has been for a long time. It is astonishing that she has not been banned from WP yet, given the history. She has managed to personally attack and behave uncivilly toward a number of people, and while she may claim to you that she has been "provoked" by this or that individual or decry "leftist censorship" all she wants, the reality is that she is the one whose behavior continues to be unacceptable and should be dealt with.Tvor65 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ONY never claimed anything to me. The point I'm trying to get across is that we deal with the problem by helping or trying to help ONY. So her behavior continues to be unacceptable! Help her fix it! You say she's behind this kind of help, I don't see that anyone offered it to her. So give her a chance! We don't give up early and slap a ban on it! A little insignificanttalk to me!(please!)01:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a little insignificant - Thank you for taking the time to write out your lengthy response. Your investment of time and attempt to be impartial is appreciated. However, it is quite pointless. As you can see, Tvor65, has spoken.
ObserverNY is basically a rather foul-mouthed single-purpose account for lobbying against the IB diploma programme. It is not clear why s/he has taken this stance but there are some indications that s/he dislikes the IBDP's international approach to History and rejects the IBDP TOK's assumption that students should look for bias in received wisdom (e.g. from parents, teachers and the wider community).
ObserverNY is therefore predisposed to see conspiracy everywhere, and unfortunately s/he is probably correct to say that most contributors to the IB articles broadly support the diploma, and that most of the citations are from IB materials, www.ibo.org or IB-supporting sites. Such selective sourcing is probably true of many areas of Wikipedia (e.g. most contributors to Yale University are probably those who support Yale's style of university education) but ObserverNY sees this as evidence of a conspiracy to support the IB diploma.
From this starting point ObserverNY cannot tolerate any improvement to an IB article, even if it is only fixing capitalization (e.g. here, Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme/Archive_8#Capitalization and here). It is these general patterns (rather than his/her opinions about the IB Diploma Programme) that makes ObserverNY such an obstructive editor.
On this basis it is hard to see any basis for banning him/her in the long term, but until s/he is banned I have no intention of further contributing to the IB articles. - Pointillist (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Predisposed to see conspiracy everywhere". ROTFLMAO! And now these editors are claiming they won't edit the IB series until I am banned? ROTFLMAO!!!! Good grief! Pointillist arrived at the IBDP article and insisted on decapitalizing proper nouns because IB does it that way (sometimes) instead of applying common grammatical usage. Logic and reasoned discussion does not work with these people. It's the IB way or no way.
I notified the editors who were involved in the conversations in the diffs I posted, or whose user pages you posted on and whose conversations are now here. They deserve to know, just as I found my name dragged into something provoked by you on article I've never edited. I haven't created this problem. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It frustrates me that the other editors here are dismissing my attempts as naive and impossible, and ONY is no help as she's just responding (critically) to those other editor's comments. So let's go extreme: ObserverNY, I'm willing to coach you one-on-one and help you through this messy dispute. Your response? A little insignificanttalk to me!(please!)01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've given up too. My message to ObserverNY is: You are the fattest fathead I have ever encountered on Wikipedia, ObserverNY, in that you have deliberately and offensively alienated every neutral editor who might have helped develop your point of view. For example, I have shown that I have a larger store of purchased IBDP materials than any other contributor, I have assumed good faith for many of your IB edits, and I have been prepared to analyse your allegations despite the foul-mouthed terms in which you wrapped them. It could have been different but you have consistently pissed on those advantages, and you should be ashamed of your reckless self-indulgence. Please leave as soon as possible: you have nothing to offer here. - Pointillist (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointillist, that was a direct personal attack. ObserverNY, you too are making borderline personal attacks and your comments here are simply not helping resolve the situation. You are practically refusing to engage in constructive discussion with your sarcastic comments, plus you continued to do this after you received an informal warning from Pakaran above. Consider this as your final warning - if you continue like this you will be blocked. I suggest that other editors involved in this discussion stop making scathing remarks at each other and cooperate with the editors who are making good faith attempts to resolve the situation. ≈ Chamaltalk¤02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that ObserverNY has at least 1 sockpuppet around. On ONY's talk page, a user named User:JohnHistory came to ONY's defense. Yet what alarms me the most is the identical style of both users' signature. Notice how both their signatures are not formatted properly at the same place? Upon running poor man's CU, it revealed that 1/7 of ONY and 1/5 of JohnHistory's contributions go to the same page. OhanaUnitedTalk page03:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They seem unlikely to be socks of one another (which I admittedly say without understanding what you are referring to in terms of the signatures). They have very different edit histories and interests (ObserverNY has one primary interest which accounts for well over half of their edits, and doesn't seem much interested in Germany as JohnHistory is), and the only real overlap seems to have come on the Glenn Beck/Van Jones nexus (which is unsurprising since that has very much been in the news of late and lots of new people have showed up at those articles). Their edit summary patterns are quite different, and a number of edits (particularly over at Van Jones and its talk page) happen with a minute or two of one another. Seems more likely they just agree on certain content issues. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs05:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've indefinitely blocked User:ObserverNY. If someone simply cannot or will not act appropriately here, then they aren't needed here. Period. Any admin who feels this is too harsh can reverse but I honestly don't think allowing xym back until they are willing to act with a modicum of respect will do anything more than encourage this kind of behavior. Regardless of the diffs, the comments here from xym are plenty enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. First time I've heard of 'xe' or 'xym'! I wondered if you previously blocked a user called 'xym' and had copied the same comment for ObserverNY. Ewen (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. Anyway, she's now attacking Ricky81682 on the talk page. If this goes on, talk page access will also have to be blocked. ≈ Chamaltalk¤01:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, always forget. Either way, if there isn't going to be any useful talk page usage, I don't see what's gained by keeping the soapbox going. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In August, several editors (including admins) edit-warred with an IP over the placement and removal of a WHOIS template on User talk:94.192.38.247. (This is the static IP of User:Izzedine.) The IP was blocked for edit-warring. Neutralhomer was one of the main participants in this episode and left several aggressive messages, including "Keep it going and I will personally see to it that you are blocked indef". When cooler heads prevailed, there was some discussion (which incidentally called the treatment of the IP harassment), the IP was unblocked and two admins issued an apology about the whole debacle.
On 11 September, Neutralhomer ignored the resolution of the previous episode and replaced the WHOIS template after it had been removed by the IP, thus restarting the edit war. Neutralhomer started a thread on ANI. Both Izzedine and I directed readers to the previous resolution, but it had no positive effect. Subsequent to this, Neutralhomer began a series of very aggressivepostings on Izzedine's user page, which prompted Izzedine to start a discussion at WP:WQA. Neutralhomer also began berating me on my talk page and would not stop posting there despite being asked several times (see my talk page history for 12 September). Neutralhomer eventually closed the ANI thread and declared himself "retired". He ended up being blocked for edit-warring.
Neutralhomer is obviously not retired, since he continues to edit. His conduct on 12 September can best be described as throwing a tantrum. This is not an isolated case - Neutralhomer has a long block log for incivility and harassment of other editors. I am requesting that if he continues to edit here, it is only under supervision or close mentorship. Since this may be an emotional issue, I plan on removing myself from the discussion and letting others decide if this is a reasonable idea. Someone please notify Neutralhomer of this thread. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou DC for giving an accurate and well-articulated description of the incident, and suggesting that Neutralhomer be subject to supervision or close mentorship as a result of his behaviour. Izzedine (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think DC's edit summary comment in context can be viewed as understandable - after having being repeatedly confronted by an aggressive and uncivil editor. Izzedine (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot this diff: "I'm letting this one slide because I know you have some form of disability, but that excuse only cuts you so much slack." I think you've done a good enough job poisoning the discussion without my help, actually.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you forgot that the disability is self-declared, namely Neutralhomer's past claims of Asperger's Syndrome as, in effect, a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for his behavior. --Calton | Talk00:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that he had self-declared a behavioural disability, and that this comment was a response to his uncivil behaviour, it was not particularly unreasonable. Izzedine (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This will be the only edit I will make on this subject. My Asperger's Syndrome is not "self-declared" or a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card". I can provide documentation that I was diagnosed with Asperger's in 2003 and have had it since I was born. I don't use my Asperger's as any "card" to get out of trouble. That is mentioned on my userpage as something I am proud of and something others should be aware of if I make a weird joke or something. My Asperger's is always kept in check. I would really like people to stop using my Asperger's against me as if I use it as some sort of crutch. Walk one day in my shoes with Asperger's and you will change your very misguided opinions of me. This will be my only response. Thank you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Deny using your claim of Asperger's as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card" -- followed immediately by trying to use Asperger's as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card". Which, as I've said, you'vedone in the past. Pay attention here and don't go off on your usual irrelevancies: if your disability or however you want to characterize it keeps you from behaving within the lines, then you need to disengage instead of using it as an excuse to continue. --Calton | Talk14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, you're way out of line there. Neither of those diff's is using a disability as a "get out of a jail free card". In one of them he effectively says "my Asperger's forces me to treat others the way they treat me" ... is that an attempt to get out of jail free? Heck no. You're going borderline incivility related to a disability, and mischaracterizing badly. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I didn't start this topic to attack Neutralhomer or speculate about the cause of his actions. It is a fairly straightforward issue - we have a user with an established history of being periodically disruptive. He was warned about 3RR again yesterday. I believe Neutralhomer would benefit from having someone -- a mentor -- with whom to discuss things before they turn into problems and Wikipedia would benefit from fewer of these episodes. If you have snarky comments or complaints about my conduct, feel free to leave them on my talk page, but can we do something to address the issue here? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, you're way out of line there. Bull. According to you, he's using it as an excuse for his behavior, which is exactly what I said he has and is doing. And Izzedine needs to learn the actual meaning of ad hominem. Hint: describing bad behavior =/= "ad hominem". --Calton | Talk22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious carbuncle, all I have seen from you are unproductive threads. To reuse your own phrase, I don't mean that insultingly. They just are. — neuro(talk)22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This guy routinely undoes my factual edit to an article irrelevant to his knowledge. He calls it "vandalism" that I add a true, verifiable statement to the article regarding the music mix of a Minnesota radio station, then keeps threatening me with blocks every time I undo his deletion of factual info. He's not behaving fairly at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.226.27 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anon can also not edit war at KKCK any more. 7 8 reverts so far today against 3 editors. Blocked back on 6 Sept 2009 for the same thing. But here again, user:Neutralhomer is calling repeated insertions of wp:OR vandalism and has just kept on reverting. Part of the edit would be covered by wp:SELFPUB, but part is pure opinion of the station about what its competitors do. Clearly 208.101.226.27 is a fan (or, ignoring wp:AGF a station staffer bragging), with a wp:PoV based on experience as a listener(or whatever), not a vandal. - Sinneed (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and did it again, and I encouraged the anon editor to create an account, after the edit warring block expires, so the editor won't see that banner. - Sinneed (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may provide an outside opinion,
If I may provide an outside opinion—which is by no means aimed at anyone in particular—it is that Izzedine and NeutralHomer, far from being requested to make amends or to refrain from frictional contact with one another, could possibly be seeing only a thread full of possibly even well-meaning editors (I say "possibly" because I have only read this thread twice and do not fully know each editor's intentions) degenerating virtually into name-calling and diff link warring. Is this an example for other editors? How are new editors, who may be unfamiliar with Wikiquette, supposed to do when they see things like this?
I don't mean to be outspoken—it just saddens me when I see the efforts of an encyclopædia built by years of experience and expertise by thousands if not millions of people, users and otherwise, diverted into resolving disputes that are often petty and waste time that could be used to build the encyclopædia's article space and improve the world's access to human knowledge. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 19:14 16 September, 2009 (UTC)
So it's just me then, I guess?
From the limited feedback here, and despite what this a quick search of the ANI archives would suggest:
Where is this consensus? If there is a consensus, why is there a NPOV flag on those articles? My being blocked was due to my misunderstanding that edit-warring was page-specific (as I recalled, it was content specific). I think your assumption that 'the yeago account is only used for edit warring' is a rather disgusting charge and completely bad-faith.Yeago (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 1 week. I should like a gentle sanity check from (yet another) uninvolved reader; I blocked on the simple basis that the editors first edit upon block expiry was to make the same or very similar edit as got them blocked previously when violating 3RR - therefore their first action was to restart the edit war. I recognise that they have discussed this edit before their earlier block, and were discussing it again after making it today, but feel this is irrelevent to the point that they have proven themselves willing to disrupt the encyclopedia by making the edit while it is contested/against consensus. I have attempted to make this point several times when notifying the editor and they do not seem to "get it". I would like to ensure that the point I am making is valid and understandable, and the block is therefore appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose in blocking when 3RR is violated is to prevent an edit war. If upon expiration of the block, the edit war begins again, then a block should suffice to stop it as before. I think your sanity is intact (or at least you aren't insane just because of this block) and in conformity with WP:EW#Administrator guidance. -- Atama頭22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had some conversation with now-indefinitely-blocked user User:Alarichus on IRC about a possible unblock, provided I'd be able to watch over him. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:Sarandioti per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarandioti. This was also brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Possible sockpupetry by Sarandioti-Alarichus. Today, I blocked Sarandioti for an additional three months for sock puppetry because of the conclusions brought forth at the SPI. (Alarichus was indefinitely blocked two days ago by another admin.) Having worked with this editor for a bit, I know he can make good contributions, and I think I can work with him. Since the master account is currently temporarily blocked, if unblocked and assuming Alarichus is a sock, he wouldn't be able to go back with the master account, anyways. What does anyone think? MuZemike18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarandioti has a long history of blocks, and is the confirmed sockmaster. The results of the checkuser were confirmed by multiple CUs, so we should be safe in assuming that Sarandioti == Alarichus. This is a fact that Alarichus continues to deny. I would say that if he wants to be unblocked, he should request it on User_talk:Sarandioti and it should be considered in view of his prior blocks, restrictions and his history of block and restriction evasion. Nathan T 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Original blocking admin here) I agree with Nathan; I see little reason to unblock. The checkuser looks to be solid, with multiple CUs confirming, so Alarichus should definitely be indef blocked as a sockpuppet. If this person wants to regain their editing privileges, they should do so on the Sarandioti account, not on any sockpuppet. NW(Talk)20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I must say I'm confused. On reading the SPI report and checkuser findings this seemed like an open-and-shut case at first, but on reviewing the behavioural evidence, I'm just not seeing the similarity. Alarichus was productive, had a totally different range of topics (about which he seemed genuinely knowledgable and interested, not the type of cover-up edits of a good-hand account); he also seemed to write better English, was more articulate, seemed better behaved, and, if I may be so frank, more intelligent than Sarandioti. Some of these properties are difficult to fake, even for a determined sockpuppeter. Really, I'm not sure what to make of this all. Fut.Perf.☼20:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing further (and also having another chat with Alarichus on IRC), I will say that I support an unblock. I find it exceedingly difficult to reconcile his personality profile as evidenced in his original wiki contributions and the personal talk with the idea of his being a Sarandioti sock. I don't know how to explain the checkuser thing – the most likely explanation might be that they both frequented the same internet cafe (Alarichus' account of how he has been using several internet cafes in downtown Athens for several weeks even though he doesn't permanently live there has a plausible explanation.) Fut.Perf.☼21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about his unusual tenacity in the TfD debate? What about the fact that the account was created right before Sarandioti was blocked and immediately started heavy duty editing? Not to mention that this is coupled with Sarandioti's apparent disappearance off the face of the earth. And the whole "I am from Ticino but editing from 16 different cafes in downtown Athens" is bizarre to say the least. Has he been staying in a hotel in Athens for the past month and a half? And that's when all of a sudden he decided to go on a massive editing spree? Sounds more to me like the convoluted excuses a sockpuppeteer would make to cover his tracks. --Athenean (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support unblock, per my comments elsewhere. Until the presumed sock starts ACTING like one, we should not judge him guilty based on similarity of IP / time. For all we know, he can be guilty of nothing more than living close the the presumed sockmaster. Of particular importance to me is that they edit different subjects. Block the disruptive account, unblock the constructive one. It is really simple. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of full disclosure, I also did talk to the user on IRC. I also think an unblock can be done, but we can always do it again if it turns out we are duped. I also suggested for him to make a new account and he already rejected that option. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock. Otherwise excellent editor who did good stuff for the project as Alarichus. Two possibilities here; either 1) he's Sarandioti returned as a good editor, or 2) he's not Sarandioti at all, simply a good editor. Either way the project can only benefit from having him editing again, and if he screws around we can return to the ban at a later date. Ironholds (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock. Apart from a series of overwhelming evidence [[43]] he intended to continue a vendetta scheme (like nominating articles as 'quick fail' instead of 'on hold' as per Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#First_things_to_look_for -Sarandioti didn't like this region as stated in wp:spi-). Moreover, it's no wonder that Sarandioti was considered 'intelligent' too from the very first days of his appearance: [[44]], (both accounts gave the same explenation for their higher intelligence: [[45]]) so I am not surprised from Alarichus. Also, seems a specific internet café in Athens is full of intelligent wiki-experienced irc-active [[46]] guys.
What are the arguments he mentions in irc? If they are really convincing, it would be appropriate to post them here. (the entire log file if necessary) Alexikoua (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have lingering suspicions, particularly regarding how quickly he subscribed to the Albanian POV in a recent TfD debate and the tenacity with which he pursued the TfD. If he is to be unblocked, I would propose, just to be on safe side, that he be (temporarily at least) topic-banned from articles that fall under the scope of WP:ARBMAC. If Alarichus is not Sarandioti and is genuinely not interested in Balkans articles as he claims, then this does no harm, and he is free to edit those articles he is interested in. If he is Sarandioti, he should be topic-banned regardless (and should have a long time ago if you ask me). Later, if all lingering doubts have been dispelled, the topic ban could be lifted. --Athenean (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I'm wavering. This is really a difficult case. My previous skepticism was based on the superficial impression I had of Sarandioti, of being just the typical, single-minded and simple-minded, nationalist Balkan advocacy account. I didn't consider it within his intellectual compass to edit all those highbrow and academically sophisticated topics Alarichus edits. But, now I see another piece of the jigsaw: Sarandioti, too, had a few moments of quality editing in such domains, early on in his career. Here [47][48] he was making an (apparently knowledgeable) edit about Honoré de Balzac, and here [49] he is making a (likewise knowledgeable) edit about medieval German history. Those are closely related to the fields Alarichus excelled in: literature and medieval history. So, the scenario of a good-hand – bad-hand scheme would again seem possible. This is a dilemma: either Alarichus is just an excellent editor and we owe him a big apology, or this is a sock campaign of the very worst kind: the amount of malicious deception in Alarichus' behaviour, under that hypothesis (i.e. systematically targetting his opponents through the back door, systematically trying to make "friends in high places" on IRC, etc.) would make a full indef community ban on both accounts absolutely necessary, no matter how good some of his contributions are. Fut.Perf.☼07:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the "good hand" wasn't "good", under this hypothesis. Inserting himself into a GA review of his opponent's article, under the guise of a new, disinterested user, just to spite the opponent and make his nomination fail, is the very paradigm of deceptive, malicious sockpuppetry. Fut.Perf.☼08:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a poetic approach of this issue: Alarichus, after the wp:ani case was fruitless against me, wrote down this quote on his page (11:00, 10 September 2009): [[50]] ..."For where no hope is left is left no fear".Alexikoua (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alarichus is Sarandioti. We know that from the technical analysis of both Nishkid64 and J.delanoy, from language analysis of the Athenean and from the Fut's intelligence and topics analysis. Another point that came to my attention through Alexikoua's post is that even Sarandioti's account seems not to be his first[51], according to EdJohnston (although Sarandioti denied it), nor Alarichus' account is the only sock he has already created. Sarandioti was caught also having created another sock(XXxLRKistxXx[52]) but having immediately taken part in disputes he was quickly unmasked. The fault was not repeated and the lesson he took is evident in the “Alarichus” attempt where he was more careful avoiding early involvement (although in some cases his effort to make as much as possible neutral topic contributions caused him troubles[53]). So what we are talking here is about a case of three attempts to mislead the community (after the yet undetected initial account or IP: a Sarandioti, a XxxLRKistxXx and the Alarichus) by a single person of openly admitted fanatical nationalistic[54] and neonazi background[55](photo in "politics" chapter). To me such an extensive sockpuppeting activity necessitates strict measures and any different action will be a reward of his cheating efforts and a wrong signal to any other user. --Factuarius (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been helping Alarichus with various bits and bobs for a few weeks, I support the unblock. He came looking for help with various things, and, if I may say so, required quite a bit of help from myself and Chzz (talk·contribs) with his first article. Since then, his articles have been getting better and better. This is hardly consistent with the idea that he is some kind of sockpuppet- he even asked me about the best course of action with the template. Seems I was foolish to suggest TfD- you'll note I was the nominator, as Alarichus was less than certain with regards to the process. I have little to no doubt that Alarichus is not a sock (note that I can't even begin to decipher checkuser info, so I have no opinion on that). J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, there are just too many coincidences. The dates coincide, the internet cafes coincide, the POV on the TfD coincides, grammar and diction coincide, the vendettas against Alexikoua coincide. And worst of all, the checkuser coincides. I also note the following pattern. Whenever Alarichus is chatting on IRC, presto, more people come to support his unblock. He is using IRC to try to make friends with people who are not familiar with Sarandioti and influence their vote. I note that all the people supporting the unblock are totally unfamiliar with Sarandioti. --Athenean (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not accusing you of anything, sorry if it came across that way. I just think you're not familiar with Sarandioti. It just sickens me the way Alarichus is using IRC to sweet-talk people who aren't familiar with Sarandioti to support his unblock. The whole IRC thing has a very behind-the-scenes look to it. Why doesn't Alarichus post on his talkpage but instead only goes through IRC? Is it because people who are familiar with Sarandioti might pick up on his grammar and diction? --Athenean (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to worry about me being sweet-talked. You'll note that the commenters here are respected Wikipedians- hardly mindless meatpuppets. And no, some people here are not familiar with the case- that gives them the ability to look at the matter objectively, without bias, does it not? Furthermore, if third party thoughts are not requested, what is the case doing on the noticeboard? As for "Is it because people who are familiar with Sarandioti might pick up on his grammar and diction?", that line is almost a joke. Do you seriously think that's why Alarichus is not posting on his own talk page? No, of course it isn't. Alarichus has been on IRC regularly for the last few months, and has chatted there many times. This is hardly a "quick, go and make some friends". If you want to know of someone who has just popped up on IRC in response to this issue, I would be able to name some names, but Alarichus wouldn't be one of them. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A further piece of evidence: Sarandioti's contribs log from the Albanian Wikipedia [56]. Note the interest in Alastair Crowley and Nietzsche. What do you see on Alarichus' user page? Satan and Nietzsche. --Athenean (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, do you also edit articles about random small towns in California [57][58] and marine lifeforms [59][60]? What's that, yet another coincidence? Come on people, WP:DUCK for crying out loud. Right time frame, right location, tone and talking style, multiple checkusers, vendettas against Greek editors, and now a closer look at the contribs logs. Did I mention multiple checkusers? Whatever doubts were in my mind (and there were some) have now been conclusively dispelled. If this isn't a sock of Sarandioti, then I am from Mars. --Athenean (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean, there is no need to recite the entire SPI case; we can read. I'm suggesting that perhaps this editor is trying to do some good, sock or not. Why keep punishing him punitively despite that fact? MuZemike02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons Future Perfect outlined above. There is major malice and deception here. Sorry if I sound repetitive, I'm just getting a little frustrated because in spite of the overwhelming evidence some people still think he is not a sock. I hope the latest evidence posted above dispels any doubts. The way I see it, there are two questions: A) is Alarichus indeed a sock? B)If yes, what measures to take. It seems most but not all people think the answer to A is yes, but some are unsure about how to answer B. Does that adequately sum up your position, MuZemike? The way I see it, A has now been answered conclusively, in which case B was answered by Future Perfect. --Athenean (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something I've not mentioned in wp:spi, but seems obvious, is that Alarichus provided a weird, unexplained support to User:I_Pakapshem (Sarandioti's tag-team friend). In two instances he carefully avoided to say a word against him although he was informed about his block record history, on the contrary he was I_Pakapshem advocate:
[[62]] Characteristically, Alarichus was convinced that I_Pakapshem never joined irc that day:
"I Pakapshem didn't login with this nickname or another, and no one even mentioned such an issue(!!)."
Suppose this means he knows I_Pakapshem very well, it doesn't really make sense otherwise.
Moreover, I don't believe that a really 'good' hand can conclude something like this: [[63]]. I really try to search for a single evidence that proves the contrary but fruitless... Also I agree that Alarichus contribution was in general very good, agree with Fut.Perfect comments.Alexikoua (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why MuZemike? Because he is a sock, that's the reason. And in WP to have a sock is punishable, or I think so. I believe that this is a valid rule for me for Athenean and for you as any other here, why not for Sarandioti? And because that's already his second or third sock. In three months Sarandioti's account will be again here to edit from his home and Alarichus account from his local internet cafe. Is it possible to have an official acceptance in doing that? I am starting to understand nothing of what is happening. The phrase "this editor is trying to do some good, sock or not." makes me wonder for anything I learned here. Not to mention that one of his first "good" was to "inserting himself into a GA review of his opponent's article, under the guise of a new, disinterested user, just to spite the opponent and make his nomination fail". --Factuarius (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No administrative action is intended to be "punishment" - they are intended to prevent additional disruption. Socks proven in an SPI and/or those that in the majority of people pass the duck test can be blocked if disruption is being caused. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Name it whatever you want. What I said is that if Alarichus become unblocked, in three months from today a person will have officially two accounts in WP. What is your position about? --Factuarius (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends, see WP:Multiple_accounts. A user may use a second account under certain circumstances. If the second account is used to violate policy, then and only then is it sockpuppetry. The question will be: are the 2 accounts being used disruptively and/or to violate policy - if not, then there will be no issue. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IF the two accounts were controlled by the same person, then they most certainly did act disruptively, since the second account was used to cover up the negative record of the first, join disputes and tackle other users that the first account had previously antagonised, under the deceptive guise of a new, uninvolved person. There's no way that could be covered by the legitimate-second-account clause. Fut.Perf.☼10:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. So, do we indef the probable "master", and allow the second to be unblocked due to contrition, but perhaps with the requirement of being mentored? There are some possibilities they may not be related, although they likely are. If we indef the master, let Alarichus edit under control - and with the proviso that they may not use multiple accounts or else they will be banned - then we may have a win, win, win situation. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Contrition"? But there is no contrition. He hasn't admitted he's a sock, and he has not admitted he did anything wrong. (And indeed, if he wasn't a sock, then he did nothing wrong.) I'm afraid there are only two clean, consistent outcomes here: either we decide he was a sock, then it's indef, or he isn't, then it's full rehabilitation for both accounts and a big apology. We must make this decision, there's no place for intermediate solutions. Fut.Perf.☼11:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW is a (or two) sockpuppet investigation(s) playing any role in a sockpuppet case or we have to forget all about and continue with arguments? --Factuarius (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarandioti had been long enough around here to know that a disruptive edit-warrior sock could soon be tracked down and blocked indefinitely. So he tried to make himself very discreet, and try to influence/affect all that actually interests him (i.e. that specific group of Greek-Albanian articles). But some things could not be hidden and were found and included as evidence. Yet a two-month scheme cannot be wasted now; therefore, the "angelic face" of Sarandioti, his "Light Side", is trying to come back here. I do not see a reason to unblock. Unless, of course, Alarichus is topic-banned indefinately from Balkan-related articles. If he is not a sock, then he could live with that.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past several days, two young political activists have been releasing one video after another about their undercover visits to the offices of the politically connected group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) in various cities in the U.S., with lurid recordings about multiple Acorn employees willing to help them with tax and loan advice to set up a purported brothel. Today, instead of just one revelation, there were two, from visits to the San Bernardino, California, and Brooklyn offices. In recent days, the traffic at the Acorn article has exploded [64] (top day: 12.5K visits -- not the highest on WP, but still). I expect more in the next 24 hours. A lot of IP edits, good and bad, have come in. Other editors have had sharp disagreements on that page, and there's been some bad behavior, but I'm not here to complain about that. Please just watch the page and warn a vandal or editor if you think it would be useful. I've discussed this with Gamaliel, an admin, on his or her talk page, and that admin says more eyes would be welcome. Gamaliel recently semiprotected the page once for a while, but whether it's worth doing again, I don't know. -- Noroton (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a couple of those IPs seem to be good. I'll watch the page, but I'm trying to hold on semi-protection unless they continue to edit-war over the same stuff (more specifically, the "predatory lending" part and the "prostitution" part). MuZemike20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the history for List of action film actors. In the past, I had teamed up with Tiptoety to snuff out a handful of sock-puppets of Pé de Chinelo. Now, the (assumed) same user is back, but just using a dynamic IP address. All the 201.x.x.x IPs make the same edit, over and over. The removal of Dakota Fanning or Natalie Portman from the list of the aforementioned page is usually a dead giveaway. I would guess it's a bit tougher to stop an IP sock-puppet than a registered account, so I am asking for advice on how to proceed. I am at the verge of violating 3RR if I revert on List of action film actors again. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are clearly socks of (pretty much-banned) User:Pé de Chinelo. I'd block or possibly semi-protect the page, but having done the RFC/U on him a long time ago, I don't think that's a good idea. I'd have to leave it up to another admin as on the appropriate action. MuZemike20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article history - it is pretty bad. There is clear and persistent vandalism from the stated IP range. I endorse a semi-protection or other measures to alleviate the situation. —Matheuler23:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how suitable a rangeblock would be given the dynamic IP, so I've applied a month's semi-prot. Longer than I normally go for, but the vandalism is both long-term and persistent. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His last edit to the page of conflict was a self-revert, so it looks like he is at least trying to back off. Is there something else I should be looking for? --Jayron3203:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone with CU privileges kindly run a check on this guy and slap a block on the range for the time being? I am being harassed no end by this individual even after I'd lifted a spam block; he is continuing to harass me via sock accounts. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
00gieb (talk·contribs) keeps creating pages about himself (he is non notable) and they keep getting speedied, only to have him recreate them. Now he has moved his own talk page to a talk page of an account that doesn't exist and moved his userpage to an article page. This troll needs blocking and his mess fixed. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:WECAN at West Virginia University. The article itself is up for deletion, but the Talk page indicates several people from the class are critiquing each other's articles. I haven't looked at all of the work done by the other editors, but so far, I see no other problem articles. But each User's contributions to other Talk pages show other people from the same class commenting, so it's kind of a house of cards with each of these users responding to each other's work. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, when deleting misplaced stuff like this, please try to direct the users, and if at all possible, the instructors in charge, to Wikipedia:School and university projects and ask them to use the resources there to do it right. When class projects are run the right way they can be a WONDERFUL benefit to the 'pedia. When its just a bunch of students and their professor flogging around blindly, you get stuff like this. I think we need to really help these people along, and try to work with them rather than scare them off. --Jayron3203:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, please tell xem that SFL123 (talk·contribs), Maxaroni2006 (talk·contribs), Pjones77 (talk·contribs), and Pat1019 (talk·contribs) are to be commended on their good uses of edit summaries, from which the others could learn a thing or two, but that quite a few of the class, including some of the aforementioned, should learn to stop signing their edits to articles. Ddoll01 (talk·contribs) is to be commended for attempting to improve an article's verifiability, but there are a lot more reliable sources that can be cited for that particular piece of information. And a lot of the copyediting from several (although not quite all) of the class (this being but one example) has been good work.
Yes, you can infer from this that I've trudged through all of the various contributions histories so far. ☺
I would like to lodge an official complaint with regards to User:Jasmeet 181 who has breeched Section 2/Sub-section D of the Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility rule; which states "quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them". I have asked this user on a few occasions to remove any comments which quote references of my name and members of my family, as this violates the rule. However, they are refusing to abide to this request.. The quotes made by this user can be found via here. When you read their points numbered 4; 5; 7 and 8, they clearly show that a breech of this rule has been made. I would appreciate if another editor could look into this for me, and take any appropriate action deemed necessary. Kindest Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Wikipedia is not a legal system - no need to quote Section X Subsection Y at us. I can't see him quoting you out of context, mainly because he doesn't actually quote you at all. He does make references to your brother et al, but as far as I can see these are appropriate, correct and relevant comments. Any information about your family is information you've given out, and isn't protected by the normal rules. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for quoting Section X Subsection Y, I didn't know any other way to word it other than that. In "point 4" of this users remark, he states "Pr3st0n agreed with this when Chocobogamer explained it so it does not appear to be an issue nor is it listed anywhere within the article". Considering the main discussion surrounding these points is to do with HD Channels, the user writes down that quote which was connected to another discussion. In "point 5" of the user he writes "Pr3st0n has not provided a copy of the advertisement". My actual comment was "Screen shots can be obtains and supplied if required as proof", no other user has acknowledge if screen shots need to be made yet, therefore User:Jasmeet 181 has quoted me out-of-context in both those points. the main discussion at hand here is a dispute resolution regarding HD Channels on Virgin Media. Yet the user is adding questions/points regarding a different matter unrelated to the discussion at hand. I have asked Jasmeet 181 politely on a few occasions to remove those comments, but he is refusing to abide to my request. Surely if a user puts a request forward, then something should be done?! (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
That's not what a quote is. Quoting part of your statement (example: you say " the main discussion at hand here is a dispute resolution regarding HD Channels on Virgin Media. Yet the user is adding questions/points regarding a different matter unrelated to the discussion at hand.", I say "the user said 'the main discussion at hand here is a dispute resolution regarding HD Channels on Virgin Media. Yet the user is adding questions/points regarding a different matter unrelated to the discussion at hand'") out of context to imply you meant something you didn't is what that section refers to. At no point has he done that. Example, point 5; he hasn't quoted you at all, he's just said that you haven't provided a copy of the ad. Have you? No, so it's a perfectly valid statement. Note that screenshots are not considered reliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)
For anyone interested, here are the statements by Jasmeet 181. If you read all the way through the (long and convoluted) talk page, these are completely appropriate. Sometimes the names of contributors have to be mentioned in discourse, that's not incivility, and the brother mention is in no way incivil, it's perfectly in context...:
(4) The press release states that "4HD will be available to all of Virgin Media’s TV customers at no extra cost, alongside the BBC HD channel." As the M pack is the minimum package available on Virgin Media's cable platform, this is correct. "Virgin Media will make its full range of HD channels available at no extra cost to its XL TV customers." So to receive the full range (6) of Virgin Media's HD channels, the customer would have to have the XL package since FX HD, National Geographic Channel HD and MTVNHD are exclusive to it (ESPN HD is included in it too). Pr3st0n agreed with this when Chocobogamer explained it so it does not appear to be an issue nor is it listed anywhere within the article. [1]
(5) Pr3st0n has not provided a copy of the advertisement from the national press so I assume that it is based on the above. If there is a genuine error in the advertisement then the Advertising Standards Authority are the correct people to contact. [2]
(7) Pr3st0n's original source, his brother-in-law, is not verifiable (WP:SOURCES).
(8) Customer specific issues should be dealt with by contacting a customer services representative, as for screenshots they would probably be self published (WP:SPS) and represent original research (Wikipedia:No original research) since "Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.""Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."
I agree with Ironholds. I see no breach of policy here, and Jasmeet 181 is merely explaining how that particular situation stands with regard to Wikipedia policy. I have notified him about this thread, btw. ≈ Chamaltalk¤03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly understand what all you kind-hearted editors are saying. But I personally feel its an attack towards myself. This has been going on for a while now. A few other users have noticed User:Jasmeet 181s comments towards me, and even they have noticed a very borderline act of incivility going on. By reading this section of my talk page, you will see what has happened over the last few days, along with visiting the talk pages of the other users involved in that link just given. Some unnecessary outbursts have been made in my direction by this user. If someone makes a request to have their name removed from a comment, and this request is ignored, then that violates human rights. All I ask is that the user removes any mention to my name, and that of my family from their remarks, in order to maintain a peaceful, fair, and open discussion. (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Of course, I understand that about the family issue. But that part has nothing to do with the main question to which the dispute is about. I brought a member of my family into discussion over another part of the article, to which was later resolved. User:Jasmeet 181 is now bringing this discussion about my brother-in-law into an unrelated question in the dispute process. That is why I asked for the reference of my family to be removed in the first place, as the relevance between that topic, and the one to which we are trying to resolve are not linked. (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It seems perfectly relevant. You're discussing sourcing of your points, and have earlier claimed that your brother is a source for some of your claims. Jasmeet pointing out that your brother isn't a reliable source seems entirely relevant. Ironholds (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I had already agreed in the end with all users involved that a member of my family who works for Virgin Media cannot be used as a source of information for Wikipedia articles. So I can't see why a member of my family is now being brought into a dispute, when I have already acknowledge the fact that he can't. (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It's quite possible that Jasmeet didn't see that point. You can ask a user to remove bits from his arguments for whatever reason, but you can't order him to, nor get us to unless you have a valid reason under a guideline or policy. Your initially quoted policy does not apply to this situation, and I can't think of any others that apply. WP:AGF is something you should read; until there is evidence otherwise, assume the most reasonable thing of the other editor. Jasmeet is more likely to have not read your retort as he is to be trying to deliberately provoke or annoy you. Ironholds (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jasmeet was aware that I made the point about my brother-in-law's information not being a relevant source of information. So clearly he is ignoring that fact in order to deliberately provoke or annoy me, as you also pointed out. I have done everything within my power to maintain WP:AGF throughout all of this, but my patience is starting to wear thin now. All I ask is that the reference point to my brother-in-law be removed, to which I have requested to Jasmeet, but so far this request is either being denied or ignored. (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
What? He's within his rights to deliberately provoke or annoy me? Or within his rights to ignore my original point regarding the brother-in-law issue? Pr3st0n (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's within his rights to ignore or deny a request you make for him to redact his statements. You being annoyed and provoked by something does not necessarily make it a deliberaly annoying and provoking action, nor does it make it one that AN/I needs to be dealt with. You used your brother in an argument. He referenced your earlier comment in a counter-argument, then refused to remove that counter-argument when you complained that he'd brought your brother into it. By your own actions you made your brother part of the issue, and Jasmeet is allowed to retain that comment if he so chooses. What we have here is a non-issue; Jasmeet has not violated any guidelines or policies. Ironholds (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully acknowledge I'm being completely unhelpful here, but (for the sake of my othographical sanity) the correct spelling is "breach". Now, please - do continue. Manning (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an "agree to disagree" situation - although in some other incidents running up to this, it is clear that the user shown intentions to "spark up the fire" by using some unnecessary comments, and a few too personal ones too, to which I provided the link to my talk page which highlighted this obvious attacks. (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Is it possible then that I can prevent this user from having any contact me for a while? Not sure if it is possible for users to block certain users on an individual basis, like it is possible on other groups, such as Facebook, etc. If it is possible for this to happen, then could someone please inform me how to go about it. Regards (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
(ec)Not directly. If you have a problem with a user then, short of a formal order that he cease contacting you (which isn't justified) you just have to avoid him. If you have a problem with him, avoid the pages where he hangs out. Ironholds (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sinneed and Ironholds; thought it might be that way. I will 100% ignore the user, but I cannot guarantee that he will continue to bombard me with unnecessary comments. If the user does resort to using such tone of context, and as long as I ignore them, then action can be lodged again - am I correct in assuming this be the case? I apologise for any inconvenience caused here; and I much appreciate your valued help in this matter. (Pr3st0n (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
No. He can agree to avoid you, but short of that you just have to avoid him. The entire point here is that your argument and request are without grounds in either policy or guideline - we're not going to sanction him for doing something he isn't bound not to do. Ironholds (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Jasmeet has now decided to accept my request to avoid using my name, and naming a member of my family. Although some of the points can clearly be seen that Jasmeet has just changed the reference to my user name "Pr3st0n", with a different choice of reference "A User", to which I am now satisfied with. Thank you for your help with this. (Pr3st0n (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for notifying me Chamal. Bear in mind that the the topic has advanced significantly since I started typing. I had only quoted Pr3st0n once in the passage, during an explanation of point 7, the quote is directly taken from Pr3st0n and referenced.[65] I did also reference his understanding with another users explanation. I am not aware of a rule to saying that I can't refer to a user by their by username and I don't know any of your family or their names or insult them in anyway beyond saying that they were incorrect. Whether you agreed that your brother-in-law was verifiable or not was not clear, you moved to questioning Virgin Media's website besides which clarification can do no harm especially since comments were requested from other editors and the entire discussion is lengthy. It is entirely relevant that I would say your username since that is a discussion started by yourself and I have not used it in an offensive manner or to suggest anything that you did not say. I have explained the reasons why I did mention your name in the article discussion. During the entire discussion you have either taking anything I say as an offensive in some way or have ignored it while possibly attempting to bait me. For this reason I walked away from the discussion (admittedly not subtly) when accusations were again thrown around. I do admit to crossing the line of civility on one occasion and for that I offer an apology but Pr3st0n, the same users have also acknowledged similar behaviour from you. I also do not recall telling Pr3st0n that he is not welcome as claimed in the the last post of the article discussion. I will agree reword your "brother-in-law" to something less specific since he did not add himself to the discussion but I see no reason to remove your username. I have only contacted you through your talk page once so saying "I cannot guarantee that he will continue to bombard me with unnecessary comments." is not helpful at all. Lastly, the IP editor [66] is not me or I would have logged in, I honestly hope that it is not you logging out since the ISP is from Telewest (Virgin Media) who held the cable franchise for Preston. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jasmeet, I thought you made the adjustment which you now say you haven't. I didn't look in the history to see who made the change, although as it was a change made in your points, I assumed you had made them. I would not go down such a petty route to with you now accuse me of, by making any falsified edits using a IP. All my edits are made using my log in user name. So to this IP that you speak of, is not mine. I have been logged in here all this time, awaiting replies to this thread, as you will have noticed by the amount of replies posted by myself above. Your apology for crossing over the civility line is accepted. I just ask that a more peaceful resolution, and actions are taken from this day forth. (Pr3st0n (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
He's not "accusing" you of anything more than you said about him. Right now you're creating twice the hot air that Jasmeet is, and this discussion has done nothing but make you look bad. I would advise you to step away now. Ironholds (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I request then, with Jasmeet's agreement, is that we both avoid contact with each other from now on. I can see that an IP user has made a change, to which has now caused an unwanted argument between Jasmeet and myself. Although I didn't say in my comment above that Jasmeet was "accusing" me, I was just helping to clarify the fact that I was online at the time the IP user made the change. I was not aware at that change that it wasn't Jasmeet, the assumption was purely the fact that a change was made on something which that user wrote, and I had no reason to suspect that anyone other than Jasmeet had made the alterations. Now that it has been brought to my attention that a different IP user made the change, I was acknowledging it. Subsequently, a further comment has been made where such accusation has been made indirectly, to which I replied to show I had already acknowledge the fact a IP user made the change, and have now requested that Jasmeet and myself avoid contact with each other, despite the fact that I had previous to this new "hot air" thing, asked Jasmeet that we keep things professional and strictly to the DRP at hand. I now wish to retract that, and avoid any contact with the user. In my opinion, this case is now closed. (Pr3st0n (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
No offense to either of you and i aint saying either is at fault, but i think you are both best to leave the dicussion now until other comments on it and then reply to any question direct to yourslef and not critise either of eahc other in the rpely just meantion each other if it part of the question. If it does nto get resolve at the current stage i will take it to next level of dispute resolution and so on untila consesus is made. I also think preston just becuase i personal apogolised you should not be expecting something similar from jasmeet or for jasmeet to accept he remvoes references about yourself or your family as admins have point out he is not i the wrong as he using it to state his concerns on the issues. I only apogolise because i knew i could of offend you by accident so i just wanted to be sure i never and if i did admit i had bene wrong.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The biography page for Fethullah Gulen is unstable for long time. There are two admins and users owned the article and ban anyone who support one of the two versions they dislike ([67]), using a pretext of the editors being a suckpuppet of a single person (see how last *quite* a few editors are banned without a checkuser decision from the history page). They consistently blank the page and kill tens of verified links and references. If a newbie editor does this, it would be called vandalism and he would be banned. I would like to ask some prudent admins to look into the case. I also like this biography article be protected according to new wiki rules [68]. An expert control could stabilize the article. Thanks. Icaz (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into it. From a quick glance the article has a few POV and WP:NOR issues, but many of the reversions I examined took place because the rewrite was wildly POV, even if it was referenced. I'll raise my content observations on the article talk page. Manning (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV statements can be rephrased of course. I do not say that either one of the existing versions is prefect. But editors has no chance to edit the article. If they edits something similar to the one the admis dislike, it is enough for them to be banned. Would not that be possible to ask help from a volunteer academic expert? Don't the new regulations enforce that? Icaz (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment - after some more extensive reading it is clear that this is a page that has undergone extensive sockpuppetry and hardcore axe-grinding over an extended period. The admins involved seem to have done a fine job in a messy situation. Nothing further to do, other than offer to give support to the front-line admins, should they need it. Manning (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a messy situation but the point is that admins has their part in the mess too. Almost none of the editors were banned through regular policies. Are those policies established to be broken by admins? Icaz (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my persuing I found no evidence to support your statement that Almost none of the editors were banned through regular policies.. However I have not conducted a definitive examination.
If you could provide evidence of such admin conduct I assure you it will be impartially reviewed. If any admin is found to have abused their authority they will be dealt with swiftly and severely. (Contrary to common perception, we are actually quite harsh on our fellow admins and do not tolerate abuse of privilege.) Manning (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wihsh it was true. OK, here is a few examples:
* Editors can only cry at the door at this point: [69], they have no chance to edit. Otherwise, a single edit enough for you to be banned, based on the wisdom of the admins; no normative decisions. Here is last two: single edit and banned,single edit and banned.
* Did not you have a chance to see this section ([70])? One editor (Nurefsan) is banned without a checkuser decision. He was only trying to work for consensus ([71]). The admin BlackKite banned him based on a request from another editor, who was involved in the edit war, distorted the facts ([72]), and who consider himself as a warier who has to save his country ([73]). The admin moreover waited someone revert the article and protected on their version ([74]). They could not discuss with him as he was answering their questions. They took the easy way ([75]).
* Another editor (Mutantan): Tipotry thinks "He's probably back" and banns another editor without any checkuser process ([76]). What a wise decision: he is probably back!
* How about user Zinhar? He proved by the edit summaries ill-intention of the editor starting an edit war, declaring it publicly, ([77]), bu he himself was banned.
* I could only read the active pages and come up with this many. It looks there are many others in the history pages. If you need more evidence I can work a little on others as well. Thanks. Icaz (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Please use this new biography-article policy for this biography and ask help from some volunteer experts to stabilize the article. Icaz (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review - Judging by your contributions you seem remarkably like a sockpuppet yourself. Your editing profile is identical to the standard sockpuppet MO, and I'd be surprised if you could find a single admin on Wikipedia who would not immediately dismiss you as one.
Regardless of that, I examined all of your evidence. I find no merit in your complaint as all of the blocks seem consistent with standard sockpuppetry management. For the sake of thoroughness I will invite BlackKite to comment on his actions, but I see no legitimate grounds for investigation. (I stress that BlackKite is merely being invited and he is free to ignore the invitation.) Manning (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling back my comments on an ArbCom talk page
Look, I understand that I'm not holding a majority viewpoint of the recent WMC desysop. However, I do not understand why I can't express this frustration on the appropriate talk page. First, a rollback, and then a removal of my comments to my talk page. If I didn't want anyone to read it, why wouldn't I have just posted on my talk page to begin with? Oh right, because I was actually questioning an ArbCom decision on an ArbCom talk page. All I got out of it was a couple of closed threads, a rollback, a couple admonishments on my talk page, and an I'll advised move of my comments from the ArbCom talk page to mine. Never mind being called a troll. I am not a troll simply because I find the dismissive attitude expressed toward me in an ArbCom talk page in regards to my opinion of an ArbCom case to be offensive. Their is an extreme difference between a troll and a long term editor an admin who is simply in strong disagreement with a desysop. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after several ECs) You weren't questioning an ArbCom decision, you were raising a general indictment against the entire ArbCom. Constructive discussion, even open criticism of ArbCom is welcome. Statements like "Arbcom is a corrupt failure" and "you look so incredibly corrupt that it is painful." is merely WP:SOAPBOXing and not really appropriate. Look, criticising a specific decision is fine, with specific problems that you have with that decision is fine, but I think your comments went over the line. Calling all ArbCom members corrupt is a serious accusation, bordering on personal attack, and not terribly helpful at solving anything. I think you should take Risker's advice and voluntarily take a few hours off to gain your composure and consider rephrasing your criticism into something less vitriolic and more likely to do more than simply make other people react viscerally... --Jayron3204:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously (in my view), the WT:AC/N has now been fully protected so that non-admin users can't even comment on ArbCom notices / decisions... this only days after the case pages of the WMC/Abd case were also fully protected to prevent any comment. ArbCom may be embarassed about the mess they created but that doesn't justify the Clerks preventing formal comment being made. Surely there is an admin willing to undo this higly inappropriate protection? EdChem (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sakes, the clerks are not political staffers, they have very specific duties to maintain decorum. One clerk reverted, another clerk apparently out of a sense of mercy decided not to block, but instead protect a page.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it was bloody expensive to get the Spiderman costume. Second of all, I wouldn't have needed it if my original comments weren't suppressed. Drama is the only thing Wikipedia produces effectively. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that the material he's restoring and vandalizing is "my own work" [78]
This was expected given his hostility and threats when blocked [79][80][81]. He's restored links to his articles (which is what he was blocked for previously) and vandalized a number of user and talk pages. We just need someone to jump in and block Mootoo. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Leveque for details. --Ronz (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mootoo is Leveque's sockpuppet. Loulou50, i stopped using a long time ago simply because i forgot the password. So, after having my work slaughtered, i'm withdrawing my articles from my user page. Is that COI or spam too? :Block all you like, but Ronz, you are more of a liability than an asset to Wiki. Apart from putting me offside, how many other wiki contributors have you alienated over the years? How does a link under other constitute spam? Am i trying to sell you Ham? Am i? It's an integral part of both mauritius and Rodrigues's history which mean a lot to many people. Why not give readers a choice? We'll see. 58.175.169.142 (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweetfornow(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) Previously this user has edit warred on 3 different pages, introduced copyvios, original research and numerous problems into various articles. Their initial response to all the warnings they got and previous AN/I threads was to blank the warnings and carry on. Only recently have they engaged in any communication, their first of which was basically a violation of WP:OWN[82], along with borderline personal attacks [83], and assumptions o bad faith[84]. The user may be engaging in pointy edits as evidenced by this [85]. Several of the users contributions were removed for using bad sources, or no sources. Today I noticed a couple of problems in addition to this.
This prod [86] in only a few seconds of googling I was able to verify most of the info on the page, I reverted it and added one source I'll add more later. The claim that no sources could be found just doesn't ring true at all.
The serious gutting of Matt the Knife with extremely dubious claims [87]. A well formed cite went 404, so their response was to take out whole paragraphs rather than find the source. Regardless if an article or link goes 404, especially to a news paper or radio show, it doesn't invalidate the citation. They were also removing citations and large portions of the text because a newspaper cite went to the home page and not the article itself. It took me less than a minute to check the newspaper site and find the correct link [88][89].
Here [90] the user is removing most of the article (including a citation). because they apparently can't read the entire article since its a for pay article.
My personal opinion is that this user has not done much wrong. Please post more evidence of wrong doing if you still feel we should sanction this editor in any way. C.U.T.K.DT | C10:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come again? This users first 100 edits had to pretty much all be undone because of various problems. Since then the user has inserted copyvios, tried to own articles, edit warred to try and push/remove content into articles. The editor has now stated on my talk page that anything not perfectly sourced is "libelous" [91]. They're not even taking the time to check to see if the sources are valid before gutting articles. How is that not disruptive?--Crossmr (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Terry Evanswood, a magician who's apparently not a favorite of this editor, shows an example of editing that harms the project. The article was prod'ed for notability, but it took very little effort on my part to establish notability. I came to the Evanswood article after reverting this edit to Brandon Hein, in which this editor removed a valid and necessary citation with the false edit summary "corrected links". --CliffC (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow missed that one. That is a blatantly false edit summary in an attempt to hide citation removal. Here is there attempt to hide talk about them on another users talk page [92].--Crossmr (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user is still trying to edit war on the Terry Evanswood article [93] after more than one explanation that we don't have to see the content on the web for it to be a citation. If you have the evidence for thisi multixfer, can you do up a sockpuppet case? Or exactly how much evidence of disruption do we need here?--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made those edits because the links doesn't reference the page. I click through each link and read the content. I removed the links because they don't contain any reliable info. Removing info and fake citations isn't against Wikipedia's rules in any way. People shouldn't vandalize articles and write whatever they want to. Some of the paragraphs do not have reliable citations. The links only take you to a homepage of a website, not the actual content stated in the Wiki articles. Without reliable sources, then the article would be false. Crossmr: I'm sick and tired of writing the same shit over and over again on your talk page. I have a reason to remove the links. Unless you have a good reason to complain, get over it and stop whining like a child. Jumping to immediate conclusions won't help. Sweetfornow (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citation isn't fake just because the link has gone 404 or there is no link. You removed a citation to a radio show. It is unlikely that that radio show is online anywhere, but that doesn't mean you can just go through and gut articles because you can't see the citation this moment conveniently on the internet. As I already pointed out it, it took me all of 30 seconds on the homepage of the newspaper to verify the article existed.There are probably tens of thousands of citations in wikipedia articles that go to physical books without a weblink. By your logic those citations and any information drawn from them should be torn out of the articles. you have had numerous editors undo your edits, and either warn you or attempt to explain this to you. Read WP:NPA as well as you've now crossed the line into blatant personal attacks. As for your reasons for removal, let's look at them:
Here you complain of a broken link [94]. Yet look at the source. The link provided is simply a link to the radio series, not the individually cited episode. While the link to the series needs to be updated there is zero problem with this reference. Yet you went through and removed every single time it is used and then yanked all the content.
Here you claim to remove "several" broken links yet again its just one, plus several uses of it [95]. It is again not a broken link. Its a link to the main page of a newspaper, but the article, date and authors are cited. Within 30 seconds of going to the website in question I was able to find the article.
Here you removed an entire section because you can't take the time to check the websites in question to see if the articles are there [96]. The section you removed was also cited with the radio show which you pulled out in your first edit.
[97][98]More of the same. The article, author, date, etc is cited. Direct links to the articles are not required for citation
Here [99] you remove another episode citation from a show.
[100] here you remove more citations which are perfectly fine and gut more content
And then after ripping almost every single citation out of the article, you tag it for notability [101].
That is an absolutely atrocious series of edits. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the citation system on wikipedia.
[102] here you complain of an inability to find sources. Taking the name and putting any book name in quotes I returned a plethora of sources in under 1 minute.
At the Terry Evanswood article you keep removing sourced content because you can't read the whole article. We assume good faith and the editor that added content based on that article is assumed to have added it correctly. Unless you have access to the full article and want to provide it to contradict some claim that was made with it, you shouldn't be removing it.
A lot of "dead links" are often stripped from ref lists and their content blanked when the information is often available on the internet archive. Just another point. I see way too many people blank legit online references when the link is dead simply because the article was moved or something. Just a general comment. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with trolls is definitely a time waster, I'll give you that. Worrying about what trolls think is pointless and self-defeating. The fact that anyone feels pleasure at acting like a dick on a collaborative website and getting blocked for it is pathetic to the nth degree. That's why WP:DNFTT is such a great policy and why revert-block-ignore is the best possible response. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't even an issue of going to internet archive. Look at the first removal. They were removing content sourced to a broadcast radio show. There is no online copy of it that I know of. So removing it just because the series about page is dead is completely wrong. If a citation is ONLY a link with no information about an author, date, publisher, etc and it goes dead, it can be hard to find out what was on it. This is why we include these things. We don't run around gutting articles because a link in a citation is bad or has gone 404. This almost looks like a concentrated effort to trim the article so that it could be tagged for notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the anon vandals decide to edit Erich Gonzales, Incubus and the heavy industry companies is beyond my comprehension, I still don't see what the connections are. At any rate, I dug deeper and discovered that most of the vandals came from IP addresses in the range of 112.20.*.*. To wit, these are the anons I've left warnings on:
Thanks for the reply. Just to give you a heads up, the vandal edits usually happen in the afternoon, Manila time (UTC+8). I'll see what will come up later today. Must be a bunch of high school or college fan boys with lots of vacant time in their hands :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... it does vaguely border on being a legal threat but it's not quite strong enough to warrant action. Quite an amusing talk page for what is actually a very small article. For someone as successful as he claims to be, he certainly spends a lot of time trying to amplify his achievements on Wikipedia (and shouting at other editors). Manning (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is indeed quite a page. (And it's for what once upon a time was quite an article.) Problem is, this latest comment is lucid, and if (or in so far as) it's not a legal threat, then it's something else. I suppose it's a request for information about where to lodge a complaint, either about the article or about me. Somebody might like to help him draw up an RfC. -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, I love the clause please inform me so that I can commence the administrative requirements: it's so dignified, you sound like an undertaker. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) .... PS If anyone did block this UID, the block would probably have to be followed up by an sprotect of the article and perhaps its talk page too: as the talk page shows, RL appears to have a lot of IP numbers at his disposal. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - I have my moments of inspiration. Being an administrator is quite handy when people don't know that it actually doesn't mean very much. BTW An sprotect shouldn't be an issue if blocking doesn't fix the issue. Manning (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the user wants to "escalate" "this" and probably isn't familiar with Wiki policies. I will also leave note on his talk page about this thread. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, considering he wants to complain about Gwen's handling of the article which, as far as I can tell, solely consisted of her nominating it for AfD. --Smashvilletalk17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How long are editors going to have to deal with sock after sock after sock at Talk:Cold_fusion? The article was just placed under Discressionary Sanctions by ArbCom. JedRothwell was banned from wikipedia on 30 January 2009, persuant to [105], but he keeps coming back to tell us all about the new and exciting proofs of cold fusion that are on his own personal cold-fusion library, and reverting any attempt by mere-users to enforce his topic ban. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two days ago, I filed a 3RR report at 3RR/N [106] showing what I thought was at least a violation of 3RR, and with other evidence showing some pretty bad edit warring was going on. The report was dismissed as not being a violation. The admin who dismissed it had three minutes between that edit [107] and a previous edit to another report (see previous diff; perhaps he'd done the research before hand -- I'm not complaining, but it's worth noting). That would be fair enough if the admin could point out to me where I went wrong.
I asked. I asked again. I'm still waiting for an explanation. That admin did say that he saw no problem with some other admin dealing with the report (see last link).
The edit warring behavior continued. I filed a second report, here (most recent diff [108]) showing six reverts in a 24 hour period. Result: While other reports on the page have been handled, mine hasn't. It's been 24 hours since the second report was filed. [109]
The reverting editor claims that he isn't violating 3RR. He can't seem to explain how that could be. His only two comments: [110][111]
Well, shouldn't it be easy to explain to me why I'm wrong?
Shouldn't 3RR reports be dealt with in a timely manner?
If I'm doing something wrong here, just tell me. If I've misunderstood 3RR policy, please just explain how. Noroton (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)corrected my count of reverts above -- Noroton (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the clock has been ticking for 27 hours on the second 3RR report while the edit warring continued. Why is it that no one can explain why action shouldn't be taken? I'm also asking for someone to go over to 3RR/N and handle the report. -- Noroton (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Why is it that no one can explain why action shouldn't be taken?" - I read the explanation at the report. I understand that you and the admin don't agree, but the explanation is there: No action should be taken because there is not a revert problem shown. There is a spirited disagreement about what and how much should be included about a current news event. This is a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing. - Sinneed (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation in the closure of the first report: there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. No obvious vio, further seems to have subsided for now. Re-report if needed in future. My question is Why no obvious vio when the four reverts are there within a period of a few hours, and how do they not meet the criteria? Calling something an explanation doesn't make it an explanation. How am I supposed to understand when it's not worthwhile to report at 3RR/N? Are you referring to the discussion on the admin talk page? It leaves me with the same question, but now that I reread that discussion, perhaps the admin was saying it was a judgment call. Does that sound right? But in that case, the admin was saying, let's see how it goes, well, how it went was six more reverts, therefore the second report -- which has sat around for 27+ hours. Not a Good Thing At All. -- Noroton (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first "revert" you included isn't a revert. A revert is when you undo another editor's edit. The text that you claim that LuLu reverted doesn't match the material that LuLu removed.
The second revert does seem to be clearly a revert, as an IP removed the text about "conservative activists" that LuLu had previously added, and LuLu reinserted it.
The third revert is also clearly a revert, as LuLu reverted the Brooklyn DA investigation material you had added.
The fourth "revert" is questionable. LuLu removed one source, with the claim that only one source is needed (a very bad explanation for removal in my opinion). I wouldn't call it a revert, exactly, because LuLu didn't remove your entire contribution or even a substantial portion of it, only one source. I'd call that a bad edit but not a revert.
Keep in mind that not every removal of content is a revert. In fact, if you have two editors adding material to an article back and forth, and removing portions of each others' contributions, that's not even technically an edit war because they aren't fighting over what is and isn't in the article, they're only modifying the contributions made. The administrator made a good call, a couple of reverts doesn't mean 3RR was breached. -- Atama頭23:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its been awhile since I've read 3RR so I thought I'd head on over and do that. Some key points, Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached.. Many people often talk abou the spirit of 3RR and not the letter of the law. There is no right for anyone to get 3 reverts on every article each day. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. There is no requirement that an editor undo an edit with the undo function. Even removing a sentence from an added paragraph is undoing the actions of another editor.--Crossmr (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atama, I don't think I ever filed a 3RR report before a couple of days ago, so I looked into it as much as I could. I saw at the top of the 3RR/N page, in "Definition of the three revert rule" as A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part (boldface added). I need to follow that, don't I? That makes it look as if every removal of content is, in fact, a revert, but every revert in my reports can be traced back to something added within the previous few days, mostly same day, I think. All these reverts were part of the same general fight.
You're looking at the list of reverts 1-4 in my first report (I also added several more). The first one is a bit confusing, partly because (I think) the material removed was added at various times, but the last sentence of text that was removed was this: After the videos emerged, the Census Bureau cut ties with ACORN, which had been tapped to participate in the 2010 census. The footnote for that went to a Fox News report dated and accessed on 9-11-2009, so we know the material was added within a few days. The page history shows it was then removed and restored a number of times since, including LuLu's edit on September 14. Edit warring, right? And a "bright line" 3RR vio if it is one of at least four by that editor within 24 hours. As to the fourth revert, I noted that LuLu reverted the word "immediately" as well as a footnote. Again, if partial reverts are counted as reverts, then this is one. I think it's certainly a valid objection to say that this is technical, but it's equally valid that the complaint is within the spirit of WP:3RR that we don't want edit warring, we want consensus through discussion, and you don't even have to get past the 3RR tripwire to get blocked, which the noticeboard page and the 3RR page make very clear. (In this case, blocking would have delivered an effective message both to that editor and to the other edit warriors on that page -- a stern warning on the editor's talk page would have done just about the same thing.) If an admin didn't want to act on Reverts 1-4, another option was to see the violation in Reverts 5-8 in that report. The second report has eight reverts. (Again, my purpose here is not to complain or forum-shop. My purpose is to understand whether or not I made some clear mistake and to get some admin to act on the report. Or do I need to take this to ArbCom now?) -- Noroton (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but what happened to a frequent admin to AN3 isn't really your problem is it? (Though it does stink what happened to him). Anyhow, I agree reports need handled quickly if possible. I left the 2nd un-attended report to be done by someone other than myself purposefully. The reason I didn't action it first time around is for the reasoning I gave, and like noted by Atama, I don't believe there truly were 4+ reverts in 24 hours. That said, the user could be done for edit warring anyhow, but as noted on my talk page I think some discussion could have resolved the issue rather than blocks. I hoped a review by another admin would have resolved the issue to your satisfaction by now, and since it hasn't you're owed an apology. Nja24706:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nja, I'm coming to the conclusion from all this that while Wikipedia has a written 3RR policy that editors can refer to, there is an unwritten 3RR policy that defines the three-revert rule and edit warring in a more restrictive way. If that's the case, it's a shame because it traps editors like me into wasting time making complaints that are never going to result in more than a dismissal. Either enforcement or rule language need to be changed. I'm still confused by the explanation that you don't see a violation here, because you're still not giving reasons why evidence that plainly fits the language of the rule is not a violation. This, and what you've said about the best way to resolve the situation, leads me to think that you're mixing up interpretation of the rule with discretion in enforcement. I think what you should be saying is something like, "While I see a violation of 3RR, I think it's closer to being a technical violation, and I think the best solution in this case is not a block, but ..." Do you realize that as an admin you have the authority to do that? And that's often the wisest course. I wouldn't have objected to that because I think it would have gotten the attention not only of the editor I complained against but of other editors who were edit warring on the page. But calling it out, on the record, as edit warring is what gets the attention. When you say there's no violation, the problem continues. (Actually, the editor I complained about seems to be laying low. For now.)
Anyone who looks at the history and reversions of the ACORN page will see that, starting September 9, the edit warring went into high gear when the lurid story started breaking, and it's continued to the present as new revelations have come out. (I'm not going to lengthen this discussion and waste any more of my time by showing diffs, it's obvious to anyone who goes through the history page: edit summaries identify good factual information as POV and revert it; essential details on one side are left out or the language is exaggerated in obvious ways -- really, this is a classic specimen for the Wikipedia Museum of POV Pushing.) The POV pushing has been blatant and extreme on both sides. It's to be expected that certain people will do this. The problem is that to deal with POV pushing and related bad behavior, it takes exhaustive efforts to complain at 3RR/N, AN/I and elsewhere, and I assume it takes exhaustive efforts on the part of admins to look into problems, issue warnings and blocks, and then see what happens. The result is that WP:CIV is often a dead letter, as is WP:NPOV and now, I find, WP:3RR.
It's difficult to deal with this because, like language about democracy and civil rights in the Soviet Constitution, the aspirational wording is there in our policies and guidelines but no effective system exists either to promote good behavior or deal with bad behavior when large numbers of editors engage in POV fights. The lack of admins at 3RR/N is a symptom. So is the lack of cojones (or time? or patience?) among the admins scrolling past this discussion. Nobody really wants to clean out the Augean Stables of a massive POV fight with the toothbrush Wikipedia provides. I'm not dealing with it either. I spent way too many hours looking up diffs to no effect, and I'm walking away. I never even had time to start discussions on the article's talk page. The article sucks (although it has improved somewhat), the bad behavior has barely changed and Wikipedia looks like shit to anyone who followed the story and then came to Wikipedia to learn more (look at the traffic stats [112]). The real solution would be to create policies and guidelines that promote calm, reasonable discussion, especially in controversial articles with a lot of edits, and then have adequate enforcement. It would mean somewhat more formal discussion procedures, probably some kind of moderator to enforce violations immediately, but some kind of effective, quick enforcement. But Wikipedia has no stomach for creating new rules (and our consensus policy makes passing new policies and guidelines almost impossible), so the problems continue and we continue looking as bad as we do. How dysfunctional we are, and this case shows it. -- Noroton (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia looks like shit to anyone who followed the story and then came to Wikipedia to learn more Anybody coming to this site for ANY non biased material regarding politics/religion/conspiracy/ect needs their head examined. Wiki is excellent for other articles, but militants on both sides have pretty much taken over here. I know, I know, the cabal is that way. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I didn't give the impression that I condone LuLu's actions. Removing sourced material without a good explanation is certainly not good, LuLu did seem to be edit-warring, and if I were an administrator (and I'm certainly not) I would at the very least have left a stern comment on their talk page, if not a short block. I've had bad experiences with AN3 reports also, my first report there ended with the person I reported getting a light warning, and a good admin getting blocked for 24 hours after he'd reverted too many anonymous editors following the removal of semi-protection that he himself had done at that page! I was only trying to explain how the administrator at AN3 would have seen it. I still don't think 3RR was breached but 3RR is a "bright line" and you don't have to go past it to be edit-warring. -- Atama頭19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
zombietime
Could an uninvolved admin take a look at Zombietime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), please? This is an article about a website run by a pseudonymous person who publishes images from political demonstrations that he regards as inappropriate in some way, often because he think they're antisemitic. DreamGuy has started adding that it is a "far right" website, without a source (and there almost certainly is no source that says this), and when reverted, he restores it. He has added it five times since September 13. [113][114][115][116][117] It's a clear BLP violation, even though we don't know the name of the person behind the site. SlimVirgintalk|contribs19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that there is a serious lack of reliable sources for the website in general (hence the reason it's up for deletion), and the only ones that do mention it are highly partisan. The main problem with the article beyond the notability issue is POV pushing, in that editors are seemingly specifically choosing to have the article focus solely on "zombie"'s accusations that his targets as "far left" "unAmerican" etc. based solely upon him and his supporters but not giving any sort of label to himself. And the fact that the site is far right is self-evident from the targets, claims made, and that the only sources supporting the site are all far right themselves. If the claim in seriously that facts need to be cited or else removed, then the article itself as a whole needs to go away. What we have instead of cherry picking what gets covered and what doesn't in order to slant this person as some sort of moderate, and the BLP complaint is just wikilawyering to focus on that one point and ignore the other problems. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a clear BLP violation, even though we don't know the name of the person behind the site" eh? Is this true? I was under the impression that a pseudonym could not be slandered nor libled. I'm not asking to start a huge legal discussion, but isn't this in policy somehwere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been aware of that in WP:BLP. True, a real life name/info associated with an allegation is more problematic, but it could still be a BLP vio to make a questionable/unsourced claim against a living person, even if we don't know their real name. JamieS9321:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP's not just a legal issue, NAIP, but an ethical one too. The point is that anything challenged in any article, but particularly anything contentious, and even more so in articles about living persons, needs a reliable source. SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, material definitely needs to be verifiable in a reliable source. But this is not a BLP issue. If BLP extends to non-identifiable Internet pseudonyms, then it's a BLP violation every time someone says something negative about me here on Wikipedia without citing a published, independent, reliable source to back them up. I can assure you I've been called worse than "far right". MastCellTalk22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, leaving out the BLP discussion for a moment, the issue is that when one Wikipedian wishes to insert unsourced material - the matter is clearly one of WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or WP:EW or whatever. The fact that this obviously right wing site hasn't attracted enough coverage from reliable sources to source the claim that it is right wing should be ringing alarm bells in peoples' heads though. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before any admins act on this request, could you outline any attempts you or others have made at dispute resolution? This appears to be a content dispute, of which there are two sides. Also, it is VERY important to note that the existance of a source is not a sufficient condition to claim that a passage in an article should be in the article. It certainly is important, but there can be many reasons for removing a sourced statement. Read WP:UNDUE for just a few. Have you attempted to start a dialogue with the user in question. Not a random template on his talk page, but an actual dialogue where you discuss his motivations for removing the passage, and where you explain your reasoning for keeping it? There are many many many ways to resolve conflicts at Wikipedia, and demanding the blocking of another user should be a last resort, even if the other user is "wrong". --Jayron3220:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I erase some part because wikipedia must report neutral fact, not journalists personal opinion of the fact. Those journalists are clearly against the RRQ and are not neutral. Also this anonymus 76.64.152.111 have no credibility. On the RRQ article, he always write RQQ. I source evrything I write and he also erase it. I don't see why I sould be notice or block, I didn't erase everything.Philbox17—Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
In fact, you indef'ed them both. Unless they showed up as socks of some other master, how about at least putting an appeal template on one of the talk pages? Looie496 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serious issues rendering pages which begin with some templates
Is anyone else noticing that many articles are suddenly "invisible," but if you go view the script, they're there? Does this have something to do with the software update?
Are these invisible for other people (found via "random", found may more before I started noting them):
I believe the above user has moved from blatant vandalism to more subtle vandalism, but I'm admittedly too stupid to tell the difference (i.e., I know nothing about university history). Can someone look at this user's contributions? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. As legal threats go, its pretty tame. I would recommend you direct them to the home office and let them raise any concerns they have there. They want to talk to the Big Bosses, let them... --Jayron3201:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User was unblocked by an admin after an appeal of sorts. Then the admin discovered he had lied about his alleged connection to Indiana U. However, he had also retracted the threat. So now he's under close watch. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots14:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
00:40, September 17, 2009, Willking1979 (talk | contribs | block) blocked #1572167 (expires on September 17, 2009 at 22:58, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Nuzbach". The reason given for Nuzbach's block is: "Vandalism-only account".) (unblock)
I made an initial report on AN/I on Sep 15th that can be found in the archive here. I realized today that the minor edits Miami33139 has been making [118] are removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits. I really don't feel it is appropriate for Miami33139 to be systematically removing Ed Fitzgerald's edits, particularly after all the disagreement and heated discussion between Miami33139 and Ed Fitzgerald, some of which seems to have led to Ed's "retirement". Some past "discussion" between Miami33139 and Ed Fitzgerald can be found here. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in Miami33139's response. A brief review of 3 articles indicate that Ed Fitzgerald made edits on a large scale - including layout- in 2008, and they have been edited since without any seeming problem that Miami33139 is now "correcting". My initial reaction is that EF's changes has consensus, and that M33139 is taking advantage of EF's absence to "win" a content dispute. If Miami33139 can point to a consensus, or a consensus of a reading of a style guide, then I will happily acknowledge my misreading of the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Miami33139 will respond as they appear to have stopped editing again. Some of Ed's edits certainly did fix longstanding problems (i.e. WP:FIXBUNCH) although the whitespace issue between the last section and navboxes was finally fixed in Common.css [119] so it might now be worth considering putting a bot to work on fixing any articles that have a hard <p> between the last section and any navboxes. (Two empty lines or two empty lines with a HTML comment between them in mediawiki markup parses to a hard <p> in HTML, which is what Ed appears to have been doing.) --Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user is persistent in removing data/references and doing personal attack and vandalising the article Lucknow. On seeing track record of this IP it seems that this is the pattern which it follows across Wikipedia. Please help to contain this IP. Thanks. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvitalk!08:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This use has been editing in a disruptive manner at Gaza War. The editor is edit waring, has an account for 1 sole purpose, has a user name that another editor took offense to, and doesn't seek consensus. Instead of posting on several different ones thought this would be best. Please check out the revision history and warnings at the user's talk page. Edit summary of reverters and talk page discusison might be interesting but isn't needed to see what is going on. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Moved from WP:AN. ↪REDVERSThe internet is for porn10:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a new user. I don't think he's familiar with our editing policies and practices. I do think his user name needs to be changed and filed a report about that. I don't think he needs to be blocked at this juncture. I do think it would be useful if someone not involved in editing Gaza War could take some time to explain what is problematic about his editing there. Tiamuttalk10:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Junzi (talk·contribs) and Huanglow (talk·contribs), among others, are involved in a rather long-lasting discussion on the talk page of Tien Shan Pai article, about issues surrounding martial arts lineages that I don't claim to fully understand. Huanglow has only ever edited the attached talk page. S/he has been acting in fashions that severely strain the civility policy. This includes, since Tuesday:
presuming that a participant - not sure whom - is one of the feuding martial arts masters and suggesting that he return to Taiwan,with what could be seen as implications that he's a Nazi.
But we do do blocks of grossly uncivil users for personal attacks, which I'm considering...and really, it wouldn't be a cooldown so much as a 'goodbye forever'. Any objections? Syrthiss (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, yes. I just gave him his first warning, for the vandalistic page move. If he doesn't respond to escalating warnings going forward, then block him. I suspect this won't take long, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably warn him about the gross incivility as well, so he knows there are multiple uninvolved people with multiple issues. Don't want to go straight to level 4, though... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Touche. Alright, I just wanted to get more eyeballs on the page. I did notice the lack of warnings, and if the behavior improves, then great. If not, it's easy enough to resolve. -- Pakaran14:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably add, without accusing anyone of anything, that I am somewhat concerned about the pattern of usernames used in editing this article. At least three names appear to be possible less than positive references, or designed on a similar theme to each other. Consider that one of the disputing masters is Chien-Liang Huang, and his webpage lists a Michael Huang [120]. I'm thinking about the usernames - namely, Huanglow (talk·contribs), Quailhollow (talk·contribs) and Mikehaung (talk·contribs) (which has not edited since June). I am certainly not accusing the first two users I name of being a bad and good hand, respectively - there's no evidence. That said, after being a sysop for 6 years, one gets feelings. -- Pakaran20:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are real communist vandals organized in gang who attack every edits sentences pertinent communist dictator Broz Tito's crimes. These vandals disrupt several articles and always start edit wars and always request check user control for remove many sapient editors as false sock but some admins are confused and ban editor who are not sock. Maybe these vandals are socks too. They are User:DIREKTOR, User:PRODUCER, User:AlasdairGreen27 and User:Kubura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miranovic (talk • contribs)
advice: work in progress no personal attack because I am editing important links for evidence. I adviced two editors and I can continue tomorrow but admin SarekOfVulcan why helps POV DIREKTOR against me? Now I have suspect of bad faith: why SarekOfVulcan removes my sourced contributions?
User:DIREKTOR has recently proposed renaming Communist Romania with arguments that clearly show intention to white-wash Communist rule in Eastern Europe. However, in that case, he is successfully opposed by all users who are not communists (which is the vast majority). Advice: do it calmly, ask for third opinion or/and ask for mediation. If morally the truth is on your side, exploit that in an intelligent way. Remember, if you have anything against communists, the most you can do in WP is prevent their propaganda from spreading around. But you cannot do anything about them as people, even if they are personally guilty, have committed crimes and you can prove this. WP welcomes everybody, fascists and communists alike, monarchists and republicans, liberals and conservatives, socialists and liberal-democrats, honest people and criminals. Comment on content, not on users. It is practically useless to comment on users. You can comment on user's actions, but you have to prove those brake WP rules. Good luck! Dc76\talk17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thing this gross assumption of bad faith by user Dc76 should not be ignored by admins. His above message constitutes a very grave personal attack not against one, but three editors. Also he is clearly showing the way he understands to edit WP: to promote certain political ideologies and to fight others. This can be seen in the linked article, where accusing someone of "intention to white-wash Communist rule" is used as an excuse to ignore and to conscientiously break basic Wikipedia naming guidelines.Anonimu (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh LoLz! xD Its now officially a pattern: if a user accuses me of being a "communist" - he's a sock of some guy I reported. For the record, my restriction is long over, and as it turned out, the other side of the dispute got banned for edit-warring, socking, and POV-pushing. Which, imho, pretty much shows I was dealing with fanatics. :P
Dc76, 1) I have not proposed the move, nor did I have any intention to propose it when a Romanian user did. 2) If I'm a "Communist", why did I argue for the move from "Communist Romania" to "Socialist Republic of Romania"? 3) Such an article renaming is "whitewashing" only in extremely biased eyes, and your post here clearly shows that your vote therein was politically motivated - unlike mine. You were defending "The Moral TruthTM" from "Communist propaganda", weren't you? :)
Disclaimer: for the final time - I am fully aware Wikipedia welcomes communists, fascists, etc. and I am not saying this because I believe otherwise, BUT, I am NOT a communist. Communism is, in my view, a deeply flawed and failed ideology not in touch with Human nature. It is also oppressive and extremely rigid. These guys are just desperately trying to get me banned because they got indef blocked. --DIREKTOR(TALK)20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But I do see a lot of fair use images on user's pages. I think people should start manually removing them per FURG since the bot is not working. miranda16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FairuseBot doesn't handle images in userspace -- it's simply not a fight I want to get involved in. The closest the bot comes to it is that if it finds a non-free image that's used only on a userpage, it will mark the image for deletion as unused. --Carnildo (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the bot which places a big C on copyrighted images in userspace? Can't someone make a clone of that bot to deal with the userspace issues? miranda17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some admin attention could be useful, here, though I'm inclined to speak softly for now. I've left a note asking InternetHero why they seem disinterested in resolving the dispute via consensus. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InternetHero documents InternetHero's long history of POV-waring, uncivil discussion, system gaming, and bad faith reports on other editors (I my self have been a more recent target of a bad faith report). InternetHero has stated several times that he/she edits to promote a POV[127][128]. IMHO any type of discussion is pointless with InternetHero since he/she seems to view discussion as the fig-leaf that covers POV editing, not a way to achieve consensus. I don't know if there is any "administrative" solution to be had here. InternetHero is very straight forward in his/her views, states them up front, and, despite the bad faith edits, does not really go in for more nasty stuff like vandalism or sockpuppet attacks. InternetHero's editing is infrequent and is pretty transparent so it gets ignored or reverted on a regular basses. InternetHero may just be the price of life on a WIKI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An already big problem by misinformation vandal
I don't know if any of you are aware about the Indonesian vandal from the 118.137.x.x and 61.5.x.x/61.94.x.x ranges who ridiculously connected anime titles and MGM and other movie studios has continued his vandalism through other IP ranges (the 118.137.x.x range is currently blocked again, FYI), doing his edits on the very same titles and then some, despite repeated warnings and repeated blocks, all of which went unheeded. Here are the IP addresses he has vandalized from with the bold ones from this week alone:
I won't tell you about the details, but the two archive pages I linked will give you the idea of his MO.
I know a good rangeblock on the 202.70.61.x range will be a good stop-gap solution, but any long term solutions against the vandal are also welcome. This vandal has become a very major headache since he started his rampage on December 2007. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs15:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:65.51.64.34 is a vandalous anonymous IP. The IP has been blocked numerous times in the past several months for short periods, but then carries on per usual. I just reverted changes to the World domination article by this user, and decided to check their recent contributions. Going over the past 8 that have happened in the past several days, all are vandalism. I haven't verified, but I'd assume all the edits by this IP are vandalism. Can we do something about this? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually hadn't noticed the school message. The vandalism has been pretty persistant over the last several days, likely by the same person from that school. Perhaps a temporary 2 day editing block (Without explicitly implying that it is temporary on the talk page) would shift the persons focus away from wikipedia? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've {{schoolblock}}ed for a week - might not even be one vandal, but the accumulated effect of the various vandalous schoolkids in the last few days hasn't been good. If the vandalism comes back again after that block is lifted, we can think about a longer-term anon block - but there have been some minor constructive edits from the school in previous months. ~ mazcatalk22:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Topic Ban of User:DHawker
I have posted this at the admins talk page. My first post was missed (I AGF), and the admin hasn't been on since the second message was posted (14th of September).
User:DHawker was placed up for discussion for block evasion [129]. He was subsequently given an extended block by User:Golbez for evasion of his previous block.[130].
Three days later, User:Matthewedwards came in and applied a further, but unwarranted block that was not agreed upon by two of the four parties in the discussion. This block was against consensus, and even against the requests of the user requesting intervention (User:MastCell), who wanted User:DHawker blocked from the article itself for edit warring.
The punishment does not fit the crime (Nothing has happened on the talk page warranting a topic ban), was not per consensus, and was applied several days after the incident was closed and done with. Please remove the topic ban by Matthewedwards so that the user only has the punishment with consensus applied. Thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards did not block DHawker, he formally imposed a topic ban that was agreed upon by two of the three editors who specifically responded to the ban proposal. A WP:BAN is not the same thing as a WP:BLOCK -- let's keep our terminology clear. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the rather vexed issue of under what exact circumstances an admin can enact a topic ban, and the equally important issue of exactly how such bans may be appealed, and exactly how ME came to this determination: I just happened to notice an unresolved ANI thread and decided to take the time to investigate for an hour or three, from an outside point-of-view. I probably did swallow a ten-cent piece once or twice in my infancy (I'd have to ask Mum, and that was back when they had actual silver in them) and I'm admittedly one of the SPOV-with-appropriate-balance crowd, but they won't let me into the cabal. ;)
I'll stand by my assessment that on balance DHawker has been a net negative at Colloidal silver and a topic ban is a plus for the 'cyclo. However, I'll restate that they should be given a clear path to redemption. Specifically, what goals can they be given to prove that they are able to contribute here in a productive way, such that the topic ban can eventually be lifted? Franamax (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the incorrect use of terminology.
While I will not argue the community's census on preventing further edit warring by blocking DHawker from editing the article, I stand by the belief that the user is constructive more often than not on the talk page.
I think given that the complaint issued was regarding a violation of 3RR, the goal they can be given is to allow access to the talk page, and see if they can constructively assist in the construction of the article without engaging in soapbox behavior or endless repetition of shot-down arguments (which a quick look at the talk page will reveal is not really happening). The editor should be encouraged to branch out and avoid being a single-purpose account, but being an SPA is only discouraged, not prohibited. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could see lifting the talkpage ban in, say, three months, and go indefinite if they continue posting disruptively. Also, I have notified DHawker of this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would agree with 2/0 with the additional requirement that they exhibit a willingness to improve other areas of Wikipedia. When an SPA editor becomes a problem they should be encouraged to "broaden their interests" rather than focusing on a single article. Single article problematic behavior suggests a conflict of interest. Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I admit I am an advocate for colloidal silver and currently an SPA I do object to being called a 'promoter.' Yes my edits have mostly been 'positive' but that has simply been (IMHO) to try and put some balance into an article that was unrelentingly negative. The article already contained just about every possible negative statement that could be made about colloidal silver, and usually those statements were repeated many times throughout the article. I believe all my edits were factual and sourced and had some validity. I never tried to include claims about the theraputic value of colloidal silver or any anecdotal comments such as 'colloidal silver cured my dog'. My 3RR violations came about because my edits were being totally deleted by other editors who were putting in little more effort than a keystroke. Mastcell continuously accuses me of 'watering down' and 'contextualization' but surely thats a matter of opinion. In many cases I could accuse him of the same tactics . Regarding the length of my arguments in the Talk pages, I think this indicates the lengths I have gone to to try and win agreement rather than get involved in edit warring. This is a Fringe topic so expanding the article is not as simple as just citing another PubMed reference. But basically I just ended up arguing with Mastcell and Arthur Rubin who obviously are opponents of colloidal silver so I was rarely making any progress. Fortunately other editors have now become involved with the article so I hope things will improve. I actually welcome this discussion regarding my 'banning' as I hope it will bring closer attention to what is going on at Colloidal Silver. With due respect to Franamax, who has made an effort to understand whats going on, its very difficult to come in late and get the full picture, especially as most of the earlier debates have now been archived or deleted.
I would like to propose this course of action: Ban me from editing colloidal silver for the next three months but let me continue to make suggestions in the Talk pages. If I prove disruptive or abusive then take further action. DHawker (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree that more eyes on colloidal silver would be useful. Single-purpose accounts are not inherently problematic - some of our best articles are written by single-purpose accounts. But a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to promote an agenda at the expense of the site's basic policiesis a problem. I personally feel (as an involved party) that at this point a total ban from colloidal-silver-related pages would be most appropriate. I don't have a problem with setting an expiration date on the talk-page ban, but I would like for there to be some relatively efficient means to re-raise the issue if there has been no improvement.
Regarding a path to redemption, I would strongly recommend editing some other articles to get a better sense of how Wikipedia works, and how its policies are applied. A commitment to 1RR, or at least to avoid edit-warring and utilize dispute resolution, would be ideal if the article-ban is ever lifted. I think that the talk-page issues could probably be solved with more uninvolved input, or if they were decoupled from the edit-warring. MastCellTalk18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason to amend the restrictions, nor any sensible reason to revisit this after the restrictions were enacted from such a recent community consensus. The community view was clear; please move on guys as nothing is going to change for 3-6 months. We don't want to even hear the possibility that you, DHawker, "prove to be disruptive or abusive again"; please eliminate the doubt for us by finding an area you can edit where this problem will not arise to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where to bring this, but when I went to WP:ANI it directed me to WP:BLP at the head of the page. however, I lodged it there earlier today, and have not received any feedback yet, so I am bringing this to ANI attention because I am not sure what the best way of approaching this is, as there may be legal implications (the subject of the BLP says he is consulting his lawyer).
The Anon IP seeking to revert the consensus text Special:Contributions/203.39.47.146 claims to be the subject of the BLP, and I invited him to assist me in improving the article. I first became involved in editing the article as a neutral editor when there was deadlock over how one controversy should be best covered neutrally. Talk:Michael Flood#Blatant misrepresentation I resolved the edit by accurately reporting what was stated in WP:RS, and the dispute over the entry ceased.
The Anon IP Special:Contributions/121.222.114.232 brought the situation to my attention on my talk page on 11th & 12th Sept., and I sought to discuss this on the article talk page. The individual seeks to have the section removed as being undue and because it makes him look stupid (it hinges on an error in a paper he published): Talk:Michael Flood#Partial and biased representation. Having invited him to help ensure the article is accurate and covers other aspects of his work, he has said he is happy to do so, but that he is seeking legal advice. I am seeing this as possibly breaching at least three policies: WP:AGF (against me personally),WP:NLT, and thereby WP:CIVIL. At the same time, I am concerned not to overlook WP:DOLT.
The page was edited in a way that it deflected attempts at turning into an attack page, and retained material in WP:RS that was notable about him. Problem is, from the other side of the world, in figuring out if he is notable enough to warrant a BLP. My preference would be for his biography to be deleted, as he doesn't seem that notable, but that could result in somebody re-creating it as an attack page again. The reason for detailing the events around the contested section was to ensure it was reported accurately, not to make him look stupid, because the text before gave a non-neutral slant that was not WP:NPOV. The view on this edit needs to balanced by his having a COI in an article about him, and some people simply not liking him because of his views. Mish (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is that this isn't an actionable legal threat. There were some problems BLP problms with the article, and he appears to be acting in good faith in trying to get the article cleaned up. 'round here, we tend to take swift and decisive action in response to any mention of the legal process, and that's not something I would expect a newbie to know. He probably shouldn't have mentioned that he was talking to an attorney, but in light of his response to your pointing out the NLT policy [135], I'd take him at his word that he wasn't trying to intimidate anyone... MirrorLockup (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just wasn't sure what to do about it - but I have now had some feedback from BLP and they have suggested some of the material should not be there (no secondary sources), and what does needs to be simplified and dealt with more briefly. Mish (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have received an email from Jw120550 (talk·contribs) in regards to being unblocked, and requesting me to mentor him. Looking over his edits, I see nothing much more than juvenile vandalism, and am inclined to accept barring any other issues I haven't seen. Posting here to get some feedback on whether unblocking is appropriate. \Backslash Forwardslash/ (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more than merely juvenile, it's politically motivated. If you're willing to mentor him, I would be okay with an unblock but only if we can be assured he won't make any edits to articles relating to US federal politics for the next year. This guy goes a long time between periods of editing. Also, I was particularly troubled by the way he refused to answer my question as to why he vandalized. It made me think he's just saying what he thinks he needs to in order to be unblocked. Mangojuicetalk04:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that he would need to not edit anything at all, in either article-space or talk-space, on US federal politics. For at least a year, but I would prefer longer. We should also agree that if he were to vandalise again then an immediate block, without cascaded warnings, would be imposable. On that basis OK give him a last chance, but I also feel that his edits were political rather than juvenile. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"13:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After creating a fork of formal language as formal language (logic), whose merits I won't debate here, User:Gregbard has embarked on an indiscriminate campaign of changing links from the former article to the latter using WP:AWB, even in contexts where these changes aren't even remotely justified, like in mathematics and computer science articles which use the meaning of formal language. I've warned him to stop and revert his changes, but he wants to hear none of it. I'm requesting that his right to use AWB, which he is clearly abusing, be revoked immediately, and if his disruption continues that he be blocked. Pcapping00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be expecting an explicit statement from whatever administrator that responds that I have not done anything wrong. The accusation amounts to his own annoyance and high rhetoric. As far as the "fork" issue is concerned, there is no moral right to that argument. Content has been repeatedly removed, so therefore the article was necessary. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand here is your abuse of WP:AWB to make indiscriminate edits to Math and Computer Science articles, in which you automatically and indiscriminately changed links from formal language to formal language (logic), and later refused to even look over your edits to fix errors. All this is WP:DISRUPTION. Whether we should have two different articles on formal languages as you propose (one form Math/CompSci and one for Logic) is an entirely different matter that should not be debated here. Pcapping01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check every edit before you save it. Make sure you understand the text and have NOT changed the meaning.
Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.
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.
I never said or implied that I wouldn't look at any of my previous edits. If a case is made, I will consider it always. However a blanket demand to revert immediately (which you made) is inappropriate. Your characterization of my actions as "indiscriminate" is not true, does not presume good faith and amounts to high rhetoric like your original threat. I actually edit quite slowly on AWB. Your threat on the other hand was quick, and ill advised. Slow down yourself. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok whether or not those are appropriate is debatable, and you have presented this "incident" as if your opinion is gospel. This is not to say that I won't go along with some of those if they were reverted. I think your whole approach and mind-set is VERY HEAVY HANDED. Also, if I made 52 edits on AWB and Ignored 160 ... that's not indiscriminate. (However, interestingly your accusation of my being indiscriminate was itself indiscriminate since you don't really know what kind of consideration I am giving to each edit --you are presuming.) Slow down yourself. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that AWB only leaves an entirely automated edit summary, I have no idea indeed what consideration you give to your changes. Pcapping02:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as an uninvolved party, it is apparent that all AWB edits made on this matter are inherently "controversial", in that their validity is clearly disputed by a number of editors, either in this thread or at the aforementioned AFD discussion. (I am making no comment as to whether the edits are factually valid or not as I have not investigated). The simple fact is that AWB is explicitly prohibited from being used to make "controversial" edits. Hence using AWB in this fashion is improper. The time spent or consideration made while using is irrelevant, unfortunately.
I would advise you to cease using AWB for any purpose to do with your proposed fork, and to resolve the content dispute first at the relevant talk pages first. Manning (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like to unblock a new user and sooner rather than later, who I think was mistakenly blocked by SarekOfVulcan, but obviously I don't want to undo another admin's action without discussion. There's good faith on both sides. This brand new user made what appears to me to have been a good faith request to remove vandalism as their first edit, which was itself misinterpreted by Sarek as blatant vandalism, which the edit could be mistaken for out of context. The misinterpreted "vandalism" edit can be seen at this diff. Everything else is explained at the bottom of SarekOfVulcan's talk page, who unfortunately appears to have gone offline.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here was that the title he was requesting the move from didn't show up in the page history, so I thought he was pulling a fast one -- I didn't know to check {{Hinduism}}, which is where the vandalism actually happened. I've unblocked and cleared the autoblock: hopefully that will let Elengul edit without problems going forward. Thanks to Fuhghettaboutit for running this down. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If admins are going to use off-wiki discussions to coordinate and collaborate actions, these activities and discussions should be fair game for discussion on Wiki. Transparency and accountability are critically important. Those who refuse to be trustworthy should be desysoped post haste.
I'd like to offer this thread as a chance for any crooked admins to come clean and acknowledge that they haven't been forthright and have been violating the spirit of our policies and the collaborative and collegial nature of this encyclopedia building effort. Those who refuse to do so should be shown no mercy when their activities are discovered. I encourage those with the knowledge and links to do so to post the content from inappropriate discussions on or off wiki so we can root out the corruption. The double standards and sleazy collusion (while telling good faith contributors to discuss things and abide policy) should end now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I assumed you were talking about IRC. I don't use it (I used to, but frankly the admins channel is dead 99% of the time). Soooo .... what are you talking about? Black Kite01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it's necessary to ban IRC channels, but if they are used there should be no restrictions on posting the logs. What objection is there to the light of day being shown on discussion related to article development work? If there's nothing untoward going on then there's no issue. There shouldn't be any teaming up or coordination for editing advantage, as that would be equivalent to socking and meat puppeteering. If there are any real names involved or issues of real life identites being disclosed then redact those parts. But I expect other editors and admins in particular to be transparent in their activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with ChildofMidnight. IRC channels and off-wiki mailing lists have been around since the very beginning. Where there is transparency, inclusiveness and openness there should be no problem. Manning (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT CONFLICT ::In fact, there are a lot of areas on Wikipedia that can only be viewed by administrators, which does lead me to be suspicious of what the administrator's get up to behind closed doors. I have to admit that my trust in the administrators we have now has shrunk so much over the past month or two that I find contributing to the encyclopedia to be a less honorable task as it once was, which has been leading me to contribute less and less. Yes, there are good admins out there, but there also admins who seem to abuse their rights in various ways. I will stop editing if the bad admins out there cannot sort themselves out.--Sky AttackerHere comes the bird!02:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some evidence that Arbcom is willing to be more proactive, so I think that's a good thing. The problem of a workable dispute resolution mechanism for areas of confrontation is also an issue. Arbcom deals (sometimes ineffectively) with behavioral issues, but I've always thought it would be nice have a binding mediation mechanism for content disputes. I believe the issues Russavia is involved in, the issues WMC and SciApologist were caught up in, the disputes over Ireland, and the political feuding could be sorted out if we empaneled a group to consider sourcing and content issues once the existing boards have been exhausted. They wouldn't have to decide every issue, but they could direct and mediate to the appropriate existing venues and make sure article content and sourcing remain the focus so disputes don't deteriorate into bickering. The existing alternative of a time consuming and seemingly endless Arbcom proceeding that only considers editor behavior and not the content seems ridiculous to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)"...these activities and discussions should be fair game for discussion on Wiki." And are they not? Any activity is clearly able to be discussed, I don't think anyone can dispute that - this thread is in-of-itself proof of that. There is however an issue with so-called public logging, considering that what people type on IRC is not inherently released under CC-BY-SA 3, and so quoting an IRC conversation of mine here could be construed as a copyright violation. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)02:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(quote)In fact, there are a lot of areas on Wikipedia that can only be viewed by administrators.(end quote from Sky Attacker).
Um... what? I don't know of any pages anywhere in Wikipedia which have restricted viewing. I'm no techie, but I was under the impression that the Mediawiki software doesn't even support that possibility. (By all means correct me if I'm wrong). Manning (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A volunteer ambulance worker was being berated for being an hour reaching the scene of a wreck, just before dawn. As the ambulance pulled away (she was too tired to drive the ambulance safely, a deputy Sherrif had to do it, and already late for work), she climbed up on he porch and said: You are all 100% correct! It takes too long when I have to drive from home in the south part of the parish to the north part, get the ambulance out, drive to pick up the only other volunteer EMT at his house because he has no car, then drive to the scene of the emergency. The only other @#$% VOLUNTEER driver is down with the flu (but he made the 1st run tonight so I could sleep a couple of hours). And Friday a new VOLUNTEER EMT class starts up. And you can volunteer, and you can volunteer, and you can volunteer, and YOU can volunteer. And then she climbed in the seat of the deputy's car and went to sleep. Aren't we lucky that Adminship doesn't require expensive weeks of training to be even minimally useful?
Clearly the admins need to at least be able to ask one another "Am I hallucinating or did Sinneed just call me an ambulance chaser?" or "God as my witness I hate vandals at 2AM." or, worse "I can't remember rule x, what is it @#$% called?" without people's hair falling out of their collective heads. - Sinneed (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium - you are clearly suicidal. By telling them about the decoder rings you risk them finding out about the secret "super-admin" permission. Only TCTISSTAEMOW can decide who gets to know about such things and I fear they will be coming to punish you soon. Manning (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes aside, there appear to be mailing lists and admin channels. And I've seen pack mentality take place that isn't constructive. Anyway, I mostly wanted to spur discussion. I like the I am Spartacus statement best so far. And we'll see what comes of the Arbcom case just opened. Let's make sure we all look out for one another and keep things collaborative and collegial. The neutral point of view core policy makes clear there are appropriate ways to include diverse viewpoints and opinions. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hunch that if someone contacted everyone who complained about off-wiki cabals, and offered to organize them all into an off-wiki cabal, most of them would join. Then they could have leaked logs of their very own. Wknight94talk04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it looks very much like a communist conspiracy. As we speak they are trying to go after the whistle blowers who uncovered the wrongdoing (related to article content having to do with Russia). Perhaps those who disclosed the impropriety will be quietly sent to the gulag. The Supreme Democratic Committee of Administrators should never be questioned. And outing their indiscretions is a high crime that threatens the foundations of this Federation of States that is Wikitopia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A note. When linking a category or file do like [[:File:File name.jpg]] with the colon right before the file. Otherwise it adds the category or transcludes the image. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three things. The AP has a ...unique...interpretation of fair use that isn't consonant w/ US Law. And wikipedia's "Fair use" guidelines are deliberately much more strict than US Law requires (because we want to actively promote free content as a substitute). And I strongly suggest you simply deal with this through the normal image deletion policies rather than bringing in third parties. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds omnious. I would think the owner ( Chip or the AFP, if chip didn't retain rights) would be primaries, rather than third parties--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the open-mouthed look, resembling a codfish, Wilson appears to be suffering from a bug that a lot of Republicans caught this past year - the dreaded disease called "disenfranchisement", colloquially known as "the outs". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots04:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it -- I'm sure there were cameras all over the place watching the "audience" to get reaction shots, and this one happened to be in the right place at the right time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with IP editor repeatedly hounding me for months
I didn't see your warning before I blocked Julian, and I did so (for three months as the ip appears quite static) for multiple harrassing personal attacks over quite some time as well as numerous other vandalistic edits with a bent toward the homophobic (see e.g., [146]).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, a week is not going to phase the individual harassing me. They only leave these personal attacks on my page about once a month and rarely ever edits between such times. I doubt they will even noticed the block until after it has expired. If there is a way to keep this particular IP from editing my talk page without affecting other IP editors, then that would be the preferable solution. —Farix (t | c) 11:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Prattville, Alabama is being repeatedly edited by an IP (User:98.89.12.105 who is Mtp1960, self-identified as being a principal in the "ourprattville.com" web site. The user in question has added numerous spam links for their site to Wikipedia articles, and has repeatedly reverted against three sysops (myself, AniMate and Mahanga) and two editors (Themfromspace and Baseball Bugs). They remain convinced that their site has a "right" to be mentioned. I've temporarily locked the article, but I'd like fresh eyes to assess the matter. Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy05:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz - your actions seem legitimate and fair. I note the user is now using an account to get around sprotect. I would endorse a 3RR block based on prior activity. If you feel you've intervened enough let me know and I'll come and assist. Manning (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz - I've left an instruction on the talk page to work towards consensus. I'd like to change the protection level back to sprotect if that's OK with you. The user *might* start to be cooperative, and if not then further reversion will be grounds for a block. Manning (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me; the protection was only intended to allow me to place get some feedback here. (I actually went to semi-protection first, but the IP returned to his/her registered account to circumvent that.) Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy06:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - back to sprotect for a month (to stop IP spam). If the user adds the spam link back despite the repeated warnings in then I think a block is well in order. Manning (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The COI is obvious, but I am concerned that these news services might be legitimate. I've gave several options to the user on how to proceed, but it appears they've decided to edit war instead. I just wish that instead of edit warring back, there was some real attempt to engage them and make them understand where we are coming from. AniMatedraw07:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where the IP address (or one of them at least) made their mistake was in spamming that so-called "online newspaper" to other articles (I think Tim Conway was one) in an effort at self-promotion. If it had stayed as solely a link in the Prattsville article, it might have stayed under the radar. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots13:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, efforts to explain the EL guideline have been countered with what are essentially demands to be included, as well as claims that we are questioning their journalistic integrity. --Ckatzchatspy
Noticed this on a friend's talk page. It is obvious the BOT has signed out and it still working. Not sure if it should be blocked until it signs back in or what the procedure for these things is, but I thought I would bring it everyone's attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved admin needed to assess "Future" template discussion
Transcluded notices were added to all Future templates, warning of the deprecation and imminent removal.
User:Drilnoth got approval, and began running, a bot that started systematically removing Future templates from articles.
Some templates were successfully orphaned and tagged with {{deprecated}}, and some were also deleted afterward.
Users not privy to the discussion noticed the bot removal and noted their disapproval at cent, requesting that the bot be halted. These users expressed not only a protest to the decision, but also a general displeasure with the manner in which the proposal was handled.
Bot was halted voluntarily by Drilnoth pending further discussion. Drilnoth collapsed previous discussions and began a new RFC (on the same page). Further discussion ensued.
That's about where we are now, though the discussion has since died down. A common dilemma throughout this process has been the question of whether or not the centralized "deprecation" discussion served as an actual "deletion discussion", or if TFD(s) should be required in addition, following the decision to deprecate. The admin who answers this call will need to provide such an assessment, in addition to providing a general decision as to the outcome of the discussion (ie. whether or not consensus exists to deprecate the templates).
The only value of the {{future}} templates is as a marker for the rampant WP:OR, speculation and uncritical repetition of marketing hype that characterises those articles. So I'll not be getting involved :-) Guy (Help!) 12:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone here? I'd like to have this discussion either continue or end sooner rather than later; the templates all still have their deprecation notices. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mikhailov Kusserow issue
I didn't do anything. I just answered questions on his talk page, that were posted by other users. However, he refers to it as vandalism, and so he puts a warning template on my talk page, without stating a logical reason, so I warned him about the use of such templates.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I twitch just before I make a 3rd-party post on someone's user talk page: Some folks are very sensitive about that. It looks like you may have offended one. But I don't see how it would fall under wp:vandalism. It appears the editor went on a warning-spree that doesn't make much sense. I am interested to see if one of the Admins has an idea how to help here, as I can't see a way. - Sinneed (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that this isn't the first time that Mikhailov has required admin attention:
Mikhailov's contributions seem to consist mainly of posting welcome messages to users and asking for personal information such as where they live. (diff, diff, diff, diff). They're also adding username warnings to various user pages: for examples, see here, here and here. I've contacted Mikhailov about the username warnings (my concern was that they didn't specify what was wrong with the username), but didn't get a response other than Mikhailov archiving my question (maybe due to a language barrier?). I too would like to see if anyone has an idea on how to help get through to this editor. Jafeluv (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted an edit yesterday by this user to Automatic double tracking, which asserted that ADT was "the same thing American engineers had been doing for ten years", and inserted the word "supposedly" into the statement that ADT was developed at Abbey Road Studios. This editor offered no proof of his claims, or documentation to back them up. Not long after, he inserted WP:OR and "synthesis of data" tags onto the same page, asking for references, and left a comment on the article's talk page. I provided the references he requested (happened to have time off work, and the book handy), removed the tags (since there was now documentation), and pointed out that he still hadn't provided any similar grounds for his own claims. (He says he wants "neutrality" for the article, against "worshipers of Beatlemania and Abbey Road"; while I can sympathize with the latter, "supposedly" is hardly a neutral word... it's more of a weasel word, and his general tone is hardly "neutral".)
I just logged in, to find a WP:CIVIL message (my first, in almost five years editing on here) on my talk page from him (and about my edit summary, of all things), and "unverified" tags on each and every header of the ADT article; far more than is called for in such a situation. (Somebody wants to edit-war, and it's not me.) I went to leave a reply at his own talk page... and discovered it was blank, and that he regularly erases messages, warnings, etc., from other editors. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, from here... and life's too short for me to keep dealing with such people. Zephyrad (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the wp:CIVIL violation. I myself have been guilty of the over-flagging thing, and have learned to avoid it...I hope. I did add a {{refimprove}} article flag. There are large chunks of text (entire sections) that are entirely unsourced. - Sinneed (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editor adopting username very similar to mine to spamlink with
This user, a single purpose account promoting Parapsychology, engages in egregious abuse of sources. He came to my attention when I was looking at a long section he added to Parapsychology, a featured article, which contained many surprising claims. When I checked the sources, I discovered a pattern of consistently stating things that went far beyond what the source justified.
The clearest example is probably one where he said two completely different things in different articles, with the same source. One article contained information that completely blew the claim he made in the other out of the water - and he edited the one that showed the other claim false first.,
26 July, at Meta-analysis, he makes the following change
The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. [...]
The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis. . However, the first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extra-sensory perception after sixty years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. G. Pratt, J. B. Rhine, and associates.[3] This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem).
The claim he makes there is probably false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, and lists numerous examples that certainly sound comprehensive, including Pearson's. His cite for the claim is to a conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference - however, more interestingly, he went on to make a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology, which directly conflicts with this. [Emphasis mine]:
[...] A monographic review of the first sixty years of organised parapsychological research has been noted as the first meta-analysis in the history of science; [...]
”
The source for that is: Bösch, H. (2004). Reanalyzing a meta-analysis on extra-sensory perception dating from 1940, the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the history of science. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association (pp. 1-13). Vienna University. I'm afraid I don't have access to obscure conference papers, but the title's addition of "comprehensive" would cast doubt on whether even that paper makes the claim he used it for.
The large table near the top of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1 has full details of a section I analysed in full, and (since he edited it to add such discussion) various responses by him. Some of his points are false, some of his have a grain of truth but are overstated, and others may be true, but cannot be backed by the sources he claims for it, for instance, he uses primary sources to make claims for the historical importance of themselves. I would encourage other people to check other things he has created for accuracy to sources, and see if the results match.
This user has other problems, for instance, his civility issues and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT make him pretty much impossible to talk to. He has also been revert-warring all attempts to fix the articles he created, by me or others. Shoemaker's HolidayOver 206 FCs served12:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably encourage a topic ban, not just the one article. Check his recent history, in which he reverts all attempts to clean up several articles he made. Shoemaker's HolidayOver 206 FCs served12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that he tends to make personal attacks on editors who disagree with him, calling us "pseudo-skeptics" and making statements assuming bad faith.Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully and openly invite reviewers of the above missives to review the edits and discussion of the cited articles. There will be found relatively little from these complainants apart from rapid-fire put-downs, and mostly statements of opinion given up in Edit Summary. Conversely, I have continually opened and invited discussion of all and any substantive issues they would raise; this includes discussion of (autonomous and un-discussed edits of) articles on Displacement (parapsychology), Joseph Banks Rhine, Rene Warcollier, Pavel Stepanek and Joseph Gaither Pratt. I would also invite reviewers to give close attention to the continued efforts by the above editors, acting in a league (cf. the close times between even just the above edits) to eradicate a source of information from WP that conflicts with the position they characteristically advocate. I have continually sought to discuss the issues, without reference to any individual, and always referring to these complainants in the third person, while being obliged by them to address their opinions, offered to us as self-evident fact, of personal reliability. I should think that such a personally targeted campaign, of which the above is but the latest issue, should be beneath the respect of WP editors. I continue to evince a keen intention to discuss the substantive issues, whenever the above complainants offer a point of fact rather than ad hominem slight. --Rodgarton 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example of Rodgarton's NPOV issues: [150]. The only edits not by him have been to add a POV tag, which he reverted. [ETA: It's been edited since then, so I've changed the link to before the editing. --Shoemaker's HolidayOver 206 FCs served] It's pretty much a straight out POV-push, no criticism whatsoever appears, though he does use fringe sources to pre-emptively attack Martin Gardner, without stating Gardner's criticisms.
On the talk page, he writes:
“
The tagger offers the adjectival slight of "fringe sources," "fringe journal," and so on, as sole justification for her/his slight against the information as "biased." There is no point of discussion offered in such adjectives; we can not reasonably be invited to simply juggle adjectives about the sources of knowledge in the encyclopedic representation of knowledge. [...]
Ok, well just to dot the T's and cross the I's I'll give him a second warning. But I can't edit the article any more today so if other interested eyes could take a look, perhaps contribute on talk that would be a good thing.Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess, but Rodgarton's archaic style of prose and inability to comprehend WP policies could indicate that English isn't his primary language. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to reiterate my proposal for a temporary topical ban; the issues need in the first instance to be kept out of mainspace. If he continues to make problems through talk page interactions then some other sanctions may be necessary, but I would think a topic ban of some sort would gain consensus based on what I've seen of his editing history. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, if you imposed a topic ban of any sort, there would be no objections from me (or anyone else for that matter). That said, I agree with Juliancolton - a longer block (a week?) would be more useful as a temporary measure to minimise the overall disruption he's caused/causing, and it also works to give the community some time to consider where to go from here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that I am being trolled by an admin, I am not saying they are a troll, they may very well just be having a bad hair day and are an otherwise good admin (I do not know him at all, first time meeting the admin). A bit of background, I had to along with others request an arbcom due to years of drama on ADHD articles by user scuro. This resulted in policies, including no incivilty and no personal attacks being passed by arbcom as well as other editing restrictions on scuro. I saw what I deemed a personal attack on ADHD talk page, it was in response to another editor (Doc James) but was aimed at other editors as well. I thought about going directly to arbcom and requesting enforcement but then thought, nah I will just send a warning template first, I don't want to go running to arbcom enforcement for every violation. I hoped my level 4 warning template would do the trick. Instead I got 2 disruptive editors for the price of 1 sadly, as one admin showed up and said "it wasn't a "personal attack", anyway I disagreed. I expected the conversation on my talk page to quickly fizzel out, with us agreeing to disagree but sadly this admin is just going off the deep end. I have requested 3 times for them to leave my talk page now and they refuse. They are now resorting to the level of twisting facts, quoting people out of context to "win an argument". I am getting messaged multiple times daily now, message after message. I find them obsessive and to be quite honest displaying similar behaviour to problem editors that I would usually end up reporting to admin noticeboard or getting into drama with. Basically the issue really is beyond the point of whether I "should have went straight to arbcom enforcement" and was wrong (to be nice) and give them a warning first or whether I was correct or wrong in interpreting comments as a personal attack. The issue is that I am actually now being trolled and harassed by an admin and I would like the people/admins here to basically just say stop harassing literaturegeek, let it go, leave him alone, stop making a mountain out of mole hill etc. This is the first time to my knowledge that I have had to report an admin and do not like to do so but I can just see the signs that I have seen in other disruptive editors I have dealt with in the past and would like someone to put a stop to it. My evidence links are here.User_talk:Literaturegeek#I_have_requested_administrator_Xeno.27s_help_with_regards_to_your_threats I would rather deal with the initial seperate drama via reopening arbcom (if that becomes necessary) rather than here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to state that at this point I DO NOT want admin Frank blocked, unless it is just blocked from my talk page. I have no gripe with him, I do not know him, I just want him to go away is all and let the subject drop. I am tired of being harassed over and over again over what is in reflection a trivial argument over a subjective interpretations of what is or is not a personal attack. It is at the point of craziness please intervene.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LG, perhaps just simply archiving that discussion on your talk page would work? Not sure anything more productive is going to come from it. While I'm a bit surprised Frank (normally pretty laid back, IMHO) hasn't respected your three clear requests to stay off your talk page, you're replying to him and then requesting he stay away, and sometimes it's hard for imperfect humans to leave things alone when that happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fluoquen, that is a good idea and I think any future comments made by admin Frank that I will just ignor. On my second attempt to get him to leave my talk page,[151] I specifically worded my response in a way not to invite more debate and gave him a "carrot" by suggesting that we agree to disagree and part company. As it was an admin and has administrative powers and influence I felt compelled to respond.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's far too much wall-of-text to expect poor uninvolved people to wade through it all, but at a glance I see some unreasonable behavior on your part. I would suggest just letting this drop, and refraining from giving editors warnings in the future. You don't appear to know when a giving warning is or is not appropriate. If there's a real problem, someone else will come along and deal with it. Friday(talk)15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your views. I have used the twinkle tool on a daily basis thousands of times without problems. I will avoid in future all warnings for scuro however and just request his immediate block on arbcom enforcement. I feel being a nice guy and giving a warning first is not worth all of the drama. Friday and manning you are not familar with the arbcom or the situation on the ADHD talk pages. I understand and appreciate that you both cannot wade through mountains of text or arbcom evidence and findings. That is why I specifically requested intervention regarding why an admin will not let this drop and what I can do when an admin who I do not know has taken an intense displeasure of someone disagreeing with them to the point of harassing me. I did not want any admin to do a reassessment of the arbcom findings and the drama on ADHD talk pages. I must say I disagree that uninvolved admins are going off-topic and passing judgements on ADHD drama which is covered by arbcom. I will go back to arbcom if that area needs covering as they are familar with the background and have enforcement policies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?15:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Frank's initial point was correct; while Scuro's comment included a characterisation that you reject, I don't think it was a personal attack per se and clearly it did not warrant the template warning given. Inaccurately weighted warnings are a problem when using the pre-loaded Twinkle options, but there are multiple levels and Twinkle (and other tools) make it abundantly clear that you are solely responsible for your edit. No harassment has occurred that I can see. Having said that, I'm not sure why the conversation continued much beyond that and it seems clear it doesn't need to go any further. Archiving the section and moving on is the right way to go. Nathan T 15:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frank's initial comment about it being not technically a personal attack may have been correct who knows, subjective. That is not the problem. The harassment may not be the best description but problem was not leaving talk page after several requests and my suggestion to agree to disagree and also and most importantly Frank resorting to quoting out of context people, knowingly posting very dishonest interpretations of the situation to make me look bad. Essentially being very dishonest to my face knowing full well that I knew he was being dishonest, this was very antagonistic especially from a complete stranger, this was the issue. It is being discussed in the below section.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Been reading this and felt the need to interject. When you continue responding to a discussion and don't like the result in the end, that's not harassment. It's just a discussion that didn't go the way you planned, and the other guy just won't see how wrong he is. There are no extra rules for admins concerning how reasonable and agreeable they have to act towards those they argue with, so you won't get any leeway just because the user you're arguing with is an admin. His "interpretation" of the situation probably seems about as "dishonest" as yours does to him. If you feel annoyed by the discussion, there's no need to ask the user to leave your talk page. Simply stop responding, archive the discussion, and be done with it. If he then continues to post to your talk page regarding the same issue, that might be a reason to come here and complain. Equazcion (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. I did continue to respond after asking him to leave. Ignoring him would probably have been a better move. In the past I have had problematic editors on my talk page and I just undid (removed) their edits from my talk page. I felt doing this in this instant could have backfired as he was an admin.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(sub-heading used because I'm responding in general, not to the comment directly above)
My opinion of the edit that led me to LG's talk page hasn't changed one bit; it was an inappropriate warning. I generally don't think that "leave my talk page alone" is sufficient answer to "your warning was inappropriate" because it doesn't address the core issue of civility. However, I've said all I needed to at the page - and, perhaps, more.
Having said all that, I hope, LG, that you understand that me being an admin has nothing to do with this. Nowhere did I threaten you, and nowhere did I assert or even imply that what I was saying had more merit because I'm admin. I made my comments purely as a member of the community, which is what all of us (admin and otherwise) are expected to do. If you perceive otherwise, please re-evaluate without attaching any ulterior or power-hungry motives to my actions. I never escalated, and I never brought my status as an admin into the picture, and I never said anything remotely like "you'd better agree with me or else". That would be highly inappropriate. Instead, I've tried to get you to see not my point of view, but the community's point of view on the matter. Indeed, I actually asked you to provide support for your assertion that it was a personal attack, giving you the opportunity to show me where my interpretation of community values is incorrect. I have steadfastly declined to investigate past drama and have also declined to ask anyone else to support my point so I could say "see?", and I have also avoided looking into your past edits. Those things would be harassment; none of my actions fit that profile. Frank | talk 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to agree here with Frank that "leave me alone" is a useless, inappropriate response. Anyone who says such things is probably not well suited to a collaborative project. I don't believe Frank's actions were out of line in this case. Friday(talk)15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I start off by saying that I DO NOT care if scuro made a personal attack or whether it was "technically just uncivil or inappropriate. I do not want Frank or anyone else to divert this conversation off-topic. This is what I mean, he has resorted to levels of twisting facts, this is what I mean by saying he is being antagonistic, harassing (perhaps there is a better word for it) and disruptive. He states that my response to him disagreeing with his interpretation of the situation was to tell him to go away. Nope, that was my response to him resorting to twisting facts,[152] to imply I sent a warning because an editor requested consensus and NPOV. He had resorted to being nasty resorting to dishonesty, that was why I asked him to leave. I politely engaged him at first. More to come...--Literaturegeek | T@1k?16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok to address the rest of Frank's comments. Actually Frank I DO see your point of view. Your interpretation of the situation was it was not a personal attack, but was more an uncivil or inappropriate comment? At least Xeno saw it that way and you didn't disagree. My point of view arbcom passed a dual motion of no personal attacks or uncivilness, there is an enforcement block for violations (although I am not completely sure if personal attacks OR uncivilness is blockable by them would have to confirm).
My point and PROBLEM is NOT that we disagree about subjective interpretations of demeaning comments, my problem with you is that you have on several occasions escalated the situation by twisting facts, quoting out of context and just generally being nasty. THAT is my problem, not to mention suggesting that we agree to disagree and asking you to leave my talk page and you ignoring my request to agree to disagree. It was the form of lying, distorting what issues were, quoting out of context people to "win an argument". I cannot deal diplomatically with people who resort to these tactics. Can you not see my point of view that resorting to dishonesty is very antagonistic? Please address this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Friday, according to a wiki tool, you have edited just under 100 of the pages that Frank has edited so I would consider that you have a conflict of interest as far as Frank goes and you may not have a neutral interpretation of this situation. He is also a fellow admin. I am not criticising you at all, I myself have sometimes commented in drama situations where I probably wasn't neutral, none of us our perfect and I could be entirely wrong about you being friends with frank, so please do not take offense. Just saying I am not comfortable is all. Hope you understand.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Friday, according to a wiki tool, you have edited just under 100 of the pages that Frank has edited so I would consider that you have a conflict of interest as far as Frank goes and you may not have a neutral interpretation of this situation." - Sorry, but this means nothing at all. Friday and Frank are both admins, so obviously they're going to edit the same pages (RFA, ANI, RFPP, AIV, etc). –Juliancolton | Talk16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point in saying that Friday and Frank have edited a lot of the same pages? Are you accusing them of colluding with each other, or of being sockpuppets? Warofdreams, the closing bureaucrat on Frank's Request for adminship, has edited 110 of the same pages as Frank has. Would you consider him to be "too close" to Frank to be impartial? Are you planning on demanding that Frank stand again for RfA because the closing bureaucrat has a conflict of interest with him? Because by your definition, Warofdreams has more of a COI than Friday, who has 98 pages in common. J.delanoygabsadds16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J Delanoy and Redvers, I was not making an assertion but a suspicion. My whole post also said this, I am not criticising you at all, I myself have sometimes commented in drama situations where I probably wasn't neutral, none of us our perfect and I could be entirely wrong about you being friends with frank, so please do not take offense. Just saying I am not comfortable is all. Hope you understand. I thought that I worded it in such a way that I was not casting judgement on them or accusing them of being a bad person. I have never met Friday before so it would be impossible for me to judge them. I was just trying to say that I felt uncomfortable. Friday has posted on my talk page and I would like to publicly state that I do not believe Friday and Frank know each other and have said sorry to Friday.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I can see admin board discussion is not going to address my complaints. I just wanted to be left alone by Frank. I believe that this posting on the admin board has achieved that objective. I never did want any of the admins here to take any administration action against Frank.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want admin action, then ANI is probably not your forum. As it says at the top, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." If you think you're dealing with harassment and you can't resolve it in conversation with the other user, WP:WQA may be a better place to go. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt admins could help as far as just requesting Frank to respect requests for him to leave me alone after he had made his point multiple times. Thank you for your suggestion moon. Perhaps WP:WQA would have been better.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rejace3836 was blocked for being a vandalism only account. She claims to be an actor by the name of Jalen Carter [153], and takes an interest in horror films, specifically Saw VI. There were blocked after several vandal edits, including personal attacks. It appears that they are back as Jigkiller3836, first creating a page for Saw VII [154] then creating an article about Jalen Carter, and now posting at the Saw VI talk page. Thus far they have not done anything as bad as they did under their previous account, however they are evading a block. After three years I'm still not up on the ins and outs of a block but I was always lead to believe that block evading is a blockable offence, however innocuous the new edits are. If someone could let me know what the lay of the land is, or warn the new version of Rejace3836 I would appreciate it. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is obnoxious and uncalled for but seems more like a WP:CIVIL than a WP:NPA problem. In any event, I doubt it rises to the level of blocking by itself. However, the general pattern of behavior by Off2 is clearly very less than idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything in that comment remotely requiring any form of action. The linked comment was "you seem focused on A ... do you happen to be A?" It's likely rhetorical, but not a vio of WP:NPA or even WP:CIVIL from what I can see. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EC. It is a bit much to come rushing here for this simple question. It is also not disruptive or obnoxious. I have been asked to declare my interest in topics before and I have been asked if I have any other accounts, both questions I have answered and it is overly senstitive imo to come rushing here to report an editor after being asked Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a few interactions with RioRob. He has made rough comments about my conduct. He is willing however to explain himself in a reasonable manner. Maybe a smoother touch would be helpful but thus far I've seen quite a few admirable qualities in this editor, including the ability to help out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's nothing actionable here. Off2 isn't being the most diplomatic, but it's not egregious. He asked a question.. one he apparently thinks is relevant. You may choose to answer it, or not. Friday(talk)15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also request that there is no reason to actually bring this here that this not develop into a general discussion about me and I would politely request it to be closed and if any editor would like to discuss my editing they could open a RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would like to think that if I had problems with your editing, that I would discuss it on your talkpage - that's what it's for, and the first place before WQA, ANI or even RFC. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt's reaction is understandable and Off2riorob might not have been aware of the context. Cirt is very protective of his pseudonymity: he previously abandoned an account and restarted due to legitimate fears of offsite harassment. Rob asked Cirt whether he was Rick Ross; Rick Ross edits Wikipedia under his real name. Cirt is not Rick Ross. Most people seek to truncate a sensitive discussion when the opening query accuses them of obsession. Rob may not have realized he was opening a cupboard that had several cans of worms on a low shelf. Durova31916:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad there is a reason for it. Do you think posting that would be the smartest thing here? If there are people trolling and they possibly don't like Cirt we would be setting him up to go through it all again. I am very sensitive to somethings though so you made a great point aside from that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read his mind, but it seems possible that might have a bearing on why he would take a hard line on WP:OUTING. Both Cirt and Rick Ross were parties to that arbitration so your question was tantamount to asking whether he had socked an arbitration case. Not sure whether you were aware of that; the case grew so long and tangled that it's almost unreadable. Durova31917:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not on my mind, it was just a feeling and it was in my mind and I asked, I have seen other editors ask these type of questions on talkpages and thought that it was ok to ask.Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the spelling problems in the disputed comment troublesome, and yet we're not supposed to refactor. Such are the trials and tribulations of Wikipedia. Do they have deprogrammers that can help with this addiction? Rick, are you reading this??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also involved in editing the page. I think it's pertinent to point out that while there is one editor who has openly admitted a conflict of interest (and this has been handled perfectly well) he has suggested that there is more than one editor with a COI, and that (in a comment he later said was a joke and withdrew after Cirt complained to him) Cirt was editing on behalf of the COI editor. The apology factored as part of rob's talkpage is here.I don't think rob is trying to uncover anyone's real world identity; he's just not happy that consensus has gone against him and is carping. He simply doesn't like that the article exists.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have attracted my own WikiHound. User:Opensource4ever's account was created two days ago, and his only edits have been on otherwise unconnected pages edited by me, on which he has reverted my edits, including twice restoring copyvio material (despite a request on his talk page to discuss edits), and his latest edit is to insert the word "banana" in Cavalié Mercer, a clear case of vandalism. I am reluctant to engage further with this person or to revert his latest edits, as I fear that will just provoke further stalking. I assume that the user is a sockpuppet. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Opensource4ever is basically a vandalism-only account that defends and inserts copyvio. User hasn't posted for four three hours, and has received the appropriate notifications on the user and article talk pages from multiple users/administrators, but if it shows up again with the same song and dance, I would request an indefinite block. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear administrators, I am not sure if the following is more appropriate for the sockpuppetry or vandalism admin board and so am bring it here. Anyway, please compare the following:
As seen above, an IP and now account are making the same kind of "she is hot" edits to the same articles and even after multiple warnings. I appreciate attractive women as much as the next guy, but even if the claim that these women as "sexy" or "hot" is something we can agree on, we still cannot just add our opinions over and over, with swearing, poor grammar, etc. That it seems to be the same person from IP to account, I bring it forth here for admin attention should the individual do additional IP/account hopping. Please help! Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the user just decided to sign up for an account. That in itself isn't against the rules. He or she probably did not see your warning to the IP due to creating the account. I would just treat the user like any other vandal, warn then block. If the user returns as a sock, we can deal with it then. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above user, User:Sarah777 has been making a series of disruptive moves without consensus. She started at M1 motorway, moving it to various pages without understanding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which resulted in me starting a WP:RM discussion on her behalf, which has now closed in opposition of the move. Now she has moved on to M2 motorway moving it to M2 motorway (United Kingdom) with no consensus, again blatantly ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I request that some action be taken against this user, and that an administrator move the article back pending a proper RM discussion. She has also tried a similar edit war at M50 motorway, this time with redirects.
Her conduct in discussions on these topics both on article talk pages and on her own talk page has been far from civil and constructive, and instead turned in many cases to attacking "British Editors" Jeni(talk)23:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not give her the right to go around moving articles without consensus or following procedure, especially when an identical move request was being strongly rejected over at M1 motorway. Or messing around with dab pages despite the points i mentioned before. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion other than a personal attack? I've never seen you edit any roads articles either (and given I'm heavily involved in the UK roads articles I think I'd notice) Jeni(talk)23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to add perspective, I think that is good faith. Maybe you are making a personal attack, but I won't accuse you. Tfz23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before this descends further into snipes and bickering, let me say I fail to see what positive role administrators could have in this situation. Content disputes belong at WP:DR, civility inquiries at WP:WQA. If you feel this is a longstanding pattern of unhelpful conduct on the part of the editor, a Request for Comment might be productive. I'm not sure there's anything needing to be hit over the head with a blunt object, but if such a need emerges, come back here. Skomorokh 23:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her AntiBritish POV pushing but she makes such comments on talk pages across wikipedia. Theres certainly a pattern! lol. However if admins are unable to get involved in this, we should just restore everything to before Sarah started making the changes and oppose the changes on talk pages if she seeks to make them again. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It is an issue with a user who refuses to gain consensus, who has been bought up here multiple times, has been at arbcom. I'd say this is certainly an administrator issue, as administrator action needs to be taken. I have had to start *another* RM discussion on her behalf because she seems to think she is above gaining consensus. Jeni(talk)23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - it's a content dispute. Follow BritishWatcher's suggestion; WP:BRD, people. If there are civility problems (and I've yet to see any diffs) then this isn't the place to deal with them. See the menu titled "Please select the closest request from the following categories." when you edit? That links you to places to go for these problems, none of which are AN/I. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No incivility. We either have standards in regard to naming conventions or we don't. Seeking "consensus" merely leads to the British editors imposing their parochial pov; pointless exercise. We need to adhere to some naming conventions. While I have (reluctantly) backed off the M1; the notion that the M2 and every other British instance is the "primary" use, when a dozen countries (including minor states like Russia!) use 'M' designation for motorways, is pure and manifest chauvinistic pov. There really is no argument about this and "votes" are utterly pointless given the ratio of British to Irish editors on Wiki. WP:NPOV is a policy or it is a joke. Simple as that. Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how Sarah sees gaining consensus as a pointless exercise the perhaps this is a behavior issue that admins do need to take a look at. Chillum01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that a closer reading of Sarah's statement is not an objection to "gaining consensus" per se, but the use of votes to do so.
Regrettably, imo, voting is used to settle issues, this is described a "gaining consensus", a description which I consider to be a misnomer.
There are far more UK editors than Irish. Therefore to use votes to settle an issue is a pointless exercise - it is a foregone conclusion.
It is unfortunate when the search for a logical or correct solution is ignored; when seeking to understand other arguments and views is abandoned, in favor of a majority POV masquerading as consensus ClemMcGann (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move discussions are not votes. They are not judged on strength of numbers, but strength of argument. Any admin that does a bare headcount without weighing up the arguments is not doing their job. Similarly, closing a debate in favour of a weaker argument supported by a majority is wrong. In the case of the M1, the argument that prevailed was that the pageview statistics showed a clear primary topic, the opposing view was that this was "British POV", which was unsubstantiated. I suspect the reason this was brought to the attention of administrators was nothing to do with the actual articles concerned, but that when User:Sarah777 didn't get her way with the M1 group, she proceeded to move the M50 articles to mirror the scenario, and that having been brought to task over both of these, she continued this pattern of disruptive behaviour. It's been said before that we expect both good contributions and good behaviour, and that excelling in one does not excuse users from the other. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest bringing the issue up in the most neutral way possible on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard to get outside input. This does indeed appear to be a content dispute over naming. Surely there are experienced editors who have worked through similar issues and know the proper way to determine whether something is a primary name or needs to be disambiguated with other subjects of the same name. Good luck. I also support blocking Chillum. I didn't like his comment. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to submit a suspected sockpuppet but I thought it was important enough to submit this one here because User:Bcs09 appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Chanakyathegreat, who was blocked indefinitely after a long history of very disruptive behaviour. This case is based on judging by both accounts have an almost identicle edit history pattern, both have the same arguments with the same editors, both have the same edit wars, and the creation of the User:Bcs09 account was just after the indefinite block of the User:Chanakyathegreat account. 81.170.18.20 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BertramJohnson (talk·contribs) was repeatedly creating a bio of himself. Although there were several warnings on his Talk page, nobody sat down and actually told him about WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:RS. By the time I got involved and explained that to him, he was blocked. I know he was given a final warning, but he did seem to be reaching out to people to ask why he couldn't have a bio. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only moderately likely candidates for this area would be JuStar and Petergriffin9901. This doesn't feel much like JuStar: JuStar was big on detailed citations to garbage sources: generally one-off references to obscure music charts. His big trademark was edit-warring: if you moved a comma, he'd move it back. I'm mentoring Petergriffin9901, and believe him to be reformed. 豪庸 (Goyo, if you will) doesn't edit war and doesn't fight. He just silently inserts errors into articles.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally gave him a final final warning to quit and explain himself (I also notified him of the discussion here while I was at it) upon threat of a block if continued. MuZemike01:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it matter if they "time out". If someone stops vandalizing without being blocked, then what is the need for a block anyways? --Jayron3206:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have used the term "stale". After awhile the reports just become "stale" or "time out" and blocks aren't given, but it leaves the vandals room to come back in an hour or two and keep on vandalizing. It is better, in my opinion, to block them immediately and not let AIV get backed up, then to give them a free pass on the vandalism they have committed. That is just me though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I bring this matter to the attention of my esteemed colleagues so that the party I've blocked has fair audience. I have blocked Calton(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log), and notified the editor here. While calling another editor a nitwit is hardly the most egregious of things, I believe that this is totally unacceptable. For those of you not familiar with the term "rider of the short bus", it is slang for calling a person mentally retarded. (see here). There are two reasons that I bring this before my peers: 1.) It is always possible that I'm unaware of something that may have a bearing on the situation, and 2.) I will be out of town for some period today, and away from the keyboard for periods of time. As always, an administrator that feels any modifications to my actions would be of benefit to the project, is free to make them at their own discretion. I'll hold no judgment on any admin acting in good faith for the betterment of the 'pedia. I'll also make note of this post on the editor's talk page. Thank you for your time. — Ched : ? 11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've unblocked Calton to participate in this discussion, and notified User:JohnHistory of the thread after input from a couple respected editors that may feel I was not being fair to all sides. I believe the block was good, but since another admin. has questioned it on Calton's talk page, and there is a concern here, then I respect the views of the community and have no desire to apply my actions unfairly. I've notified both users of this thread, and hope the community can assist in this matter. Either way, this disruption and these personal attacks must be brought to a halt. Thank you for your support Manning, and thank you for keeping an eye on things while I must be away. I'll check back in as soon as possible. — Ched : ? 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block per Viridae; but I don't see any reason why he should've been unblocked when transclusion templates exist. In any case, this long term problem needs to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My only recollection of dealings with Calton was regarding the NeutralHomer incident from a couple of days ago - at that point, he seemed to clearly misunderstand the nature of mental illness, and felt it to be "fair game". I sadly am not surprised by this action. Unfortunately, a good block. Passion is good - incivility towards invisible disabilities is not. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, pardon the non-logged in post, I'm not on my PC, and not in a secure location. Yes, when there were questions brought forth about the appropriateness of the block, then I did unblock because I'd rather error on the side of being fair, and allowing explinations. I will revisit this and review the info when I return home later tonight. Thank you all for your input, and I appreciate the community's indulgence in the matter. {{User:Ched Davis|Ched]] 173.88.220.161 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Desk vandalism
I collapsed an entirely inappropriate post by IP address 70.171.239.21 on the Humanities Desk, "Irish vs Germans in America", on the grounds that it was soapboxing, trolling and using the Reference Desk as a discussion forum. The user has twice reverted this and accused me of vandalism in doing so [166].
Note that he brings up User:Taxa, who has recently returned to the Ref Desk making disruptive posts that are extremely similar in tone and content to those by IP 70.171... I believe that this IP address very likely to be Taxa himself. His own IP address is in the range 71.1* and he has been caught in the past using a false signature to disguise this (ie normal text formatted to resemble a Wiki signature) [167]. He has twice reverted my efforts to collapse his trolling thread on the Humanities desk about "Irish vs Germans in America"; I have no intention of breaking the three-revert rule to deal with him, so I'd request an immediate ban on the IP address, and sanctions of some sort to be taken against User:Taxa. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref. desks aren't articles, they're just ref. desks, so simply not responding is a better approach than deletion. But silly me, assuming more good faith than is warranted, I keep hoping an actual question will emerge from those lengthy essays. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots12:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody has an answer to what I have asked, which is not ad hominem (re: above nonsense from those two), but simply academic, then the discussion will cease, as I will have understood with more clarity, the topics raised. I have no perennial interest in the subject matter. It's just unresolved questions I can't seem to get straight answers on, especially if I asked directly of some people who are at the center of my scrutiny in the issues. I'd rather not provoke belligerent people. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and neutral, but all I am getting here is misdirection and ad hominemism which doesn't address the issues referenced, so much as call foul on the individual with a "stupid question". I may be stupid, but the questions are not...or at least that's what my old schoolteachers used to tell everybody in the classes I went to. So, perhaps there are too many non-academically, non-intellectually, non-philosophically inclined people, such as Malcolm XIV and Baseball Bugs, who don't have the answers and instead of leaving well enough alone, decide to crap on the person who might get better replies from more knowledgeable scholastics here.
The above, unsigned as usual, is typical of the kind of meaningless rant the IP posts on the ref. desks, containing no discernible question, just a lengthy and obscure essay. And when we ask him to actually ask a factual, answerable question, he acts upset. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots12:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you address me without being negatively ad hominem? What specifically have I stated that upsets you? Are you a German who fancies himself nativist? Do you take offense to the rise of Irish Catholics in America? Please be honest why you oppose my questions, or I shall assume that is the cause of your belligerence.
This looks like another sockpuppet of the reference desk sockpuppeteer (forgotten the name now, but I've dealt with a few relevant SPI cases). Blocked. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think talking to TAXA would be the best way to proceed, either on their talk page, or the ref desk talk page. As I recall all their posts haven't been half as soapboxy as the recent ones.
I think we need a prescribed method of dealing with soapbox type questions (not deletion since that causes hassle), but some closing method. Please discuss on the ref desk talk pages.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do about the comment left by this user here: Talk:Igor_Panarin#The_main_author_of_this_article_and_the_article_whose_contents_you_deleted_received_a_last_warning_before_his_banning_or_blocking. It should probably be removed, but it's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy and will probably lead to further problematic behaviour. The editor doesn't seem to understand wikipedia (calling the view that American's visited the moon "[my] pet theory" - I'm not American by the way!) Anyway, I find his comment a bit disturbing, and inappropriate - and it does actually leave me worried for him. Maybe leaving wikipedia would be good for him, but I'm involve and not an admin. Fresh eyes, advice, opinions, etc might help or find a solution. Cheers, Verbalchat12:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Bulgarian writer with the unpronouncable Cyrillic name is a conspiracy theorist, and essentially booted himself off the Apollo moon hoax article since consensus was against him. He's mostly flown under the radar with this pet article of his about this Igor Panarin who thinks the U.S. will go the way of Yugoslavia next year. Now that the article is getting some scrutiny, he's not happy about it. The connection between those articles is something he kept saying on the Apollo hoax page, that somehow this impending collapse would reveal "the truth" about Apollo - a comment that's the hallmark of someone who does not understand wikipedia's role. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template is currently indef-protected. The admin protecting it is the primary author and editor. Protection was done on the grounds of WP:HRT. The template currently has fewer than 500 transclusions, and doesn't appear to have ever been the subject of vandalism itself. Requests on the talk page have been declined, met with a rather long response from the protecting admin - as a result, a request on RFPP has been going stale, with the outside admin stating that the page should not be protected, but declining to action it. There has been no sign of an edit war, and there is no indication that one is about to begin.
Can you all tone down his language and possible misuse of multiple dynamic IPs (173.*.*.*) and maybe others? I think, now, I recognize it when I see it. Also, he's been called on his language before. -MBHiii (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^Bösch, H. (2004). Reanalyzing a meta-analysis on extra-sensory perception dating from 1940, the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the history of science. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, University of Vienna, (pp. 1-13)
Resolved
Facepalm Beta, I'm not taking sides here. But this is really splitting a fine enough hair, I think you're asking for trouble. Trying to find a loophole here is just going to stir up more drama. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Doing... with AWB. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Done, save for some false positives and legitimate uses. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved
