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)
Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts
Wikifan12345 is a disruptive and tendentious editor who exclusively edits Israel/Palestine articles from a pro-Israel perspective. Full disclosure: I've had problems with him/her in Israeli Settlement but I've also noticed him causing problems in 1948 Palestinian exodus and Mohamed ElBaradei, the latter in which he has continually refused to accept a consensus against including a section about Israel. He pushed the issue to mediation and then refused to accept the outcome after the mediator told him to accept the consensus.
I noticed on his userpage ([1]) that he has listed 3 accounts under the heading R.I.P. (meaning rest in peace, one would assume). The 3 accounts are pro-Israel accounts (Malcolm Schosha, Tundrabuggy, Jayjg) that have been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules.
Tundrabuggy was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting after they evaded detection for 10 months during a 1 year ban on their original account (Dajudem) that resulted from CAMERA fiasco.
Malcolm Schosha was blocked indefinitely after a number of virulent personal attacks against pro-Palestinian editors.
The fact that this user has created a memorial for a number of blocked users shows that he is not going to accept community standards, and that he regards Wikipedia purely as a battlefield rather than an encyclopedia.
This also raises the question of whether Wikifan12345 is a sockpuppet of one of these banned accounts or is a CAMERA meatpuppet.
Halfacanyon (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan12345 is evidently not in the same time zone as any of the other three editors. It's usually a good idea to check such things before making public accusations. HansAdler15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I also believe Wikifan12345 is in some way connected to CAMERA and User:Tundrabuggy/User:Dajudem. The CAMERA accounts were uncovered in April 2008 in part thanks to work by ChrisO. On May 28, the person behind Dajudem, one of the CAMERA accounts, started editing as Tundrabuggy. She made a beeline for an article ChrisO was working on, Muhammad al-Durrah, and proceeded to cause trouble for him there. Ten days later, on June 7, Wikifan12345 was created, and similarly headed for articles ChrisO was active on, Muhammad al-Durrah and Pallywood.
Both accounts are extremely pro-Israel; both use poor sources, including blogs and partisan websites; and both make a habit of reverting anything they don't like. I've not looked carefully through the accounts yet, and wouldn't have posted this unless it was being mentioned already, but given that it is, the suspicion is worth adding here. SlimVirgintalk|contribs05:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, that's very a inflammatory accusation and as an admin I expect you to back up your claims. If you think I'm some propaganda appendage of CAMERA, prove it. I've been involved in many subjects on wikipedia and a majority of my edits have been restricted to talk and collaboration discussions. Slim has been following me around to various articles, almost to the point of stalking. I suggest you file an ANI because I am truly tired of you inserting defaming language into discussions unabated. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following you around, though if I had, it'd be perfectly justified, given your tendency to use random websites as sources in contentious history articles, where only academic historians can be used safely. In fact, I rather think it's you who may have been following me; your throwing yourself into the Nicholas Beale debate to oppose me (see the deleted talk page) was somewhat surprising. Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you. I've said what I think. I could be wrong, of course. SlimVirgintalk|contribs06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random websites? Hardly. If you are referring to the Palestinian exodus, I provided 3 certified-academics. I do not have a history of relying on blogs or bogus sites to support information. I had a genuine interest in Nicholas Beale and has absolutely nothing to do with you. If you are going to dig through my edits 1 year ago, misconstrue conflicts with User:ChrisO (who is no longer an admin), imply I am a sock of Tundra/Dajudem and was party to the Wikipedia/CAMERA conspiracy, and then say you are "not going to argue" is nothing short of bizarre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of you using an essay by a lecturer in social work posted on an Australian-Jewish website for some highly contentious material about the Palestinian exodus; and you edit warred to keep it in. When I asked you who the source was, you didn't at first know. There are plenty more examples like that. SlimVirgintalk|contribs07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in the talk, Mendes is a published author having written several books on Israel, is a lecture at a major University in Australia, and is a member of notable Jewish magazines. You claimed he was neither of those things, and repeatedly asked "Who is he?" in talk. And no, I did not edit war to keep it in. You however were very adamant in ensuring the only sources in the lead were by Palestinian "historians", Nur-eldeen Masalha and Constantine Zureiq. Whatever, this still has nothing to do with me belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy. Care to elaborate? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was Wikifan12345 who was accused of possibly being Tundrabuggy/Dajudem. Wikifan said he had previous similar problems with Jersay and Pattywack, so Halfacanyon was possibly a sock of one of those. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To go back to Mangojuice's comment, I think that warning and restricting such accounts under the discretionary sanctions is a reasonable alternative approach. On the other hand, I haven't seen this solution scale very well; given the extremely limited number of admins active in these areas, and the din of the constant partisan chorus who attend any such discussion, agenda-driven SPA's and alternate accounts proliferate faster than they can be handled. My reading of recent ArbCom decisions was that these areas are afflicted with widespread problematic editing behavior, and that people who come here to improve the encyclopedia as a general reference work shouldn't have to deal with dozens of agenda-driven socks and SPA's, nor should it take a year-long process to deal with an editor who is clearly agenda-driven and abusive from the start (c.f. User:Tundrabuggy). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if another admin feels strongly, though I think that setting some ground rules would be useful at a minimum.
Regarding Thatcher's note: as BWilkins points out, the link in question was between Wikifan12345 and Dajudem. I don't have sufficient information to assess the circumstantial strength of such a link, and I'm going to pass the baton to some other admin to look into it. I will say that the balance between encyclopedic content and agenda-driven advocacy in Special:Contributions/Wikifan12345 is hardly encouraging, but that alone doesn't inspire me to do anything at this juncture. MastCellTalk20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Israel/Palestinian articles are a breeding ground for activists. Virtually everyone belongs to one agenda or another, but that in itself is not against the rules. I personally find User:SlimVirgin's Palestinian advocacy at the expense of other voices to be extremely disturbing, and to accuse me of being part of the CAMERA wikipedia/propaganda fiasco is beyond uncivil, it's simply wrong. My contributions are varied and no I am not agenda driven - I keep in mind all wikipedia policy and yes disputes revolving content and biased language have occurred but my "agenda" is certainly no less threatening then say....User:Nableezy who is practically the polar-opposite of myself. : ) Anyways, this isn't my ANI, I'm not on trial. If you think I'm part of some conspiracy feel free to investigate. I would prefer people stop insuating I'm a propaganda machine and not follow through on their accusations. I was blocked twice just for calling a fellow editor antisemitic several months ago. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't play that game with me, Wikifan. No one familiar with my overall edits since 2004 could accuse me of Palestinian advocacy. What I see in your editing is a complete disregard of NPOV, V, and NOR—in fact, I doubt you've even glanced at them—and an attempt to make the Palestinian narrative disappear, rather than balancing it. I oppose that kind of editing wherever I see it, no matter which "side" it's coming from. SlimVirgintalk|contribs02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Play what game? My experience in editing with you has been rocky, you continually put roadblocks ahead of discussion and demand unnecessary rationales for suggestions beyond your agenda (typically pro-Palestinian). I'm totally okay with that because half of wikipedia operates on some similar level but it unacceptable and quite hypocritically for you to accuse me of being a SPA or propaganda machine when you don't even know me. From what I understand I'm not the only one who feels this way. If you actually knew my history you'd understand an overwhelming majority of my edits have been in talk and a fraction of article contributions are major expansions that would resemble an attempt to "make the Palestinian narrative disappear" as you so righteously put it. But thanks for the assessment, at least I know where you are coming from. :DWikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the "roadblocks" I'm currently throwing up is requesting a source from you for a paragraph you wrote about Palestinians being offered compensation by the Israeli government in 1949. You have named two sources, one of them a polemicist and not someone who can be used for anything contentious, and one of them an Israeli academic, Avraham Sela, a good source. I've asked you two or three times what Sela says exactly and for a page number, but you don't seem to know, even though you cited him. See here. This is very typical of my experience with you. You haven't read anything, you have no access to sources and don't care to try to gain any, and you surf the Web randomly snatching from here and there anything you think favors Israel, without having read or understood it. It's pure advocacy. SlimVirgintalk|contribs05:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pure advocacy? You've been roadblocking from the very beginning. I was VERY explicit and cordial with my sources. You denied outright the notability and reliability of Mitchell G. Bard and Avraham Sela. You claimed they weren't "historians" or "specialists." Then you posted some rule about academics. I demonstrated very simply that both people are published authors, lecturers, specialists, and Avraham is a professor. Then you started scrutinizing the sources, saying they are unreliable. I called you on that, you dropped it and started hassling me about the page numbers. I directed you to the original source at History of the Arab-Israeli conflict which you also ignored. You asked for the page numbers, I gave them to you. Finally GHCool unnecessarily listed the exact page numbers. You continually made up new reasons to battle every time I proved you wrong. Then you imply I'm part of a CAMERA conspiracy, might be socks of tundra, and now engage in advocacy. You are the problem, not me. You zealously own the exodus article and make every effort to ensure Palestinian sources while stonewalling anything that you disagree with. Dragging out disputes over easily-verifiable sources for pages and pages with impunity. Just because I have an Israel flag on my userpage does not mean I'm some Zionist zealot. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of dealing with references beyond activists/blog-like memorial sites.Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before anybody accuses me of anything, I am not a sockpuppet of Wikifan12345. I own the book Sela edited and saw that there was a dispute between Wikifan12345 and SlimVirgin and decided to add the quote and page number. --GHcool (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to say that one of the troubling aspects of this debate is the accusations being flung by User:SlimVirgin, who I find to be an angry, agenda-driven, unconstructive and uncooperative editor. I do assume, however, that, like many of us, she is merely a person who has strong feelings about the Middle East. I do not accuse her of being a PLO operative, although there is as much evidence for it as there is that Wikifan works for CAMERA.Historicist (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But unlike Wikifan I'm not maintaining a memorial of sockpuppet accounts that have been banned on my user page. Now _that_ is quacking like a duck Halfacanyon (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's "smartarsed" about saying I have nothing to hide? I removed it because I thought he may have been asking Wikifan due to the indenting. If he isn't then I stand by my comments. Halfacanyon (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks by Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke above are unclear, unhelpful and distracting. Please find a useful WP:-policy yourself. A user promoting CAMERA-banned user on the user-page cannot claim a pro-wikipedia-attitude. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could give less than a flying fuck about "CAMERA", Israel, or the original topic at hand. I'm curious as to why, an account that is only one month of age, is so well versed in our policies and prior incidents that his editing scope has been very narrowly defined to include only a handful of articles and an obsession over one particular editor. So, please take your POV ranting elsewhere because I have no claim, nor have I edited, in the realms that you noted above. seicer | talk | contribs17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, if you have nothing to add, you needn't feel you need to comment here. Seicer, a CU check might be useful to see which other account(s) Halfacanyon has, but the account itself is a disruptive, "bad hand" account, and should probably be blocked in any case. Your thoughts? IronDuke18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(editconflict see Wf12345 after this:)
re seicer: CAMERA was the topic. You changed the topic/sectiontitle (disruption). Then, writing "less than a flying fuck" is not civil. IronDuke: "nothing to add"?: if I cannot follow the talk here through deviation etc., I am perfectly entitled to ask for clearness etc. I was not commenting, I was asking for clarity. Please do your private fightings elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CAMERA was mentioned briefly (and quite unconvincingly) by the probable sock Halfacanyon; that you continue to raise that issue could be construed as you meatpuppeting for an abusive sock -- possibly himself a banned editor. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that. And your request for clarity was, ironically, not particularly clear. If there's something about you didn't understand about what I wrote, I am happy to clarify. IronDuke20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re IronDuke(out-of-chron!): briefly or whatever quality: it was in the original report, then seicer changes the topic/sectiontitle, and then he/she writes "I'm not interested" (in other words). I don't raise it, I return to it from seicers deviation. And I wrote yours remarks 'are unclear, unhelpful and distracting'. If not clear, you could have asked for an explanation. I assume you were well aware that the topic was moving. Finally, could you clarify your remark "I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that", because unspecified it could be read as threatening. Now we can go back to the subject: Wikifan12345 -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seicer is an editor in good standing, Halfacanyon is an obvious disruptive sockpuppet. Whatever Seicer wants to do is, I'm sure, far closer to the interests of the project than Halfacanyon. Some of your remarks seem garbled, so I'm not quite sure how to respond to them. I think my remarks about the dangers of your being seen to meatpuppet for a disruptive editors are quite clear (and not at all threatening); indeed, an increasing number of (uninvolved) users seem to be of the opinion that you have things very, very wrong here. There's no shame in being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong when the truth becomes clear. I would back away from this, if I were you (NB: Not a threat, just good advice). IronDuke21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try again. I've been around here for over three years, as an administrator and as an editor, and anyone with a bit of experience can easily detect a meatpuppet and/or a disruptive sockpuppet. Since you apparently have issues comprehending what I am writing, let me make it clear: I have no issue with any of the articles mentioned, and have never edited any of the articles mentioned nor have any inclination to do so because it's something I could care less about. Therefore, my "flying fuck" comment is directed towards that, not any one individual, therefore it is not an uncivil remark. Unless you are truly offended by the word fuck. seicer | talk | contribs20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re again seicer (a-chron). Three years or zero: I react to what I read, whatever your resume. - On first exchanges. If you can recognise or detect a puppet that well, you could have written that more clearly and less fuming. It really was getting into a tit-for-tat-for-tit, unreadable for a fresh reader like me. I need to point out that you first inserted a new sectiontitle, and then went off-original-topic. - Then reacting to me. Next, if you are not into a detail of the topic, you could have skipped that in your reaction (you could have left out your whole first sentence, at no cost and all gain). Finally, since you mention adminship, I find your line of talk and the change of topic, eh, disturbing in Wikipedia-sense. (You're the first admin I meet that writes "I'm not interested in your topic"). And after writing to me "your POV ranting" leaves for you the sweet invitation assuming my good faith. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent): Ok, I'm back. Are we going to close this? User:Halfacanyon has been very hostile from the moment I started editing Israeli settlements. He reverted every single one of my edits claiming I deleted sourced material and removed references. I tried to explain to him I simply removed duplicate references and told him to re-direct identical references in the future. He is also following me around in other articles I'm editing, such as 1948 Palestinian exodus . As far as sock-puppetry is concerned, I don't know what to say. I consider it a compliment for someone to accuse me of being an alias of User:Jayjg. I posted a brief wikietiquette alert following Half's mean accusations that I am a POV-pusher. I suggested Half and I go through dispute resolution to avoid edit warring but he has yet to respond. I posted a lengthy explanation for my edits at the settlement talk but that has gone no where. I would greatly an uninvolved and experienced admin/user weigh in on the discussion. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all the same section. DePiep, I see you are concerned about my "memorial" of editors Malcolm, Tundra, and Jayjg. I thoroughly enjoyed collaborating with those users and whatever flaws they might have does not change my opinion of them. Plenty of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian editors share respect for retired users, I am certainly not the first to do this. Everyone who edits the Israel/Palestinian articles harbor some kind of bias, but that is irrelevant. I provided a comparison of my edits and Half edits in the talk, I suggest you look at it. If you believe my rewrite screams Zionist propaganda let me know. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to W12345, he's definitely not Jayjg. There is nothing wrong with worshipping banned editors, and since WP promotes AGF, then an accusation of guilt by association is certainly 'bad faith on Halfacanyon's part. This whole disruption/sockpuppet double accusation is quite absurd when the real basis for this useless discussion is that Halfacanyon does not like a w12345s pro-Israel editing. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DiPiep, please stop trying to obfuscate things here. "I don't give a flying fuck about CAMERA" is actually quite important here - the articles or topics themselves are not the issue, so your posts seem to be the ones becoming disruptive. A "new" editor, who was the subject of a Wikiquette filing later filed a tit-for-tat ANI filing, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, and it appears to be solely for the intent to discredit them. Anyone can easily tell that Wikifan is not any of his "heroes" as listed on his page. I fully expect that Halfacanyon is some with whom Wikifan has had past incidents, and this is their way of getting back. If anyone is a sock (or even meat), it's Halfacanyon. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re (a-chron) thank you for clarifying. Please accept my initial question: the posts by you three editors (now top of this subsection) were unclear for a fresh reader like me, indirectly and insider-only-like. Read like there is something invisible. I want to be able to understand Wikipedia, so I ask. (Question left: why not created a fully new section?). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, not to be insulting, but WP:ANI may not be a good place for you to understand Wikipedia - it's a location where problems are brought in front of admins, so it's very full of insider-related discussion. It's not typically meant for "normal" editors. Indeed, by watching, you can learn a lot, but make sure not to comment unless you understand the process when complaints are lodged. However, let me answer the question: a complaint was lodged by User:Halfacanyon about User:Wikifan12345...turns out that Halfacanyon was apparently the real problem, so you make a subsection and continue the discussion. We often call this situation the "Plaxico effect", as Halfacanyon effectively shot himself in the foot here. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this is a great place to (learn to) understand Wikipedia. It's not about the place (ANI). Remember I only named three editors here that were unclear etc to me (Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke). Others, even in this section, were not adressed by me. This re "don't interfere, go away" I got is definitely not Wikipedia-like, whatever policy or guideline you may know. Don't ask me to backoff for not understanding. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an old tit for tat thing (I love WP for actually relating to this behaviour). I'm now leaning towards Halfa being related to Special:Contributions/Ewawer. If so, very good separation of personalities, but some crossovers. Ewawer is a sex-lover, from Australia, Jewish and/or has an affinity for Christian issues with some pro-Arab edits. The Ewawer personality also has inconsistent edit interests. Halfa has also edited Christian pages, yet not entirely anti-Israel, maybe somewhat leftist anti-Zionist. --Shuki (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← OK, this has probably degenerated far enough. Halfacanyon (talk·contribs) is obviously not a new user, and I think that the general trend and consensus has been to tighten up a bit on the flood of agenda-driven socks on Israel/Palestine articles. Accordingly, I've blocked Halfacanyon indefinitely. I can't say with certainty which account is behind Halfacanyon, but whomever it is, they need to go back to using their main account to edit this controversial and sock-ridden area (assuming their main account has not already been sanctioned). I think a checkuser would be worthwhile to look for sleeper accounts, though probably of limited utility without a clear idea who the main account belongs to. Insofar as Wikifan12345 (talk·contribs) is concerned, nothing presented here as evidence here indicates any issue requiring urgent administrative action against him. MastCellTalk21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing Halfacanyon's unblock request, I feel that this sort of vague wave accusation of sockpuppetry is a poor way to go, but there is enough cause for suspicion that I think we need more disclosure from the user. That said, I've issued a strong warning about the general sanctions on Arab-Israel conflict articles. I would prefer to handle the situation that way. Mangojuicetalk04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should someone be blocked for socking if there's been no sockpuppet investigation? Going on this "if it walks like a duck..." rationale, we should have blocked Wikifan12345 sometime last summer, when he popped straight into the I-P tangle about a week after the CAMERA case closed. Account created on 15:54 7 June, first I-P edit is to Muhammad al-Durrah, 16:07 7 June? And the next day he's already into DRVs and Allegations of Israeli apartheid ? Tarc (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It happens daily, for instance, with persistent sock abusers. There is no need to go to SPI, which is cumbersome, bureaucratic and slow if one can easily entertain the fact that if it smells like a sock, looks like a sock, and walks like a sock, then it most likely is a sock. seicer | talk | contribs13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, you were one of the main editors I was disputing with at Allegations last year. Very hostile from what I recall. If you guys think I'm sock, do a checkuser or whatever. Next time an editor accuses me of belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy I will seriously considering filing a harassment report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving / renaming entries
I am a comparatively new editor, and wanted to report (without names) an incident which I experienced. I'd appreciate if you advise if this practice is in line with Wikipedia's rules:
I posted an entry, which after some discussion was approved. It was posted under my original title. After that, one of admins posted another entry under the same title. He/she used Wikipedia administrator's rights to move my original entry to a different title he invented, and to name his/her article with title used originally by me. In result of this operation, the search for my original string in Wikipedia now leads to the new entry, not to my original article as before. The same happens in the Google search, creating confusion. The administrator explained his action as follows: "...moving to make way for clearly notable topic", which appears to me as a case of subjective judgement of prioritization, when a single administrator decided which entry is more notable, according to his/her personal tastes. However, I may be wrong. Please, tell me if this practice is acceptable in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Witizen (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]
In the general case in which you frame the question, there is no single answer; it depends on the specifics of the situation. In this specific case, it appears they did not use their admin right to move the page, and any editor could have done that. It's a standard Bold editing decision. It seems pretty reasonable to me. If you disagree, start a discussion on the article talk page, or on the user talk page of the editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Especially considering that Wirtland was already redlinked from a National Register of Historic Places list, and Wirtland (micronation) wasn't linked from anywhere until you added it to the Micronations portal. I'd call this a good move, especially considering that Nyttend went out of his way to make sure your article remained findable from the original location.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all answers, which are helpful indeed in understanding Wikipedia's approach. Though I still believe the "more notable"/"less notable" judging lacks measurability and objectiveness, I don't have any further questions or suggestions. Again, thanks and happy editing to all. Witizen (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]
Precious few (only one) deletes, by the looks of it. I think the close was sound, though I'd prefer it if the AfD had been relisted, given the lack of genuine !votes. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red12:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you clarify if "genuine vote" is an official term, and if not, what do you mean exactly - thanks. Witizen (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]
Canvassed? I sincerely hope that decisions in Wikipedia are not based on assumptions. So far, I've seen some strong wording and stronger acting, but no facts or any sound measurable criteria. I'm not insisting on Wirtland entry, but I see nothing but broad use of Wiki's authoritarian powers, and a suprisingly low overall level of discussion. Witizen (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wirtland - there's one !vote that actually expresses a keep/delete view (ignoring the nominator), plus one that !votes merge. Two !voters have zero or few other edits outside the AfD: Special:Contributions/190.197.224.249 and Special:Contributions/Bokontonian. There are two contributions in, I believe, Bulgarian (the latter one apparently says "E.. .. ......., Thryduulf! E.. .. ......, I say. I do not want to talk to you because 'you simply ......... ." If "canvassed" is too strong, I certainly think it's reasonable to say that there were a surprising number of editors with little experience of AfD; however, the lack of !votes, the Bulgarian !votes, and the apparent single purpose accounts make me pretty certain that something drove these editors to edit the AfD. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If editors who are less experienced in AfD are not allowed to discussion, or their opinion weights less, it should be clearly stated. Otherwise, this talk is pointless. By the way, such editors may be more experienced in the content. Hope you agree that some expertise in the content is pretty useful Witizen (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]
That is in no way what I said: indeed, if editors without prior AfD experience were prevented from !voting then !voters would soon disappear ;-) You asked me why I assumed that canvassing had occurred; I explained that the !votes were unusual for an AfD - and that didn't just include the level of experience of the !voters (keep/delete !votes), but also included the SPAs, the Bulgarian !voters, and (and I forgot this earlier) those !voters who acknowledged that they were (or claimed to be) citizens of the micronation involved. Compare this AfD with pretty much any other - and you'll quickly see why this AfD appears to have been the subject of canvassing. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bottomline: Wirtland entry is still blanked (though copyright permission is in place). No sound evidence of copyvio or other evil deeds. No clear, measurable criteria behind other accusations. Today, someone deleted even the Wirtland disambiguation page :-) . Well, I did my best to be cooperative, but if my modest contribution to Wikipedia is SO unwelcome, I don't see any point in further discussion. Dixi. Witizen (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]
Just a heads-up, whether you're still involved in further discussion or not . It's obvious here that people haven't adequately explained why they feel the AfD discussion wasn't fully kosher and the situation with people new to AfD. I'm not going to try and explain it because my descriptive and explanatory powers are almost non-existent. But I just wanted to make the point that people who hang around AfD know how a discussion normally goes down and when one seems a little iffy. I recently had this with eDition, where ultimately a sockpuppet case was found. I'm not claiming any sort of sockpuppetry is going on in the Wirtland discussion, but with comments in Bulgarian and people signing as "Witizens", it's obvious these people didn't appear by coincidence. I know this isn't the explanation you wanted but the discussion just didn't smell right to editors, and that's what happened here. Greg Tyler(t • c)21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps I have not made my positon clear enough. I am saying that I do not see a serious, argumented discussion. I see emotions, strong wording, swift severe actions, but no real grounding, no facts, no clear criteria behind accusations in this or that. Also, I see a bold use of power, which already has almost killed the article. Willingly or not, but all opponents are avoiding the substantial questions I raised. That's why I felt this seemed pretty pointless to discuss. I wish I was wrong though. Witizen (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen.[reply]
I also note that Eckstasy, apparently dissatisfied with the AFD result, is now gathering "evidence" (presumably with which to harass me later). No comment on the irony that he's archiving an AFD debate, which exists ad infinitum in the proper namespace already... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Tothwolf specifically, while the discussion was heated...I don't see anything that would require administrator attention here, unless you can substantiate your claim of off-wiki harassment. The discussion with Eckstasy was also heated, but again, I don't see a need for admin intervention at this time. While I don't condone some of the things that were said, I would also note that the discussion was not helped by your accusation that the AfD was canvassed. Your presumption that the second link provided will be used to "harass" you later is a strong claim and an assumption of bad faith. Harassment is an incredibly strong term, I might add, and such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. In short, no action is needed at the moment, unless there is evidence that harassment is occurring. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article got archived there for a reason, not to harass anyone. And as for off-wiki stuff, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever. Seeing you posting this in the noticeboard, sadly made me come out with even more stuff. if anyone read, they would gather what this is about. Eckstasy (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tothwolf has harassed and caused drama in multiple articles he's had disagreements in. he has a COI in irc-related articles because he's a developer for a well-known IRC application, so he takes the articles very personally. he also is a regular on wiki's IRC, so expect him to canvas his IRC friends for help/support. good luck getting anything done with this uncivil harasser. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is ANI, where patterns of behavior and abuse is discussed, so no, i won't stop reporting his patterns of abuse to the proper channels. i'm only on thin ice with an abusive admin (you) who is threatening to BAN me (not just block) for 'hounding' his irc buddy who canvassed an entire admin channel on irc for days before only you decided to step in and bother me. i've never been blocked before for any reason, and you've threatened to BAN me. you are the one hounding me, and tothwolf is the one with the pattern of abuse. i'm not intimidated by your threats. i am quite sure you'll block me, but i'm also quite sure that your block will be tenuous and it won't stick. so threaten away. i'm reporting abuse as i see it, whether it's tothwolf or anyone else Theserialcomma (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not slander to say 'he looks like a..', that's just opinion. If he said 'he is a criminal on crack', that'd be defamation if it isn't true, but that's not what he said. StickyParkin00:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing, stalking, and defamation all in one edit... many thanks to Eckstsy for proving my point, complete with a URL including what he "believes" to be my picture. Given all this is now in evidence, what's the resolution? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eckstasy, I seriously suggest you stop with the off-wiki linking. If it's being misinterpreted, simply stop doing it. There is no conceivable reason that you would need to do so anyway, so please, let's keep this discussion on Wikipedia and about Wikipedia. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blaxthos, let's clear this up right now. I never claimed any responsibility for your DDoS troubles, [2] I only pointed out the obvious. [3] It is well known online that some of those affiliated with other sites and various image boards have targeted bash.org due to how you've treated people and in the past have run up your bandwidth bill. You certainly won't pin any of that on me, although after seeing how much trouble you've created for others, and in particular those affiliated with QDB.us, I can't say I feel the least bit sorry for you since from where I'm sitting it appears that you brought it all on yourself. Now, if you want to talk about a true case of defamation, in making false accusations against me for your DDoS troubles I believe you are getting pretty close to the line and may have in fact already crossed it. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment and proposed solution
OK I've read through the AFD, and all the various snarling comments left on various pages. To be honest, none of the three parties in this debate can claim the moral high ground and ALL are guilty of some pretty poor conduct.
Off-wiki conduct: Eckstasy, you are for the most part free to say whatever you want off-wiki. However the administration body is entitled to consider off-wiki material as evidence when that material includes personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_attacks). I would *strongly* advise you to ease off.
Solution: There is bad blood here that appears to predate the AFD in question. I recommend that all three users simply stop interacting with each other voluntarily. Manning (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've held off commenting here but I do want to clarify a few things. First, I've had no previous interaction with Blaxthos prior to this AfD and as of right now I've had no interaction with him outside of Wikipedia. Second, my comments regarding Blaxthos' behaviour regarding this topic (not limited to just this one article and AfD) can be proven with diffs and links. He has a known history surrounding the controversy with bash.org and the former admins/moderators whom he ousted who then went on to found QDB.us and his hatred of QDB.us is well known. I personally think it would be best if Blaxthos would steer well clear of any articles related to "online quote databases". This seems this one area where he has true conflict of interest and a problem maintaining neutral point of view (as defined by the COI guideline and NPOV policy), however best I can tell he still seems to do good work in other areas. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that admin advice has been (and will continue) to be ignored. I'm not going to bother responding to all that is incorrect in Tothwolf's statements (just the factual misrepresentations alone would take a good bit of time) beyond noting that his claim of having "no interaction with him outside of Wikipedia" is completely false (see his hateful blog post, complete with what he believes is my picture). Regarding bad bloood, I've never heard of nor interacted with these two editors before this AfD, and I hope never to interact with them again. However, I have to request a resolution beyond "don't talk to each other" -- I've been the victim of numerous false representations, denial-of-service attacks, off-wiki harassment, and on-wiki misrepresentation of history & fact. I'll be glad to review everything with any admin who is patient and willing enough to do so, but I won't just sit back and let other editors run roughshod over my Wiki reputation and Wiki standards. It's editors like these and unchecked behavior like this that causes well-intentioned editors in good standing to walk away from the project, and I'd think the community expects administrators to stand up and deal with abhorrent conduct such as this. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was me that posted the blog link. although Blaxthos did infact escalate it and I do agree with Manning ("ALL are guilty of some pretty poor conduct."). It should now be left and not escalated to a full blown public disaster. And, Blaxthos. "false representations, denial-of-service attacks, off-wiki harassment and misrepresentation of history & fact" is completely twisting it. (Considering I've never harassed you on or off-wiki, I've never even met you off-wiki, nor have I talked about denial of service attacks, and as for misrepresentation of "history & fact" the diff links prove it.) Eckstasy (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blaxthos, you can review whatever you like (and as clarified by Killiondude and Eckstasy above, that blog you are attributing to me isn't mine). I stand firm in my statements regarding your behaviour concerning your clear conflict of interest and neutral point of view issues with articles related to "online quote databases" and due to your statement above I'm now tempted to seek a topic ban. I don't have anything to do with your problems surrounding the Bash.org site but after having spent a significant amount of time researching the history of Bash.org while trying to determine if the Bash.org article that was deleted in 2007 (I suppose it's worth noting that I found the AfD nomination of Bash.org and in particular the editor who nominated it somewhat peculiar) would now meet the notability guideline (it appears to) I can't say that I like what I saw and I do not feel sorry for you one bit. As for your reputation, you seem to have done it to yourself and you yourself pointed out that you were the owner of Bash.org here on Wikipedia. [4] You have continued to go after articles related to sites that you consider competition to Bash.org and your AfD nomination of List of quote databases was nothing more than an attempt to get rid of one more mention of QDB.us. Quack, quack, WP:DUCK --Tothwolf (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to report this user for using warnings in an invalid manner to try and stop me from making perfectly reasonable alterations to the article Bill Verna. I warned him to stop putting warnings on my page without discussing the matter at hand, but he insists on doing so even after the warning I gave him about it. It would appear that he does not understand how what he is doing is in any way wrong and he needs to be pulled into line on the matter. I consider his behaviour to be uncivil, but because he is using warning templates incorrectly I felt it would be better to report the matter here instead of going over to the Wikiquette area. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you're removing cited information from the article. That is generally well worth issuing a warning. Are you claiming that the source does not exist or does not say what User:GaryColemanFan says it does? → ROUX₪06:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the source can not be verified, and he has not properly cited it (no author of the published work for example). The fact that he has not discussed it - preferring to arbitrarily issue warnings first - is the reason why I brought this issue here. Discussion should take place first, shouldn't it? TaintedZebra (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed discussion should take place first... so where did you discuss with him your concerns about the sourcing? His warnings to you are entirely accurate. Can you explain why it's unverifiable? → ROUX₪06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn't at first. That's the whole point. He went straight to the warnings without discussing the issue. It's unverifiable because the magazine he uses is not notable and could be nothing more than a local newsletter for all we know. This can't be confirmed or denied. I looked for it and I couldn't find any reference to it except in the Bill Verna article. So it is in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. I also previously mentioned his failure to provide an author, which would be needed for a source that is not online. Online of course an author would not be needed. I don't believe the warnings were justified at all. It was like shooting first and asking questions second. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is applied to articles, not sources. That something doesn't exist online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source; I certainly have many books the text of which doesn't appear online. As for shooting first and asking questions later.. you brought it up on the talkpage eight minutes before coming here. → ROUX₪06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine being not notable means it fails WP:RS. And a magazine is not the same as a book. And just for your information on the chronology of events (off the top of my head) I went to the article's talk page after I warned him on his talk page, but before he stuck the latest warning on my talk page. It was that warning that caused me to come here because he had clearly ignored the warning on his talk page (which was informal - I did not use a template) and I assume he also ignored the article's talk page which would have been the explanation for the eight minutes. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not and I resent the accusation. The information GCF was providing was not within WP rules so it had to be removed and I couldn't do it because of WP:3RR. People have been asked to this before now so I see no difference in it. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of the article has been provided to TaintedZebra, as requested. I believe that this makes the lack of an author a moot point. The verifiability has should also be cleared up, as the article states what I said it did. I am requesting, therefore, that the sourced information be re-added to the article. The content has since been removed by an editor who claimed that it violated a neutrality policy. Because I am not claiming that Verna was "appreciated and admired as a player throughout the world" but rather than he was described in those terms, I do not believe that this violates NPOV. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The link only uses the magazine as a source for the statement. Now we would need to find if the link I was provided with actually fulfils WP:RS by itself. If it doesn't then it kills the magazine citation by default. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A source failing the notability guidelines does not mean it isn't reliable. Most of the law texts I use would fail the notability guidelines, because they don't have any third-party coverage. That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't reliable sources. To equate notability with reliability is incorrect. A source not passing WP:N should not lead to removal unless there are actual reasons to call its reliability into question. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This matter piqued my curiosity, so I had a look at this questioned source. (The article in dispute has been deleted, so I used my Supar Admin Powerz to look at the deleted page.) The magazine in question is called Ash Shuja, so I plugged the name into the worldcat.org search tool. The magazine popped up -- it's an Urdu-language publication, available at Cornell U, Columbia U libraries, & at the Library of Congress. (I would assume it's also available at some libraries outside the US, but this is what WorldCat tells us.) I'd say if the publication is listed in WorldCat -- or any other publicly accessible library catalog -- then it can be cited in a Wikipedia article. (Whether Ash Shuja is a reliable source, is a matter I'll leave to the talk page of the next article it is cited in.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that note, Llywrch. I guess it proves that the magazine wasn't a local newsletter, which does help GCF's case a little. However you have noted that it's not an English magazine, so the link that GCF provided gave an English translation of the remark he was trying to use from it. It blurs the accuracy somewhat given that there can be a misinterpretation of a foreign language statement. This places a question mark over verifiability.
With the article being deleted now, I thought it would be prudent to note that GCF has contacted the deleting admin, trying to contest the decision because of this ongoing content dispute. I want to point out that the reason I brought this to the attention of this page was because of GCF's arbitrary use of warning templates. The deletion of the article indicates (in my opinion) that his actions were wrong under WP rules. Besides - this concerned only one citation. There were many others, and consensus was that notability had not been established. I don't think this link would have made any difference. I consider that GCF's reverting of my removals to have been vandalism as he failed at that point to fulfil WP:BURDEN so my calling in for help to avoid a violation of WP:3RR was appropriate as previously explained. TaintedZebra (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many things wrong with the above paragraph I barely know where to begin. So let's start with the simplest: nothing wrong with him warning an editor who is removing sourced facts without any explanation or discussion. Nothing. Please take that on board. Second, it does not place a question mark over verifiability; English-language sources are preferred on Wikipedia, not required. Non-English is better than no reference. Please familiarise yourself with WP:V and WP:RS as they seem to be escaping you in general terms. And finally, ANI is not a substitute for Deletioni Review, so any comments on the validity or not of the deletion belong there. Any questions? → ROUX₪01:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Why is the arbitrary use of warning templates tolerated? HE was the vandal because under WP:BURDEN it was up to HIM to discuss it. I said all that was needed at the time in the edit summary - that it was not cited properly (and therefore it was NOT a sourced fact under WP rules for the record). The warning template was an over reaction and applied in an unacceptable manner. That is not a deletion review - that is a proper report to this page. The DRV is background material only. I ask once more for action on this matter, please. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no. You were removing sourced information. That is de factovandalism. It was indeed cited properly, so no. I may not be an admin, but to be perfectly blunt? The only person I see action being reasonable against is you. Should GaryColemanFan perhaps have tried to discuss with you? Sure, I guess. However--and this is the key point that you keep forgetting--you were removing sourced information without any discussion. You. Not him. And so he warned you. And you did it again. So he warned you again. Etc. Clearly 'all that needed to be said' wasn't said. Which is why you should have discussed it on the talkpage. To be even more blunt: he has done nothing wrong here. You have. Through misunderstanding, perhaps, but given that all through the above you don't appear to understand how sourcing works (claiming that WP:N applies, which it doesn't, claiming that sources must be in English, which they mustn't) it would appear that you need a refresher course in how Wikipedia works. I would suggest you start here and work your way through the pages linked in order to gain a better understanding of Wikipedia, particularly sourcing and verifiability. I'll be happy to answer questions for you about sourcing and verifiability at my talkpage, but I really don't see any admin taking any action over this. Or if one does, it is likely to be action that will inconvenience you. → ROUX₪03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All warnings issued by GCF were illegal and therefore I had the right to ignore them. I was removing information that failed WP rules, and I strongly disagree that they were sourced correctly. You are applying the interpretation of sourced information way too broadly and you are therefore unable to assist with this any further. TaintedZebra (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin, and I approve this message (Roux's, that is). After receiving a warning, concluding that the correct reaction is to continue edit-warring rather than to bring up your concerns with the source (and I note from reading the above that you seem to have a very dubious understanding of WP:RS; whether the source qualifies for an article under WP:N is totally irrelevant, though I make no comment on the source in this particular case) is a very questionable approach. GCF possibly should have initiated communication with you too - though really he did, by issuing warnings. GCF's done nothing wrong here. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That being the case, I hereby cease my activity completely as an editor of Wikipedia. This is due to the failure to properly protect users from arbitrary action. This will be effective once I clear my user space.
That's one winning attitude to have: when two different Admins point out that you were in the wrong (well, three if you want to count me), you complain that you are the victim of "arbitrary action" & quit Wikipedia. You shouldn't delete sources for facts -- that's what veteran editors told you here numerous times. If you think sources are inadequate then find better sources. And finally, you're getting bent out of shape over something in a deleted article! Sheesh, this surely must fit the requirement for admission to WP:LAME. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Roux say he wasn't an admin? I've had trouble with Gary myself, but that's not why I'm adding a comment here even though I'm not really surprised a complaint was made. Gary can be pretty stubborn and upset people (like me). Anyway, reads to me that Zebra got cut because of the warning template issue, not the content situation. If the issue was content he shouldn't even have brought the issue here. Just my two cents after the fact. Zebra's gone no matter what I guess. Suggest the closure of this ANI. !! Justa Punk !!10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A curious (possibly meaningless) sidenote: looking at the Contrib list, it seems that TaintedZebra spent the majority of his/her time voting on AFDs. There are very few article edits. Manning (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah probably meaningless. And the edits that weren't AFD votes and weren't talk pages (or edits on here of course) may well be the result of recent changes patrolling. His user page before he cleared it had an RCP template on it. I saw the edit that added it early on in his contributions. !! Justa Punk !!14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, was the licensing issue? The image was a scaled down version of File:Barack Obama.jpg, a public domain image, with an X over it. There may be valid reasons to delete the image, but G10 and F3/F9 are not them. --auburnpilottalk19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should not have polemical content on user pages anyways. What is more the image is clearly anti-someone and the title of the image seems to agree with this theory. It exists solely to disparage its subject, G10. That is why 2 admins have deleted it as a G10 so far. Chillum01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little background info - that image was created and uploaded by me for use in the following userbox: User:McJeff/Userboxes/NObama. It was speedy deleted almost precisely a year ago by admin User:Anetode for being used in a divisive userbox. I complained that it was being targeted when many anti-Bush userboxes were not, Anetode deleted some of those, then admin User:Orangemike, who had a userbox with some variation of "Bush is a war criminal", restored them. Unless I'm mistaken, there was never any formal discussion on whether the image was appropriate. The claim that it was deleted three times, I am pretty sure, is inaccurate.
I don't put that kind of stuff on my userpage anymore, but unlike my other "potentially divisive" political userboxes, this one was in use by several other editors, so I did not CSD-U1 it like I did the others. McJeff (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted 4 times in total:
18:57, 30 June 2009 Black Kite deleted "File:AntiObama.jpg" (F3: File with improper license: Derivate work from an image which the creator is clearly not the copyright holder (F9); even if a free image - unlikely - still fails F3)
15:36, 30 June 2009 Orangemike restored "File:AntiObama.jpg" (11 revisions and 2 files restored: opposition to a subject is not the same as "disparage or threaten its subject")
15:28, 30 June 2009 Chillum deleted "File:AntiObama.jpg" (Speedy deleted per CSD G10, page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or someone else. using TW)
16:41, 23 June 2008 Orangemike restored "File:AntiObama.jpg" (10 revisions and 2 files restored: deleted without justification; not a G10 "attack")
10:05, 21 June 2008 Anetode deleted "File:AntiObama.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G10), was a attack page intented to disparage its subject. using TW)
17:31, 15 June 2008 East718 deleted "File:AntiObama.jpg" (CSD I4: Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days)
Oh well, possibly systemic bias, or possibly just the fact that Obama is generally more popular, who knows? Just take each case on its own merits, and try to be fair. -- Atamachat22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several days ago, there was a discussion about whether to include dubiously-sourced allegations of homosexuality in John Baird (Canadian politician). That discussion is now archived here. In that discussion, there was clear consensus i. not to include the allegations, and ii. to archive the discussion on its conclusion. Nfitz (talk·contribs) has been repeatedly de-archiving the conversation against consensus in an effort to continue pushing the view (which he's the only one to hold) that the allegations should be included. I would appreciate the eyes of an uninvolved admin or two in case a block becomes necessary. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:SteveSmith is grossly misrepresenting the situation. He has been selectively archiving the discussion, without including all the comments; at first I thought this was in error, but after I pointed it out, he didn't acknowledge or apologise. In addition I have absolutely no idea why only a portion of the discussion is being archived. I'm quite disturbed taht there seems to be an attempt to hide the discussion. User:SteveSmith is also misrepresenting the dubiousness of the sources reporting sexual preference. There have been two major publications thave have made reference to his sexual preference. Surely an open discussion about these sources should not be hidden any more than the discussion of whether he is a vegetarian or not! Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bwuh? "After I pointed it out, he didn't acknowledge or apologise"? Would that be this non-apology/non-acknowledgement, in which I said "And you're correct, I did inadvertantly exclude a small comment of yours ("Sorry to restore this ... but someone objected to me adding the comment in the archive, so I've had to restore the discussion. Though archiving a discussion that's still active isn't right. Particularly when discussions that have been here for years are untouched."). I apologize for that and I'm not sure how I managed it."? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh - actually, you're right (one minute after, to be precise). More apologies - I was comparing the time of my post in my timezone (which placed it on June 30) with the UTC time of yours. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not (and as a gay man I distinctly do not like it), revelation of a non-heteronormative sexual orientation in a public person (or indeed private figure; see gaybashing) can be detrimental to their public image and/or career. Ergo we must only include such statements when they can be reliably sourced. The two publications you mention are 1) NOW, a free Toronto weekly newspaper that is, I'll be charitable, not exactly known for their balanced nature (it is significantly leftist in the Canadian sense) or the depth and insight of their investigative reporting, 2) Frank, which is a satire/gossip/scandal magazine. Not exactly the pinnacle of reliable and responsible journalism, either of them. as a Torontonian I read NOW weekly (though I must have glossed over this article; I stick mainly to Savage Love, restaurant reviews, movies, etc, as NOW's political coverage often leaves much to be desired), and I would certainly not use them (or indeed Eye) as a reliable source for much more than confirming concert dates. So there's that for the sources.
As for the issue itself, with potential BLP violations we must hold to an even more rigorous level of sourcing than for any other facts, due to the very real consequences to the subjects in question. Archiving the discussion seems to be an excellent way to move on and get this information out of the eyes of the general public unless and until--this is the important part--it can be reliably sourced to the horse's mouth. → ROUX₪03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My primary objection is that the discussion is being archived while it is still active; often within minutes of the last contribution. As such the archiving was done to stop the discussion. There's a difference between archiving a completed discussion, and using it as a tool to stop the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's done it again, saying that the discussion wasn't completed (ignoring that he's the only one with any interest in continuing it). As an involved admin, I'd recommend a block. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lengthy thread on WT:RFA here. I considered an unblock pending community review but decided against it as Peter has not requested it and I couldn't reach Law as the blocking admin, so I'm just going to throw it up and see where it lands. Also, I will be pretty much out of touch for the next two days and it wouldn't be right to take an admin action and then be unavailable to discuss it. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been communicated better but it's a fine block. It's a pretty straight line from someone wanting to destroy Wikipedia - laying out a plan - starting to act on it - getting banned/blocked. If Peter wants to walk the whole thing back, fine. But otherwise...RxS (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse the end result of a block. Considering that he called for wikipedia to be destroyed then tried to put it into action (however unlikely it was to succeed) a block to prevent disruption is justified, at least until Peter Damian retracts the threat and pledges not to intentionally disrupt or try to destroy wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was a ban from participating in RfAs ever considered, or would something of that nature require ArbCom or similar? Tarc (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general conclusion was that we can't ban people from RFA because it leads to a "slippery slope" of what is/is not acceptable as a vote, and that since his disruptive edits were outside AN/I as well it wouldn't cover everything. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whose conclusion was that? And b'crats can certainly discount ppl who routinely post "oppose" with no reason except to make a point, they've done it before. KillerChihuahua?!?15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wehwalt. Yet another fine example of a power-crazy admin gone berserk, just 'cos he can. And any other administrators who agree with this block are just as guilty as Law is. --MalleusFatuorum15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my post below about internet stalking and punishing here for what happens elsewhere, also, then this is a preventative block? Because I see no harm or disruption from Damien. KillerChihuahua?!?15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block. Overreaction much? He called (offwiki) for others (many of whom are banned trolls, the rest of whom aren't going to play) to "consistently vote against" all Rfas. Simple enough to ban him from Rfa, or discuss other options. He's hardly going to destroy Wikipedia with that petty gesture. Just make a note on the B'crat noticeboard that he's acting a little like Boothy and be done. KillerChihuahua?!?15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite unlike the DougsTech incident in that Peter creates content. It is, however, similar in that he was blocked unilaterally at the tail end of an WT:RFA discussion for reasons asserted to be unrelated to the alleged disruption at RFA. The similar block of DougsTech was overturned. It's surprising a single vote and off-site thread kicked up so much dust and perhaps speaks to our proclivity to happily feed trolls at our dinner table. His Nietzsche-esque goal to destroy Wikipedia and create something better in his place smacks of tilting at windmills and he can be safely ignored. Nevertheless it is a good faith (if misguided and ill-advised) attempt to create something better. The block should probably be overturned as there will be less drama all-around. –xenotalk15:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is the on-wiki statement that he is attempting to destroy Wikipedia? All I see is him trying to reform RFA. Direct links to diffs onwiki of his threats would be nice. Or are we now blocking people for what they say offwiki? I have some names to submit... Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block It's not right to in the middle of a discussion about how to handle the situation. Since his vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 2 Peter Damian's edits were confined to improving the Nannette Streicher article and more importantly discussing his vote at WT:RfA. If he was serious about trying to bring down wikipedia, why didn't he vote in the other RfAs that were open at the same time as Cerantor's? Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the application of a block in the absense of any on-wiki disruption to be disturbing. Are we really going to begin holding users accountable for what is said in other places on the internet? If a few baseless !votes at RFA are a blockable offense, then a whole slew of "per so-and-so" !voters had best brace themselves for the banhammer. This is silly. Shereth15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression we tried to avoid punishing people here for what they say elsewhere. Are we now internet stalkers and paranoid conspiracy theorists? I must have missed that memo. KillerChihuahua?!?15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very difficult to believe it was just one RFA, he produced the off-wiki statement including the plan to vote against all RFAs early on the 24 May June then soon aferwards opposed 6 RFAs within 7 minutes. Davewild (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In breach of which policy exactly? Would you be equally arguing in favour of a block if he'd supported six RfAs within 7 minutes? Somehow I doubt it, even though it's plainly evident that the real way to destroy wikipedia is to promote as many poor administrators as quickly as possible. --MalleusFatuorum15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone had made a threat to try and destroy wikipedia using any kind of plan beforehand (supporting or opposing RFAs)then I would certainly support preventing them by block if necessary. When someone has made a threat to disrupt wikipedia follow through on one point of that plan then I do not see how we can trust they will not implement the other parts of their plan such as point 4 - subtle vandalism. Is someone is willing to pledge to check every mainspace edit and the sources they are based on to ensure this is not happening? However if consensus is against the block then so be it. Davewild (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this threat made? What disruption has occurred? Again I state, this is a preventative block based on off-wiki commentary, on a site I might add where people routinely blow off steam and complain about Wikipedia to no effect at all here. KillerChihuahua?!?16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He linking to the statement while implementing the first point of it on an RFA. I don't see much difference between that and just making a copy on-wiki. I know people say all kinds of things off-site but it's when they actually start acting on them that I think we should respond. Davewild (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're against linking, and want to prevent that, or against opposing on Rfa's, and want to oppose that? I'm not seeing what damage the block is preventing. KillerChihuahua?!?16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These bold blocks never cease to amaze me. Why not simply bring this to ANI first, saying "I think this calls for a long term block or ban, what do we all think?" Then wait an hour or so, and if consensus for a block develops, then enforce it; if it doesn't, then you shouldn't be blocking. Imposing an indef block after a tendentious WT:RFA discussion that had come to no conclusion whatsoever is just a bad idea. I'm not arguing for or against a block of Damian in general, just saying that this was ill-advised (predictably so), and that the objections above demonstrate why. If you expect a block to possibly be controversial (as Law must have), then maybe you should start a discussion about it instead of doing it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose block At least for now. So far, all Peter is doing is opposing all RfAs. If he intends to destroy Wikipedia by that method while continuing to produce good content then let him. Letting him be unblocked and continue his tilting at windmills will result in more productive content than the reverse. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here and Peter's actions do still provide a net benefit. If he decides to destroy Wikipedia using an actually disruptive technique we can deal with that then. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block: What policy was violated in his off-Wiki comment to "consistently vote against" all RFAs? Topic ban him from a RFA if you must, but an indef block for such a comical gesture is a bit far. Do you really think that "consistently vot(ing) against" RFAs will really lead to WP's downfall? seicer | talk | contribs15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (3x) Oppose block. Agree with Shereth. Off-wiki activity should not be reason for a block. We cannot block people for doing what they like on other websites, that's what they are perfectly allowed to do. We block them if and only if they disrupt Wikipedia itself with their editing. Peter Damian did not do so and as such, blocking him was certainly incorrect. No matter what one might think about his !vote at one single RFA, he has not behaved in any way that warrants a block. If he does do so, we can still block him but as long as he does not break any rules here, we cannot block him and have to deal with it another way. I prefer WP:DENY personally. Regards SoWhy16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that things like Peter's sockpuppet category were disposed of under the assumption that he would be leaving peacefully. If he has returned, it's time to re-evaluate his past "contributions" to the project. As far as I'm aware, this includes sockpuppeting extensively, being banned, trolling on his user talk page with retirement banners, trolling at RFA, and trolling with an Editor's Association or whatever. I'm all for second chances, but this one seems to be used up. I'm not sure the people opposing the block here are getting the full picture. (And if anyone can locate that category, I'd be much obliged. I can't find it anywhere.) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all fine with discussing a block first but here we are talking about a block done for incorrect reasons before taking time to consult the community about it. I think it's perfectly possible to oppose this block and still support a block after discussion for other reasons. Regards SoWhy16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. That's a bit too far. Not checking the right checkbox on form 12W-A is a reason to put on blinders? That's a bit extreme. The block summary may not be descriptive enough, but that isn't a reason to forego a discussion regarding the blocked user. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing whether Law's block was appropriate. As SoWhy stated, and I agreed, there is no problem discussing whether Damien should be blocked - but not by adding post hoc rationalizations to this block. KillerChihuahua?!?16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the Established Editors Association was trolling? 10/10 for assuming good faith there MZMcBride. It appeared to many people like a genuine attempt to improve wikipedia by increasing representation. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Folks supporting the block know that ArbCom unbanned User:Thekohser the other day, right? That's a pretty good indication that off-wiki posturing isn't really blockable. I can see the motivation behind the block and that's fine, but in the grand scheme of things, it would have been better to get some consensus first. Tony Fox(arf!)16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that people can blow hot air off-Wiki all they want, and we don't seem to have a basis in enforcement to do anything about it here. Nothing Damian has done since that comment has been earth-shattering; much like Kurt Weber and DougsTech, it's easily ignorable. Tony Fox(arf!)16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very likely Peter Damian would be unblocked soon and that should be handled at least by admins unrelated to Wikipedia Review that has caused this wasteful dispute for everyone.-Caspian blue16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally the blocking admin would do that, and I have asked for that action on Law's talk page. There's a strong sentiment above (including from multiple admins) that this block was not good as enacted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Not in any way, shape or form. However, I do support this one block based on the facts presented of this one case. I make no statements about general actions to be taken in the future, merely on this one situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think KC is suggesting that this particular block, at least as implemented, seems to be a case of preventive blocking based on off-wiki activity. Personally I think that's an accurate interpretation—Damian said something off-wiki that people did not like (understandably) and then linked to it in an RfA vote. Nothing destructive has actually occurred, but the assumption was that it could. Alternatively, the block was solely for the off-wiki comment and was not trying to prevent anything, but I think this opposing here also clearly view that as problematic. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block per SoWhy above. If off-wiki comments are really a blocking offence, there are a fair few IRC logs and ED pages that make interesting reading. For the record, Peter has opposed 11 RFAs in his entire history on Wikipedia (and supported 3); for comparison, even a hardline "support by default unless there's a strong reason to oppose" editor such as User:Majorly has 64 RFA opposes. – iridescent16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those opposing the block because it's based on off-wiki comments, the bright line here is that off-wiki comments were followed up by on-wiki actions. No one is suggesting that comments made off-wiki are blockable. His on-wiki actions are plainly done in bad faith and are clearly pointy. RxS (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a violation of WP:POINT if the votes he made caused disruption. The votes themselves didn't dent the change of anyone running for RfA, and didn't harm wikipedia. What did cause disruption was people trying to get Peter Damian blocked or banned for opinion before he had violated policy. Denying his votes recognition would have been far more effect, but instead some people decided to make their own pointedremarks. Nev1 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be clear to you, but what's clear to me is that this block was arbitrary, out of process, and not supported by consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 June 2009
This is obviously not about merely opposing at RFA, strawman equiped rhetorical outrage aside, this is about threats and following through with those threats. RxS (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block Once you link to an off-wiki comment on-wiki they cease to be off-wiki. This person is basically describing to us how he is going to disrupt Wikipedia, of course we should prevent this with a block. I wonder if everyone opposing the block is aware of the full extent of the situation, several people have mentioned voting in RfAs when Peter also promised to do subtle vandalism and to attempt to demoralise vandal fighters. Please don't over simplify things. Chillum16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Peter really wanted to destroy wikipedia then his tactic ought to have been to support RfAs of plainly unsuitable candidates, not oppose them. That would be one sure way of chasing the regular editors away, as they get confronted by the abuse of administrative powers like this example. --MalleusFatuorum16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Chillum. He linked his own comments here, that's not some paranoid stalkers trying to foist offwiki comments in an attempt to sabotage or discredit him. He did that himself. He's laid out his plan, I see no reason not to block preventatively. That's what we're supposed to block for. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logic therefore dictates that you should immediately block yourself, to prevent the possibility of disruption caused by a potential mental breakdown. --MalleusFatuorum16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(was responding to your original post, then got an ec) No, because we should assume good faith that you, me, or whoever isn't going to fly off the handle and attempt to destroy Wikipedia. But there's evidence to the contrary to the point that I can't assume good faith in Peter starting a thread and then linking it here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block, basically per Nev, JoshuaZ, and Xeno; as the last outlines, a block is less reasonable here than it was for DougsTech, and inasmuch as I opposed our blocking DT, believing that single !votes at RfA are necessarily non-disruptive, I can't endorse this one. To be sure, if Peter does something more pernicious, we might revisit the issue, but for now we cannot rightly conclude that the net effect on the project of his continuing to edit should be negative. Joe (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
Endorse block at this time. I would advocate the allowance of Peter to continue conversation on his talk page if he so desired. If we are not understanding his intent, then perhaps he can clarify. re: the items being said "off-wiki": Peter himself brought the link to WP and posted it in this post, so my perception is that he is effectivly saying it here. To add a bit of clarification to the matter, it appears to me that this editor has also edited under the following user names:
Peter Damian II(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) which was moved with this: 10:21, December 6, 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs | block) moved User talk:Peter Damian II to User talk:Peter Damian ? (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Peter Damian II" to "Peter Damian") (revert)
Now my own personal view of what I've researched so far is that Peter was originally one of our most valuable and prolific contributors, but fell into disagreements with others. (perhaps over animal rights?). My view at this point is that his efforts are geared toward extracting revenge for the original ban, and his perception is one that WP needs to be "destroyed" in order to be "re-built". I'd suggest, that since our site and its content is liscensed under CC-BY-SA and GDFL, that it is not necessary to "destroy" our site, but that one may visit godaddy.com, purchase a domain name, and simply "build" the site he deems to be more worthy of encyclopedic content. I don't find an admission of intent to "destroy" to be the least bit encouraging. Full disclosure: I was not around for much of this (2003-2008), so I would welcome the input of editors, admins, and arbs who are more familiar with the details of history. I fully understand that there are likely missing pieces to this puzzle, and am willing to modify my opinions with more relevant input. — Ched : ? 16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now Peter, who is known to be opposed to the role of content-phobics in Wikipedia gets blocked during an on-going discussion by someone who got through RfA a month ago on a DYK/vandal-fighting ticket? Wow. HansAdler17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the Nannette Steicher article appears to be a copy of the pre-existing German wikipedia article, not an original creation and no credit was made to the German authors or article by Peter Damian. I have added the Translated page template to the talk page which I think is sufficient for credit? Davewild (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't quote what comes before it: [T]he majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and [...]. This could be understood by some to refer to themselves, which might lead them to overreact, sort of proving Peter's point. Not that I agree with Peter, but there are some problems with the most vocal part of our community and with the dynamics of discussions such as the one on the RfA talk page. HansAdler17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you brought it up, I did see it. I've found that kind of thing tends to say more about the writer than anyone else. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block as administered. Controversial blocks should not occur in the middle of discussions without consensus. This should have beed discussed at ANI and consensus developed BEFORE pushing the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking through the various block logs of the accounts, it appears that this is not just a matter of "opinion" or "Hyperbole". There are blocks for 3RR, abusing multiple accounts to avoid bans, block evasion, vandalism, parole violation, and dare I even mention the "incivility" item. Also, while the terms "lawyer", "legal", and other items mentioned in WP:NLT are not explicitly mentioned, this post certainly suggests an intent on building a "case" to present to those who would "fund" our efforts here. — Ched : ? 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just speaking to the last part of your comment, I think that is pretty clearly not a legal threat. It seems to be a threat to give a report to (presumably) large donors to Wikipedia—there's no mention whatsoever of going to court or anything like that. That diff is not edifying at all, but WP:NLT just does not come into play in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) and (out of sequence post) Understood, and agreed BTP; however, I think it does speak to the intent of the editor in question. I don't see the intent at this point to be constructive in any manner. In my eyes, it shows a clear intent to act upon the declaration of intent to "destroy". That is the primary item I think is most relevant in this particular thread. — Ched : ? 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In and by itself, no. However, as an "item" in a list of intentions, to be used to an end result, Yes. (big picture view) — Ched : ? 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Common rationales for blocks, protection subsection, bullet 2: "making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site)". This is clearly a personal threat to Wikipedia, and the phrase "Including outside the Wikipedia site" has been a part of the policy since at least a year ago (I didn't look farther back than April 2008), and has been uncontested in all of that time. This may not be the NLT definition of a "Legal threat" but blocking policy also includes as blockable offenses "personal" and "professional" threats as well. Again, these two types of threats have been part of the policy since at least April 2008, and quite possibly much earlier. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The common rationales listed there are not all-inclusive. I think the background leading to this block (and speaking only of this editor) matches and meets all four goals listed at Wikipedia:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goal, along with the preventative (rather than punitive) goal of a block. If the likelihood of disruption wanes, the block can and should be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock This is awfully silly. He couldn't "destroy Wikipedia" even if he wanted to, and doesn't strike me as muddled enough to believe otherwise. Topic ban maybe, but that's not something to be decided on WT:RFA. --SB_Johnny | talk17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Frankly, I find the "didn't happen here, can't do anything about it" argument completely unconvincing. The thread is written about this place, in a completely open, publicly-viewable forum. Personally, I don't even have any problem with a thread entitled "How to utterly destroy Wikipedia." I think that these things are good to discuss, as they provide insight into the biggest problems that face us and the road to destruction; (theoretically) they would enable us to change, address the issues and hopefully solve the problems (I admit, I'm an idealist). Discussion is good, criticism is good, but when the user actually starts implementing a plan to destroy WP and provides a direct link as form of explanation... come on. It doesn't really get much clearer that they are trying to "utterly destroy Wikipedia". Should we be good bureaucrats (in the RL sense of the word, naturally) and wait until he breaches Bylaw 13, Section 33(c) before we block him? Should we wait until he embarks upon point 4, the subtle vandalism? Oh but hang on, the thing about subtlety is that it’s just so damn... subtle. Or should we just say "urm, actually, we don't really want to be destroyed and we aren't going to let you try and do it here?" We have long passed the point of naiveté. To throw a WP-meme at you, there's AGF and then there’s plain old stupidity. – Toon17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose to Block - There is nothing in our policies or guidelines that suggest such a block is acceptable. This is Wikianarchy at its best and is a complete destruction of the values of our encyclopedia. This also supports drama mongering by those who called for the block, which happen to be the only ones causing problems. Those who support this block are not acting in any regard in Wikipedia's best interest. I am a blatant enemy of Peter Damian. Most people know that. I do not say these words lightly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support block, after a lot of thought. Intentions are important. If someone adds mistyped gibberish to one of our pages, we politely revert it, and ask if we can help with translating. But if someone's goals are specifically to damage our project, even if the way they go about it doesn't seem too likely to succeed, that is still the very point of a preventative ban. Peter Damian should be encouraged to start his own, better project - almost all our work here is freely available under GFDL, so he can have it all to build from. He should be encouraged to criticize in a way we can use to improve our project. But we shouldn't welcome someone who comes straight out saying he intends to destroy us. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation. Peter has publicly declared he is planning to destroy Wikipedia. He has even set out a numbered list of activities to achieve that goal, and has already acted on the first one. He is trying to destroy the encyclopedia, not just unintentionally causing disruption like Kmweber and DougsTech. I believe a block was necessary, and the current one was justified and should remain in place until/unless Peter promises to cease his quest to destroy Wikipedia. Timmeh18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nuanced opinion that cannot be reduced to a sound bite: expressing dislike of the site's response to controversial voting patterns at RFA. This is the third time in less than a year that conduct RFC has been circumvented in favor of multiple rounds of drama/ban discussion etc. That does not speak well for us, collectively, as a project. We have dispute resolution venues; it would be far better to use them. That said, PeterDamian was formerly community banned, and was allowed to return upon terms against which a portion of the community has procedural objections. There is no doubt that he can contribute encyclopedic content. Can he do so without also causing disruption that exceeds the considerable benefits of that content? Is he a net positive--and if not, can he be? These unanswered questions leave me unable to support or oppose the block. Requesting that if he does return, the matter proceed to an immediate conduct RfC. Durova273 featured contributions18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Enough of the ridiculous drama already. We've got better things to spend our time on. The drama to content ratio, at this point, in my opinion, is not a net benefit. That said, I think throwing insults at the blocking admin is unnecessary. لennavecia18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block - user announces intention to disrupt Wikipedia. Links to announcement on wikipedia. Begins implementing an item from the list of disruption tactics. Any reason to believe he won't do the others? No. Ergo, block is preventing further disruption. → ROUX₪18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block and WP:TROUT to those who oppose it. "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an upraised knife" and second-guessing an administrator who takes decisive, preventative action in the face of a stated threat serves to undermine and disincentivize those who stand ready to defend Wikipedia against disruption. The only real question is whather an apology and retraction from the blockee would be acceptable and grounds for an unblock--I don't think it would be, given the fervency and intensity of the original statement, but on this score others might reasonably differ. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stated threat? Your post right there is more of a threat than anything put forth about Peter Damian. If anything, you should be indeffed on your own rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone asked above why Law would block first, and seek consensus later. The answer is clear and can be found in this thread - by changing the status quo, he made unblocking the action that needs consensus instead of blocking. Others have asked why an off-wiki comment should spark on-wiki action. In addition to the reasons noted by others (bringing the issue on-wiki by quoting/linking and by taking action in support of his off-wiki "plan"), its been my opinion that while off-wiki behavior that is unrelated to Wikipedia is irrelevant for our purposes, off-wiki behavior that is directly related to Wikipedia often and necessarily plays a role in on-wiki enforcement (think Bedford, Nichalp, Thekohser, the many opposes based on WR participation, and many other instances). Even so, this block was hasty and premature. There is something to be said for extending folks like Peter extra rope - either you give them the opportunity climb up, or you ensure that when they hang themselves with it the end is definitive. Nathan T 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...by changing the status quo, he made unblocking the action that needs consensus instead of blocking." Well said, but of course that's precisely the problem. In a sense it was a smart move for someone who wanted Damian blocked, because now it is unblocking which is difficult, not blocking. But we are talking about an indefinite block for an editor who has contributed good content (and a lot of drama, obviously), and in that situation I think that is simply not how things should work. Incidentally I imagine a lot of the people here opposing the block are opposing primarily (or even solely) the process, not so much the idea that something needed to be done about Damian. One could easily argue that asking for consensus on this first could have resulted in a fairly quick solution backed by multiple editors. I think a simple rule for all admins before making a block should be to think, "Will this cause a shitstorm at ANI?" If the answer is yes (as it should have been for this) then post a comment on ANI (or wherever) instead of blocking, even if blocking benefits your position because you know it will be difficult to get consensus to undo it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock. Indefinite blocks for trolling are reserved for SPAs, which Peter Damian is not. There are other ways to deal with trolling, the best is to ignore it. Kusma (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? Indef blocks are used for pattern disruption or to prevent incredibly likely further disruption. → ROUX₪19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse If PD will just settle down and make useful edits to articles - which he certainly can and has done - then he would be welcome. If he insists on all this pointless attention-seeking drama - which alas he does - then he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock So where we know where he is. Has socked in the past. Likely to do so again. Let's keep him on the radar. Does edit content well after all - and the fact that a stated aim of destroying Wikipedia doesn't seem to marry to actively improving it is clearly an indication of his - err.... issues. Pedro : Chat 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that blocking Peter Damian for disruption has really, really, really passed un-noticed and not tied up lots of people in discussion and argument. Is there any reason why I shouldn't simply block the blocking admin - and everyone commenting here (including me) - for the disruption this action has taken? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Break
Oppose, and a great big "Wake up, people": Off wiki is off Wikipedia. We do not, have not, and will not allow people to go searching through the web looking for similar account names, or trying to tie identities to account names, or alleging similarities, or the like to try to "get" people. The rules and policies of Wikipedia apply here and only here. They apply nowhere else, and one reason that the "badsites" and the like exist is because of the exasperation people feel when they think they're getting ganged up on or watched for any misplaced word. This kind of block (and indefinite, too!) was for something off Wikipedia. Do you want people looking for your entire Internet history to try to find something to hang you with? Do you want people to look for similar account names and say they're you? Do you want to have to prove who you are so as to free yourself from every charge? Do you want to be at Fark and then get blocked here for saying a dirty word there? Don't be stupid, people. Additionally, this block, without warning, without discussion, without review (all of which are violations of policy), was indefinite. We don't do that to IP trolls. But a long time contributor like Peter Damian who obviously cares enough to be angry... yeah. This is doltish, and the people endorsing are either not thinking or hypocritical. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that PD linked to it himself, and is fulfilling one of the items he himself listed. So this isn't some sort of witch-hunt trying to find information, it is information provided by the user. → ROUX₪20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User makes threat off wiki to destroy it. User begins to carry out plan on Wikipedia, by mass opposing RFAs. Ergo, user is blocked for trying to destroy Wikipedia. I can't see what the issue is. User said they will destroy Wikipedia, user carries out plan, user is blocked. What else is there to it? I can't understand the opposition against a block for someone with such a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's well-being. It's like having a disease, but refusing to get the cure for it, despite the disease is actively destroying you. Complete madness. Majorlytalk20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's more than a little hyperbolic. "User said they will destroy Wikipedia, user carries out plan..." Really? Where and when did that happen? (sorry, but some RfA votes don't cut if for me). And Damian is "actively destroying" us? Really? I don't like his comments or his actions, and I'm quite open to serious sanctions (possibly including an indef block), but let's try to avoid blowing this out of all proportion, and let's respect the fact that there are a number of people opposed to the process by which this block was put into effect (i.e. in the context of an ongoing discussion in which there was no consensus for an indef block), and that that is a legitimate view to have. Thinking the block was smart and righteous is legitimate too, so let's just try to discuss calmly, to the extent that any discussion which started at WT:RFA and migrated to ANI can ever be calm. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the blocking admin promptly ended his wikipedia day less than 20 minutes after his block, and has not yet responded to a single thing regarding the block. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly believe that a one line oppose at RfAs that can easily be discounted by Crats chosen to decide such things could break Wikipedia? Gesh, Majorly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a really stupid and unproductive block. Wikipedia is not the Tiananmen Square massacre ffs; legitimate criticism of the many faults in our governance (especially off site) needs to be cherished, not stifled or censored. --John (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking someone who is actively trying to destroy Wikipedia is now stupid and unproductive? What about all those vandals who are blocked? Majorlytalk20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think people are trying to answer the wrong question. Why not discuss how best to deal with Peter Damian? Whether or not this particular block was good will then become moot.
If someone says they are contributing in bad faith, I tend to believe them, regardless of whether they say it explicitly in a Wikipedia post or link to it offsite. It may be debated whether or not "destroying Wikipedia to fix Wikipedia" counts as acting in bad faith or a kind of "ends justify the means" meta-good-faith. Personally the only thing I think it safe to take from such a statement is the user's intent to disrupt; there is no guarantee that the chosen means will lead to the desired end.
That's a separate question, I think, from what's been going on at RFA. The 'crats assure us that contributions to RFA which are unrelated to the candidate will not affect the outcome, which makes possible the defence that Peter Damian's actions are harmless because futile. This is not the same as saying that such contributions are desirable in any way. The question is how to respond. Some at RFA argue that anything goes, that any user may say whatever they like, no matter how unfounded or indeed irrelevant, and that it is those who urge any reaction that are guilty of causing disruption. I worry that this tendency will lead to a trial-by-ordeal culture at RfA, where users intentionally behave like dicks just to see how the candidate responds. I'd like to see bureaucrats more actively indenting or striking RfA !votes that are clearly not appropriate and that will be ignored. This helps prevent the RfA being derailed and encourages future contributors to make sure their remarks are on-topic.
I don't have any strong opinions as to what should be done with Peter Damian. I am inclined to think that this block wasn't a very good idea, as implemented, but that doesn't answer the question of whether he should be indefinitely blocked, or perhaps community banned, or banned from RfA, or unblocked with or without an apology. Unless a consensus emerges that an alternative outcome is better than a block, or someone has a link to the blocking admin stating their intent to destroy Wikipedia by blocking its best content editors (this part is a joke), I don't think further action here is necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block – now if he took a dispute from on-wiki to off-wiki and started to engage in harassment, then I could see a block being justified. Otherwise, this is a baseless threat of, as mentioned above, the Pinky & the Brain mentality. MuZemike20:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far too many people are commenting without knowing the situation. Pretty much anyone who said something along the lines of "His voting at RfA is not a blockable offence" or saying "This was off-wiki" is just not reading the whole thread and is decreasing the signal to noise ratio in this discussion. This has to do with him announcing on-wiki his intentions to be disruptive and listing the precise means he intends to do it including announcing his intention of vandalism and demoralising the hard work of Wikipedians. Chillum20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block Nothing has happened yet except some RfA votes. Lots of users make big speeches about all the good they will do, and never do it and/or trash the place or only use the place to start their own personality cult or promote themselves. Statements of intent mean almost nothing unless backed up by edits. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009-06-30T20:09:26 Geogre (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Peter Damian (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 minute (account creation blocked) (Feeding the Wikipedian trolls)
With the edit summary "Feeding the Wikipedian trolls". He then "voted" on this discussion, opposing the block and attacking several people he disagreed with in the process. Majorlytalk20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sad because Geogre doesn't seem to understand the issue. This was not about off-wiki comments but bringing off-wiki threats on-wiki. I wonder if he even read the background. RxS (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What an appallingly bad unblock (zero consensus for it) by someone who quite clearly doesn't understand--or doesn't care--what is actually going on. → ROUX₪20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not advisable in my view given the above discussion, but then again neither was the original block given the lack of any discussion. Cries of "bad unblock!" routinely follow cries of "bad block!" (see above for the latter), and in fact we should probably even write some sort of essay about that pattern. The best thing to do is to avoid blocks that will result in drama (and perhaps even wheel warring) in the first place. I look forward to the re-block and then the re-unblock, and then the RFAR, all of which is completely unnecessary. Or we could just take Durova's advice above, end this conversation, and move the whole party to a user conduct RfC on Peter Damian, which probably should have been the path take in the first place. This ANI thread will likely not end well, which anyone could have guessed from the moment the block was implemented. It's rather sad and dumb and sad (and also dumb) all around, really. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great. First we have a very extensive discussion at WT:Requests for adminship#Peter Damian with no doubt plenty of admins watching it and some even participating. Then one newbie admin of the kind targeted by Peter apparently decides that there is not going to be a consensus to block him, so it's best to make use of the veto right against not blocking that every admin has. And goes to bed 20 minutes later. (I checked the time zone, at least that makes sense.) There are quite a few things here that are appalling. Geogre's actions is not one of them. HansAdler20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Now is a time for consensus rather than bold action." The same can be said for the brazen indefinite block that was placed earlier. Let's not wheel war over this; I suspect that anyone who would re-block could face possible sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time this has happened. I hold Geogre responsible for any future disruption Peter causes due to this unblock. Any disruptive edits he makes now are troll food from Geogre. The very least Geogre could have done is ask Peter to promise not to be disruptive, I fear Peter will take this unblock as permission to do more of the same. Chillum20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't be silly. The block is at the very least controversial. Consensus is not clear; default is to unblock. It is too bad the blocking admin blocked, then promptly disappeared, but that's how it is. Block was against policy and very silly. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reinstating the block. I'd do it, but Arbcom seems to feel that only the third admin in a row is wheel warring, not the second. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for the love of whatever deity or other being you care for, don't anyone reinstate the block. It just adds another layer of ridiculousness fo us to parse. And if someone does make the terrible mistake of doing that, please, for the love of whatever deity or other being you care for, don't anyone reinstate the un-block. Let's try to de-escalate this a bit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Please don't reinstate the block. Some will take Geogre's action as wheel warring, since there was no consensus either way here. However, a third admin action would straightforwardly be wheel warring, whatever mistakes editors may think have been made before. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, reply to Protonk) That's because that's when it is wheel warring. Admin actions must be undoable, in case of situations like this where a bad call or mistake was made. But re-doing it is warring. Its fairly simple, and its very clear. KillerChihuahua?!?21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re to Gwen: If anyone thinks Geogre was wheel warring, then point them to WP:WHEEL and explain why it wasn't. They're wrong, that's all, and you can help them understand it. Even Elonka got it after the third time I explained it to her. KillerChihuahua?!?21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre's unblock fit two of the Possible indications put forth at WP:WHEEL. Moreover, there was no consensus for an unblock and Geogre didn't discuss it with anyone beforehand. Some will take it as wheel warring. As I said though, a second undo (a reblock) would be wheel warring, wholly untowards and uncalled for, unless supported later by a consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the first obvious reversal without discussion both violates BLOCK and brushes up against WHEEL. Edit warring in content confers a first mover advantage while dispute over admin actions confers a second mover advantage. And the result isn't pretty. Admin actions are supposed to be reversable but there is supposed to be deliberation (at least) and consensus (at best) before doing so. If the first block wasn't blatantly incorrect or made in bad faith the unblock should only be made after judicious consideration. But every time we have one of these clusterfucks (pick any one of your favorite "great content editor/doesn't get along well with others" block/unblock issues) drama escalates with the unblock and with the promise that there will almost always be an unblock, regardless of the foundations for the original block. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether I have an opinion about the original block, but that was a very bad unblock, unsupported by consensus. I agree that this fits the description of wheel-warring, and I would support sanctions against Geogre. Sandstein 16:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User conduct RfC?
In the interests of drama reduction, would someone initiate a conduct RfC? Let's regularize this situation and redirect it into productive venues. Peter Damian has much to offer. Clearly, he also has a bit to take on board. Let's move forward toward the most productive resolution. Durova273 featured contributions20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a capital idea. We need a couple of users who have tried (and failed) to resolve issues with Peter Damian in the past in order to even start an RFC (unless that's changed somehow). Or a couple of people could go to his talk page now and try to work something out, and failing that then proceed to start an RfC. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how RfC/U would work for the administrative actions involving "wheel wars" between Law and Geogre as well as the "off-wiki manifesto". ArbCom would be a right place for the whole fiasco.--Caspian blue21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHEEL makes it clear that the Wheel doesn't start until someone reverses Geogre. Therefore, there is nothing worthy of ArbCom's attention, especially without an RFC on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we really need is an extension to WP:WHEEL: Blocking an editor against predictable substantial opposition, during an ongoing discussion with no apparent consensus, is itself wheel-warring against the other admins who have decided not to block, and it needs to be treated as such. And we also need a clarification that the ever so popular controversial midnight blocks can be undone while the blocking admin is asleep. Blocking is Wikipedia's closest equivalent to violence. It has a great potential to alienate users. The "block before thinking" and "when in doubt, keep blocked" mentalities are simply not acceptable. HansAdler21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Case closed ... someone shall file an RFC if 2 people agree they tried to stop it. Drama over. Look elsewhere now. Nothing to see here. Oh look, a castle! (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a model :-/ Sensible undo of block with inadequate warning etc., if someone wants to formally warn PD he'll get a block if he proceeds with his fiendish plan to destroy WP then ok, but the time ain't ripe. . . dave souza, talk21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I mostly concur with Durova, here. I'm concerned by what I agree is disruptive behavior, but I'm also concerned by the community's tendency to pile on and villify -- then effectively ban -- users who've been with us for months or years over one or two colorful incidents. If this has been and continues to be a pattern of disruptive behavior, let's establish that via RfC and deal with it appropriately, moving forward; if this was a one-time error of judgement or can't be established as a pattern, let's accept that people who are with us this long are bound to make mistakes or take unpopular positions from time to time, and remember all the good things they've done for us in the meantime. Why create a drama storm when we can approach this reasonably? – Luna Santin (talk)21:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the step of actually leaving a comment/question for Peter on that editor's talk page. My suggestion is that he voluntarily avoid RfA (and it's talk page), and perhaps that would alleviate some of the concerns about his activities. I guess we'll see what he says. It's worth pointing out amidst all this drama that Peter Damian has not edited since being blocked, and therefore has said nothing about this affair whatsoever. Perhaps the next step is to wait for some sort of reply for him and proceed from there. In the interim perhaps we can all stop saying things for awhile. I'll start. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the other disruptive actions he has indicated he will engage in? Forests and trees, people. → ROUX₪21:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After posting a link to text saying effectively "I intend to damage Wikipedia by doing A, B, C, and D", it should be clear that carrying out any one of those actions will result in a block. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth Peter Damian's reply to my suggestion was "thanks" along with a note that he was away on business for the time being. And to Roux above, my comment on his talk page is trying to address the on-wiki comment (at RfA) that started this brouhaha. I don't think I can do (or say) anything about something he might theoretically do because he posted about it somewhere off-wiki, and as SheffieldSteel says those kind of actions (such as vandalism) would clearly result in a block. If you want to argue that he should be blocked on the basis of the WR post go ahead, but that was not the consensus above, even from many of those who supported Law's block. I'm pretty sure I can see the forest from where I sit, and I think asking Peter a direct question is a lot more helpful in terms of resolving this than 95% of the things here, including my own previous comments. If you have alternative suggestions than by all means state them here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Peter's "plan of action" is so inchoate that anything could be construed to be a part of it. Demoralizing editors. Was it that long ago that the media were being accused of demoralizing "the troops" for wanting to cover the landing of the coffins at Dover AFB and they were practically being accused of treason for the same? Vaguesness can be construed however you might like.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a followup note to Peter, and obviously take it that he will choose to continue participating at RfA, which at this point is certainly his right since there are no restrictions on him in that regard. I also think that, given all the above, this comment ("I don't want to destroy Wikipedia, and I think Wikipedia is a Good Thing") is worth noting. I'm not sure there's much more to be done here, but if there are ongoing issues with Peter Damian, I would strongly suggest that a user conduct RfC is the right place to go or, possibly but less desirably, ArbCom. I'd support archiving this thread since discussion seems to have tapered off, but I'll leave that decision to someone else. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs23:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've now read the entire discussion , which I started over a day ago now. This should be closed as resolved. I support having a discussion in the appropriate venue as to whether blocking while a discussion is going on should be considered wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gnosisquest has been causing trouble at the highly controversial article on Aisha for many months now, and I'm about at my wits end. I'm afraid admin action may be needed. Gnosisquest is a single-purpose account whose edits have been almost entirely confined to adding apologetic material to this one article, and arguing about it on the talk page. His material is in my opinion very poorly sourced and inappropriate for such a controversial subject, and his edit warring, revert warring, and use of sock/meatpuppets led me to protect the article back in April. This protection was lifted in May on the understanding that he would utilize the talk page. Since then he has resumed editing the page in the same tendentious manner, adding and reverting his material back in despite lack of consensus on the talk page. He's asked for comment WikiProject Islam, but found no support, and he requested a 3rd opinion, but didn't get the answer he wanted. In spite of this, he proceeded to make this edit, which plagiarised the source, and then revert-warred it back twicemore in spite of several warnings about the plagiarism and TEND issues [9][10][11][12] Today, I saw that he's started engaging in CANVASSING[13][14], though admittedly in a more nuanced way than than the canvassing I asked him to stop some days ago. I don't see this problem getting any better. At this stage I think his edits have gotten disruptive to the point that a community article ban may be in order--Cúchullaint/c15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add Jonathan King, the sometime pop-music figure/TV personality, to the list of people caught trying to own their own articles. In this case the subject had been extensively anon-posting, trying to massage the presention of his underage sex convictions, and to reinflate the article's previous (self?-)assessment of his former importance.
Um, does nobody see any contradiction in encouraging this sourt of thing while insisting on Wikipedia editors' god-given right to remain pseudonymous at all costs? If blatant POV pushing by I.P.s is becoming problematic, semi-protect the article. I thought we didn't out people here? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If career-long self-publicists like JK use Wikipedia this way, we should hang them out to dry. For WP's own self-defence. Jheald (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to propose a change to WP:OUTING, then, which currently says that "Posting another person's personal information...is harassment unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor."? If memory serves, there was a pretty high profile case in which a fellow was blocked for outing another career-long self-publicist (who was socking to boot). Something about some kind of tactic on financial markets... Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outing that an IP address is where it is, that anyone can see? Outing where Jonathon King is, when it's public information anyway? There is no outing here - just a COI issue that needs to be managed properly. Pedro : Chat 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revealing the person behind a set of edits without that person having voluntarily done so is outing. I don't believe that outing should be outlawed here, but it is, and as long as it is I have a real problem with article subjects being held to a higher standard than Wikipedia editors. There's nothing in WP:COI (which is advice to people considering editing under a COI, not some kind of hammer allowing us to ban people or disregard their views) that allows for outing. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a perfect instance of WP:IAR when to not out them means the project is negatively affected, ie in this case used to spin a sad and ailing career back into existence by someone who is actively lying about who they are. --WebHamster20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that Wikipedia's treatment of article subjects editing their own articles tends to be less WP:IAR and more WP:SASTTTWATERIAZBTBATSU (Subject Article Subjects To Treatment That, When Applied To Editors, Results In A ZOMG Banned!" Tag Being Affixed To Someone's Userpage). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context being everything of course. If an article's subject is sneaky and downright deceitful then they need to be outed and maybe even blocked. If they are willing to be dishonest about that then there's no way their edits can be considered to be reliable, it's pretty bloody obvious they aren't here for our benefit. I have to admit though that I am a little biased in this matter. For someone who is as well known as JC to have to take pictures of themselves to submit to something like WP is, in my humble view, somewhat sad and just adds to the bad taste. --WebHamster21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if somebody's not hear for the right reasons we can out them? Fine with me (seriously - that would actually be my preferred approach), but then we need to extend that to people other than article subjects, and we need to stop pretending that anonymity is sacrosanct here. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean about context and why WP:IAR seems to apply here. There should be no blanket ruling and each case should be on its own merits. WP:OUTING states that non-malicious outings should not result in a block. As I see it Little grape's outing is not malicious and was done purely as a means to protect the project from deceitful, and possibly harmful, editing. --WebHamster23:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's impressive is that even having been busted, JK comes back and edits some more...
There are some examples, eg Peter Hitchens stands out for me, where article subjects engage on their article talk pages in an open and honest way, aware of COI issues, and their presence actually has a solidly beneficial effect. But posting anonymously from a hotel in Italy pretending to be somebody else seems a bit sad.
IMO the best way to prevent such activity is to make clear that people caught doing it will be named and shamed. As Durova said in a thread at WT:HA last year (00:33, 4 October 2008), manipulating Wikipedia can look like an attractive option, unless balanced by the PR risk that it can and will get out. Jheald (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not condoning the activities of article subjects who anonymously try to make their articles look more flattering (usually - in some cases I think it's justifiable), just as I'm not condoning the activities of Wikipedia editors who anonymously try to make articles less flattering on their subjects. I'm just not clear on how it's okay for one to be outed and the other not. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term 'outing' implies the use of insider knowledge to expose something the subject has the right not to put in the public domain. The difference in this instance is that all the information is already in the public domain - most of it on King's own website. For example, there is a picture of the Italian hotel on his website alongside a caption stating that he's gone there for the last fifteen years, and that he appears to 'do Cannes' each year followed by holidays in Morocco and Italy (sometimes Tunisia too). It doesn't then take much intelligence to check hopelessly POV IP edits against WHOIS. In addition to the IP editors, there are a number of user accounts that would appear to be socks and may benefit from checkuser. Have a look at these. There are plenty more, but you get the point:
I think Steve's point about anonymous editors making articles *less* flattering is interesting - we are all charged with the responsibility of making articles *not at all* flattering, and that means removing puffery, fabrication, fake cites et al. Part of this work will inevitably involve investigation of editors who may not be what they seem. While good faith should be assumed, as soon as solid evidence is obtained then that evidence should be presented for discussion. Little grape (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I believe that User:Allstarecho is using unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of "stalking", "hounding", and "harrassment" to discourage me from participation in discussions. I am tired of the accusations and would like some admin action to put a stop to them. Per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are "never acceptable".
On 19 June, in another ANI thread, Allstarecho accused me of "hounding" here and here. I asked Allstarecho to stop making accusations and invited him to follow up in an appropriate forum if he had genuine concerns about my behaviour. The same ANI thread also includes the perplexingly mysterious but clearly threatening comment"Disengage from me before my accusation escalates to a worse accusation".
On 28 June, Allstarecho again accused me of "wiki-stalking" here for participating in an MfD discussion. I reiterated that I was not wikistalking him and again asked him to stop making accusations and take it to an appropriate forum.
Today he removed comments of mine from a Village Pump with the edit summary "rmv that which has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion; feel free to post it somewhere appropriate, and thanks for the additional stalking/hounding/harassment".
Please do not respond to this thread with platitudes such as "just disengage from each other". Allstarecho has been involved in a large number of issues just in the past month - block for copyright violations; questionable unblocking for same; egregious ownership and COI issues at Equality Mississippi; insertion of a joke image into an article; similar unsubstantiated stalking allegations against User:Damiens.rf; and creation, re-creation, and re-re-creation of redirects from article space into his userspace. Forgive my bluntness, but there is no shortage of legitimate complaints based on Allstarecho's actions. I have already been run off Equality Mississippi and have ignored other issues that I would not otherwise have hesitated to tackle. Although some of my comments did not help the situation, I do not think I am the problem here. Please address these repeated personal attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just the fact that you even posted this, speaks volumes as to your hounding/harassment. All one has to do, for evidence, is look at your contribs and see where you've been and they will find it's usually right behind me. That's stalking. Disengage indeed. Your comment I removed today from Village Pump, was indeed just that.. it had nothing whatsoever, not a single letter, space or equation, to do with that thread. It was nothing more than provocation. And that's all I'm going to say on this thread. -ALLST✰R▼echowuz here21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that bringing this here was an invitation for people to scrutinize my recent contributions. If someone feels that I have been wikistalking you, I'm sure they will say so. I'm here because I'm tired of the accusations and personal attacks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how useful this information will be to the reviewing admins but a look at the block pages of both editors shows that while Delicious Carbuncle has never been blocked, Allstarecho it seems has a very busy block page--The Legendary Sky Attacker01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like Allstarecho has a legitimate grievance here. Was this necessary? And do cheeky edit summaries like these [15][16] serve any purpose?
I don't know if I'd call it hounding but it does appear that Delirious carbuncle is baiting Allstarecho. Regrettably, hotheads are easily taken in by routines like this one, and they usually pay for it with a long blocklog while their antagonists get away with it completely. McJeff (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Allstarecho, more than once, to pursue his accusations if he felt that I actually was hounding him. He has not done that. WP:NPA is very clear that his repeated unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks. His response here was to again accuse me of the very same thing. Whether or not you feel that I am hounding Allstarecho or somehow manipulating him into getting himself blocked, at this point the issue is with his personal attacks against me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your first question, while it may appear that I was unnecessarily provoking Allstarecho, at that time I was also doing whatever I could to draw admin attention to an article which was in the midst of a nasty edit war and an attempt to vilify a particular editor who appeared to me to be overly bold but well-intentioned. The article's issues remain unsolved, but that editor has been scared off (as have I) by the episode. Here is the archived discussion from Allstarecho's talk page that I was linking to, if you're interested in reading it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
McJeff, please look at the links given by Delicious Carbuncle. Allstarecho has clearly been disruptive a lot lately and there should be severe consequences for these actions as well as the intimidation and personal attacks and other disruptive actions. Delicious Carbuncle did the right thing by reporting this here. Allstarecho's actions lately are unacceptable and very, very inappropiate. In fact, this is some of the silliest behavior I have ever seen on Wikipedia.--The Legendary Sky Attacker05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it may seem to some that I'm just doing this to create drama or antagonize Allstarecho, but I'm really not. Despite my repeated denials, I have no way of defending myself against the accusations if Allstarecho chooses not to make a formal complaint. Allstarecho's accusations have been seen by editors who have no knowledge of the events which precipitated his attacks and now unfairly associate me with hounding. And making unsubstantiated accusations is a personal attack, as very clearly defined in WP:NPA. Ignore the rest of the issues and look at it as repeated personal attacks if that makes it easier, just please do something about this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at all the links above (yes, I really did - that's half an hour of my life I won't get back) my inclination would be to suggest that both editors refrain from interacting with each other. We can formalise this if you want, but it clearly is the common-sense reaction to such editing. Black Kite22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to be the one telling you this, but I will nevertheless. There's clearly no immediate problem that needs to be dealt with, so this is not the appropriate venue for your complaints. If you feel that a case can be made against Allstarecho then prepare one and take it to WP:RFC. --MalleusFatuorum22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for me to report repeated personal attacks? The most recent actually occurring in Allstarecho's reply to my starting this thread? The one that prompted me to start the thread was just hours before? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, seriously - you need to start an RFC/U on this. It is very unlikely that, given the timeframes above, any admin will take action on this immediately. Black Kite22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. A personal attack in an ANI thread usually results in an automatic block, but in this case I'm being told that this isn't even the right forum? Do you at least acknowledge that WP:NPA very clearly states that unsubstantiated allegations of hounding are personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop block-shopping. Those who have commented here have made it very clear to you: no administrative action is going to be taken at this time. Your next step would appear to be an RFC about ASE's behavior, if you find it so untenable. Or you could just stop going places on-Wiki where you know he frequents. Unitanode22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "block-shopping" means. Would I like Allstarecho blocked for his personal attacks? Yes, but I'd prefer that he stop making accusations against me. Do you at least acknowledge that WP:NPA very clearly states that unsubstantiated allegations of hounding are personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does say that, but from what I've seen above, there is substantiation for ASE's claims that you're hounding him. Now I'm asking you to please take this to RFC or let it go. Unitanode22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your opinion, although I note that your account is barely 3 months old, but permit me to quote WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki". Note especially the last two sentences. I have encouraged Allstarecho to make a formal complaint. He has not. You acknowledge his personal attack in this thread, yet it is not being acted upon. Why is this particular thread so different from any of the others here? (And please explain what you mean by "block-shopping". Thanks) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just spent a solid twenty minutes reviewing all these diffs and some of the situations, and I have to say, I wish I had that twenty minutes back. Any further comment on the situation, from me, would most certainly end up in a block for myself. As I have gone on record as having an extraordinarily low opinion of Allstarecho's editing, I won't issue any blocks - but if I were a completely uninvolved admin, I'd issue a final warning against disruption - to both editors. This bullshit needs to stop on all fronts - Allstarecho's accusations, DC's baiting, and DC's persistent whining on this page. Tan | 3923:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wait a minute here, I agreed to a solution proposed by Tantalus39 even though it wasn't what I was looking for. NeutralHomer (who isn't at all neutral in this instance) solicited J.delanoy on his talk page to close by misrepresenting my position. I didn't bring this here so that it could be blown off without Allstarecho being so much as warned to stop making personal attacks. I get that this is annoying, but there's been almost no discussion of the agreed upon personal attacks. Why close this without taking the proposed solution which Tan39 would have done himself if he felt less involved? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tan39 wanted you both warned (which I did) and you both to leave each other alone (which I said in my warning). So...I am confused at what you want. Tan39 said it, I said it, J. said it in the resolved message and then closed it because it has been said three times. What do you want here? Someone else to say it? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious carbuncle wants Allstarecho to receive an explicit NPA warning for making accusations presented without evidence. I may be more receptive to this concern, having recently had cause to review that particular NPA item. From the comments above referencing mitigating factors and mutual antagonism, it appears that DC will not have his druthers. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly recommend that Delicious carbuncle refrain from the pointless, antagonistic little digs at other users (i.e. NeutralHomer, who isn't neutral at all in this instance) in the future, as they themselves are as much a violation of WP:CIV as the accusations of hounding that he so resents. McJeff (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me this seems like a damned witch hunt that will only end when Delicious carbuncle gets a correctly worded statement from someone to someone (and one Delicious carbuncle knows what that is) and he doesn't intend to let it die as he said in this edit summary. ASE seems to be leaving Delicious carbuncle alone, I am at a loss as to what more he could want. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFC used to harass
Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas in an effort to harass and intimidate me from pursuing my plagiarism investigation against them. I have already made two reports on one incident and I am in the process of making a third, more detailed report showing multiple instances of plagiarism. This RfC against me violates just about every aspect of a user-conduct RfC: 1) It does not show with diffs that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute 2) This RfC was brought solely to harass or subdue me as, Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1 consider me their adversary 3) I have responded twice to these baseles allegations in a related incident report, however it is close to impossible to respond due to every single, cherry picked quote taken out of context, without overwhelming Wikipedia's servers 4) The entire user conduct RFC represents a dispute over article content, including a dispute over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy. Per the user conduct RfC guideline, this complaint belongs in an Article RfC. 5) Even though the process page clearly says that "an RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban", all three users are using the RfC to call for sanctions. 6) Yachtsman1, who has a documented history of making false allegations against me, is now using the RfC page to make bizarre, sockpuppet allegations. Could a neutral administrator look into this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not willing to complete it, engage in constructive dispute resolution, and begin shouting that Viriditas is some random sockpuppet all the while demonstrating incivility and/or poor demeanor, then it stands that the user-conduct RFC is nothing more than blatant trolling at its best. seicer | talk | contribs01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 are civil POV pushers and inadvertent plagiarists. Wildhartlivie is a primary contributor to Jonestown (95 edits) and an ally of Mosedchurtre on the same topic. He defended Mosedschurte on the same issue when the problem of cherry picking and POV pushing by Mosedschurte originally came up on the noticeboards in 2008. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is simply and completely untrue. The posts for a RFC on the Harvey Milk content were posted to the AN/I board by Mosedschurte here, as one of seven posts on the RFC that were supportive of the content on that page. It was not a case of "defending" anyone at AN/I about NPOV or cherrypicking and that statement misrepresents what was posted and why. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that interesting? Most of those accounts were SPA, with the exception of you and Mosedchurtre. Curiouser and curiouser...how deep does this rabbit hole go? Let's take a look:
This just keeps getting more outrageous. So you think all of those accounts are me too. You honestly just sit there and making more and more accusations. Is this how you intelligently discuss things, trying to scoop dirt on anyone who disagrees with you in order to get rid of them? And with such vehemence. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't "think" anything of the sort. I merely observed that all of the accounts that were "supportive" of Mosedchurtre were SPA or now, indefintely blocked. Interesting, that. Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insinuations are still insinuations and you avoided acknowledging that you made a wrong assumption about my having posted at AN/I in defense of Mosedschurte. This is why the Jonestown talk page discussions deteriorated as they did. Rather than acknowledge that something was said, the only thing that is seized on is another opportunity to make a subtle or not so subtle dig. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said that you "defended Mosedschurte on the same issue when the problem of cherry picking and POV pushing by Mosedschurte originally came up on the noticeboards in 2008." This is true. Now, perhaps I could have worded that better; I did not say you posted to AN/I. I said you defended Mosedchurtre on the same issue. This issue was brought to the noticeboards, where Mosedchurtre copy and pasted your support (presumably from the talk page) on the noticeboard page at 03:22, 7 August 2008.[17]:
"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: " (to Wikldhartilive) Isn't that interesting? Most of those accounts were SPA, with the exception of you and Mosedchurtre. Curiouser and curiouser...how deep does this rabbit hole go? Let's take a look" (Viriditas)
Oh good god. There have got to be 2-3 examples alone from this baseless, lashing out ANI section alone that should added to the WP:Wikihounding RfCU on Viriditas, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This editor's behavior and repeated and numerous false charges (too many to even keep up with) against now at least three other editors who have merely taken opposing stances on content issues have become more than a bit troubling. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it troubling that the only editors who support you are SPA's or edit warriors, either recruited from the Digwuren arbcom case or from one-time, throw away accounts who supported you above and disappeared, never to be seen again. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I am uninvolved.
1) It appears that this RFC was filed correctly. Three editors, Mosedschurte, Wildhartlivie, and Yachtsman1 have commented on the RFC, one more than the two required. Users Mosedschurte and Wildhartlivie have both provided multiple difs although Yachtsman1 has not. It is perfectly valid to call an RFC regarding the general conduct of a user; as stated at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, the process is for discussing specific users who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
2) I won't comment on this because I am not familiar with the issue.
3) It would probably help if you posted a response at the RFC. Feel free to copy the information from the related incident report you mentioned. Don't worry about responding to every individual dif. Just pick the most important ones. Also be sure you include difs that demonstrate "good behavior" on your part to counter accusations more effectively. Also I strongly recommend you do not "attack" the other editors by giving difs of "bad behavior" on their part unless it specifically has to do with interactions with you. Digging up unrelated content to cast aspersion on another editor often looks bad.
4) It appears the three contributing editors are indeed focusing on conduct rather than on article content. I'm will have to disagree with your view that this RFC is a content related RFC.
5) I would suggest you ignore proposed solutions asking for a block or a ban because they won't get what they're asking for anyway from the RFC. The desired outcomes section is for "spelling out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus." You could leave a polite note on the RFC talk page pointing to the RFC guide to remind users that blocking or topic banning are impossible outcomes RFC.
6) Looking at the RFC for Uruk2008 as a comparison, it seems listing potential sockpuppets with good reasons seems acceptable. Assuming you aren't using a sockpuppet, I would ignore the sockpuppet allegation. It is relatively easy for an administrator to determine if the username in question is actually a sock using Checkuser. If you aren't using a sockpuppet, than the accusation will simply be baseless and won't hurt your arguments. If you are using a sock, then I would stop editing with it immediately, confirm it is a sock, and apologize. Sockpuppets are not looked well upon in these kinds of situations. Sifakatalk02:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a neutral administrator to take a look. This is a content dispute that is being turned into a conduct dispute by cherry picking content-related discourse out of their original context and twisted into something I never said or intended. At no time has anyone tried to resolve a conduct dispute because there simply isn't one, and the diffs don't substantiate any of the claims being made. I don't use sockpuppets and there is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting such a claim. The entire RfC is nonsense, and it was designed to harass and intimidate me and serves no other purpose. We do not bring RfCs against editors who have content of NPOV disputes, and that is what is being done. There is not one single diff in the entire RfC that supports any of the claims being made. Not one. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sifaka: Agree on all of 1-6. And, again, nothing at the RfCU is about any sort of content dispute. Also, in addition to numerous request across article talk pages and noticeboards, further requests to stop the campaign from spreading beyond one article were left by me on Viriditas' talk pages In addition to numerous requests on Talk pages, three days ago, I placed the following "here" and here.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On top of Viriditas providing NO notice of this ANI section to me, the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas was opened at the request of Administrators and editors on this board, such as here, here and here. I didn't even know that RfCU existed until these people suggested a filing there, and this is hardly "harrassment". In addition to doing so at the request of admins and others, no one who reads the contents of the RfCU -- which include about as blatant WP:Wikihounding as one will see -- would think that filing the RfCU was "harrassment." There is also no particular content dispute at issue at the RfCU. I would honestly just hope that something happens to end the WP:Wikihounding, with this renewed ANI section -- YET ANOTHER part of the campaing -- going exactly the opposte direction, and I'm not even particularly concerned about getting any kind of block of Viriditas or "winning" an argument.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The charge of plagiarism didn't have anything to do with the article in question (Jonestown) on which a large part of the behavioral issues resulting in the WP:RFCU was based. Clouding the waters with unfounded accusations was part of the dispute, but not in regard to the article in question itself. That issues from other places were dragged into it and made part of the dispute is an editor conduct issue. I addressed my concerns about that repeatedly, questioning that this editor was sufficiently neutral based on history with the other editors. My understanding from this diff is that the reviewer did not agree with the claim. The issues brought up by Viriditas were primarily regarding WP:NPOV and were also reviewed and not supported [18]. Because the editor chose to reply to the RFCU with a report at WP:AN/I rather than respond to the RFCU doesn't negate my concerns with how I was treated by Viriditas and in fact, my history of editing on Wikipedia has never involved plagiarism, source cherry picking, or other similar issues. NPOV was never an issue until this. That I was drawn into this by how the dispute progressed was something I actively tried to avoid and said so clearly on the talk page. It doesn't negate my treatment and that is at issue. This issue for RFCU is not about the content, it is about how Viriditas's conduct progressively deteriorated. That there is a poor history between Viriditas on the one part and Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1 is the foundation for what happened on Talk:Jonestown and something I actively tried to discourage from the moment it began. Of course, Viriditas is going to see it as a personal attack, it's about his/her behavior. If the RFCU had format issues as to how it was written is something no one bothered to address at any time and no opportunity or notification was given to fix it. Instead, a posting here with Viriditas' POV about the event was used to erase the concerns that were raised. I requested, more than one time, to ask for dispute resolution or a third party neutral mediator/reviewer be brought in on Talk:Jonestown. Viriditas was not amenable to that, instead filing the WP:NPOV noticeboard report and sticking a peer review request on the page. If I didn't post those diffs in the right section of the RFCU, that is something that can be easily remedied since they are on the RFCU page. And finally, if I recall correctly, the original RFCU has content that I posted that confirmed Viriditas did know about the filing, even if a notice was not given on his/her talk page. That notification is a problem seems to go both ways. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The charge of plagiarism has everything to do with Jonestown and that is what led me to that article. I also became aware of serious NPOV issues that Mosedchurtre had brought to other Jim Jones/People's Temple articles by reading the noticeboard archives where this has been extensively discussed. I began by handling the NPOV issues, first, and I have not yet finished reviewing the article due to the ownership issues demonstrated by you and the continuined crud flooding from the Mosedchurtre/Yachtsman1 tag team. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This speaks for itself. Accusations of ownership, references to "crud", and for the record, now, Viriditas is planning to file a SPI report on me because my friend has been a roommate off and on for the last few months. When she is here, she and I use the same internet connection, and she occasionally edits on Wikipedia, though likely not all the time as she frequents the internet from work and also I believe from her daughter's house (which I didn't mention). I freely admitted to this, and per WP:ROOMMATE that is not a problem. My friend dealt with the user who popped into the Jonestown, after I reverted his first change to the article, whom Yachtsman1 thought was a sock account, who made some bizarre edits. That my friend and I have similar interests in topics isn't so unusual for two persons who have been friends as long we have and she has helped with removing some deprecated content fields and assists me to find sources at the library because I can't go. I was asked to prove a negative, which I'm not able to do. However, I won't be bullied into admitting something that isn't true and come here and throw myself on the mercy of the administrators in order to appease Viriditas. There are other editors on Wikipedia who know that the other editor is my friend and occasionally edits on Wikipedia from the same IP and who will likely speak up to confirm that. I find it disengenous to try to seek out ways to force people off of Wikipedia who disagree with him/her, especially since before this Jonestown incident, the only interactions I had with Viriditas were not in any way contentious. Wildhartlivie (talk)
"When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." I do not doubt that your roommate shares this account. However, after looking at your contributions, it becomes clear that you have "borrowed" the account to revert certain articles to your preferred version. It is also clear that you have used unique edit summaries from both accounts, in a style that appears to belong only to you. I will not pursue this here, but rather in the appropriate venue. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guilty if it's similar, I'm guilty if it's different. According to you, I'm guilty of a lot things that aren't true (see the list of IPs and identities above that are me too). This is completely relevant here since you're waging war against someone who disagreed with you. The only "controversial" topic that the other editor ever edited on that I know of was the Jonestown page and it wasn't in relationship to anything to do with the dispute that had been ongoing on that page. The trouble is, a person can't prove something doesn't happen. Like I said, there are a lot of topics we both find interesting, that's going to happen and since I'm not aware of a policy saying we can't work on some things that interest us both, like hundreds of actor articles. It comes down to what you think is true. I stated here, first, that my friend edits on Wikipedia. I stated here that we have lived together off and on recently and in the past. This has forced me to disclose personal details that are frankly none of your business in the interest of being frank about it, but I can't say that I'm convinced that your intent is anything but mal intent. I don't use her account. I don't use her computer, which is even more relevant. She used mine a few times in the past before she bought her laptop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the motives do get assigned rather quickly, do they not? Please note that I was not informed of this thread by its initiator. The RFC in question can be found here: [[19]]. Contrary to the statement above, it was started by user:Mosedschurte here: [[20]] at the suggestion of other editors on this noticeboard here: [[21]]. The RFC was started because of the conduct of user:Viriditas. The underlying problem is the marked hostility and incivility of user:Viriditas, as demonstrated here: [[22]], here: [[23]], here: [[24]], here:[[25]], here: [[26]], and here: [[27]]. The user's comments were the subject of debate here as well: [[28]] by user:Colchicum, and was admonished by an adminsitrator. I could go further, but the fact remains that user:Viriditas is a shockingly rude editor whose comments are, by an standard, not civil. I personally sought that the user act civilly here: [[29]], which was removed on the user's talk page here: [[30]]. The claim of "plaigarism" has been a constant accusation, yet when this claim was examined against user:Mosedschurte on the Content Noticeboard, it was found not to be plaigarism. See: [[31]]. Notwithstanding the finding that the cited material was not "plaigarism", user:Viriditas continues to make this claim against not only user:Mosedschurte, but against me as well without a shred of proof to support this allegation, and after one editor informed user:Viriditas the exact opposite. In any event, the position taken, that an assumption of good faith should be set aside and we should all presume that an editor started an RFC to stop the ever-so dreaded "plaigarism investigation" is not grounded in fact. I have modified my statements on the RFC to comply with its purpose, but the editor in question's position that this RFC is unsubstantiated is not well taken. It is probably best to let the RFC take its course, and the described conduct examined by others. My final wish is that the editor in question learn WP:CIV, stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and modify his or her behavior accordingly. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your accusatory, uncivil commentary, which conveniently omits response to your own documented behavior while oddly confirming it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply stating the facts. If you disagree, feel free to show how copying and pasting content from a book without attribution or quotes is not plagiarism. I already proved it was with a passage from Turabian 2007, and the copyright cleanup project already confirmed this. See also: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Educational institutions are primarily concerned with close paraphrasing from an ethical perspective: using another's words as one's own is considered plagiarism." Viriditas (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking me to prove a negative, as well as my own innocence. Allow me to take this opportunity to decline your kind invitation, and remind you that the burden lies on the accuser to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove his or her own innocence. Please publish your "report", and once accomplished, I will deal with these accusations at that time. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already proven my claims repeatedly on the talk page of Talk:Human rights in the United States. You've continued to ignore them, and as a result, there is still plagiarism in that article. Since the problem is ongoing, the report will highlight the plagiarism, show exactly where it exists, and I will ask the copyright cleanup project to deal with it. Viriditas (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Place your "proven claims" into the report, and I'll deal with it there. I have not commented on Human rights in the United States for some time in an effort to avoid further conflict in light of your continued behavior. So, you are correct, I have ignored that talk page in recent days, and intend to continue doing so in the near future. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between refusing a request, and ignoring one as not meriting a serious response. As stated, issue that report, and I'll defend myself accordingly.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move for Closure
It is becoming more ironically evident that this ANI is merely a tool for harassment and intimidation of its creator. So far, we have two accusations of plaigarism, one attempted outing, threats of a future "plaigarism report", and a slew of uncivil comments from user:Viriditas, who has decided to assign motives to everyone involved as part of some sort of conspiracy. The basis for the RFC that was created has, if anything, been reconfirmed by this thread. I would suggest closure at this time, with the matter of the RFC taking its course. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Viriditas, it has to do with your bevavior, exemplified by accusations of "civil POV pushing, plagiarism, alleged use of sock puppets, and edit warring, tag teaming and back channel coordination" as seen above. This violates the core guiding principle of wikipedia to assume good faith, and further violates wp:civ. The only thing your constant accusations and attacks are demonstrating on this thread and in front of administrators is to fully display the continued merits of that discussion, and to provide its legitimacy for all to see. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this has to do with the behavior of a small group of coordinated editors who have taken over multiple talk pages and articles to push their POV using underhanded tactics of back channel coordination, edit warring, and civil POV pushing strategies. The evidence for this is overwhelming. You can't get your way so you start attacking editors, and when those editors reply to your attacks, they are suddenly "incivil". Viriditas (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - the key list of players from the Digwuren case popped up at the RfC case as soon as Mosedschurte became involved. And these don't regularly edit United States-related articles. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC case is not a United States article, and I was not part of the "list of players from the Digwuren case" (whatever that is). The total number of editors on the RFC to date is three. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many comments on that section, all from differing positions, and from all sides of the debate. Who was involved in the prior case you mention?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, 19 editors commented on the RFC in question concerning whether they supported including international areas in the article. How many were "key players" as you assert? Identify them for us so we can examine the merits of your argument. I would also like some sort of evidence to support this claim of "back channel communications" as well as this "mob" that allegedly descended on the article in question. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not wikilawyer over an arbcom ruling.[32][33]. Per Thatcher: "The list of editors and reversions makes a prima facia case for tag-team editing; whether it was organized or spontaneous is irrelevant..."[34]Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally not, because you have no real evidence. The ArbCom placed user:PasswordUsername on a 1RR restriction, but I will note he has also taken your side in this matter, together with his allies in that particular dispute: [[35]] Again, when you have provided me with some sort of evidence, please let me know. Until then I think it's merely speculative, and nothing more than a personal attack at this point. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(od)These accusations and implications of some bizarre conspiracy theory becoming more bizarre and ridiculous by the minute, reflecting yet further WP:Wikihounding outlined in alarming detail in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I am in no way involved with the "Digwuren" case, and I seriously doubt that Yachtsman1 and Wildhartlivie are either. The reaching here on these latest accusations is too much. What next, Yachtsman1, Wildhartilive and I filmed Armstrong faking the moon landings?
Like the other editors, I am just wondering how to make the WP:Wikihounding -- including NUMEROUS attacks, accusations, uncivil behavior, etc, over several articles and noticeboard outlined here -- stop. I feared that bringing the RfCU would just make this editor even more aggressive, and had perviously even also twice practically begged Viriditas to stop bringing disputes to other articles/noticeboards on Viriditas' Talk page, "here" and here. Unfortunately, there is virtually no end in signt to this WP:Wikihounding campaign.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No conspiracy required. Your edit history shows a direct connection to post-World War II history and Eastern European history, the primary focus of the Digwuren arbcom case. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point of making this RfC was to conduct all your discussions there, rather than at the ANI. This discussion only creates disruption. As about Viriditas, this diff tells a lot. I noticed that Alex stopped editing receiving this "question" at the borderline of a personal attack. No wonder.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I had never seen those comments from Viriditas on an admin's page, many of which also included outrageous allegations about me and a variety of other editors. I'm starting to wonder now where hasn't Viridiatas been making these attacks rather than where has he/she done so.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block review - uninvolved admin request
William M. Connolley has blocked A.K.Nole for 24 hours for trolling. I think this is a bad block, and AKN has requested an unblock. However, as I am involved (see, e.g., my talk page), I am requesting an uninvolved editor to examine this. LadyofShalott00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I took a look at the situation which seems to be an editing disagreement between two users over technical descriptions in the article Butcher group. That article is beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid, so it's difficult to tell who has the better of the argument. However, it is somewhat disturbing that someone who seems to be willing to help out on such a technical subject is blocked for making apparently innocuous comments on talk pages, suggesting improvements or questioning the presentation in the article. Talk page comments are given much wider latitude for content and even nit-picking or even ignorance before it would be considered trolling, and for the mathematically-challenged the comments that seemed to earn the block didn't deserve that. However, I am not answering the unblock request, because in the context of this technical area the comments that look innocuous could be the equivalent of adding "But doesn't Newton's second law need to be repealed" to the ABBA talk page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If LadyofShalott or someone else who understands the underlying content debate could elaborate on it that would be useful. Like Carlos I don't know enough on the subject to understand what is going on, and anyway since I have recently (and in the past) taken a negative view of admin actions by WMC I'm probably not the person to undo one of his blocks. But this block does look very questionable on the face, if only for the fact that the explanation is so vague ("trolling") that I can't tell why exactly the editor was blocked. WMC asked A.K. Nole to "ponder the reasons for this" block, but I personally have no idea what those reasons are, since Nole simply seems to be in a content dispute with another editor (perhaps adding some questionable material as well, but apparently not since the warning). It appears that Nole was blocked for continuing to discuss an issue on their own talk page, though I could have missed something else. At the very least this is a problem because admins need to have an understanding of the rationale for a given block when considering an unblock. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give everyone some more reading material until WMC shows up: I'm pretty sure this is related to the whole ChildofMidnight/MathSci tempest of a few days ago. I think CoM was doing something similar, on the same page, and was blocked. Just providing a little context, I just remember seeing the CoM thread, but I didn't read it, and I have absolutely no opinion on the underlying blocks of either CoM or AKN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the Butcher group article on new page patrol, one of many Articles I worked on that evening, and made a very reasonable copy-edit [36]. This was met with rude and hostile attacks on my talk page including accusations that I was stalking Mathsci. I tried to disengage and worked elsewhere, but Mathsci made an ANI report, where his behavior was criticized by many editors, and William Connelly inexplicably blocked me unilaterally without any shred of consensus. Most editors and admins noted that Mathsci's behavior was uncivil and unacceptable. The talk page of that article is clear about Mathsci's attitude and hostility to other editors working on "his" article. Connelly appears to support and encourage this rude, obnoxious and childish behavior and has made levying these inappropriate and bullying blocks a pattern. Together they are quite a team against anyone who dares edit an article against Mathsci's wishes. Mathsci also made this rude and uncalled for attack on my talk page [37] today after I politely suggested on A.K. Nole's talk page that the block should be reviewed [38]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CoM, might I respectfully suggest that you might not be the best person to comment on this/it might not be in your best interests to comment on this, lest it appear that you have some sort of vendetta going on? → ROUX₪01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering ChildofMidnight has been mentioned below as possibly related to the situation, I'd say it's not only appropriate for COM to comment but expected. --auburnpilottalk01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Bigtimepeace said below, I was meaning the comment more for CoM's sake; he has enough opinion stacked against him that it would make sense for him to not give people the chance to manufacture more. → ROUX₪02:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would second what Roux said to some degree (just for CoM's sake), though in fairness (and here echoing AuburnPilot) Mathsci's comment to CoM was grossly uncivil. As such I have warned Matschi for that remark. Regardless of anything else going on here, saying "It seems that you are trying your hardest to be the most visible mathematical/theoretical physics troll on wikipedia" in response to a user talk page note simply suggesting that a block be reviewed is most definitely not on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's my take on the situation. Despite working in mathematics I don't really understand the contents of the article. I think that's relevant: I do at least know enough to tell that it's on advanced research mathematics, seems to be important to some areas of mathematics that are different than the ones I work on, and with more effort than I care to spend right now I think I could understand it. One of the people who has helped edit the article is a Fields medalist, so I am confident that it's of some importance and that someone who does understand it has taken it in hand. Anyway, A.K.Nole has been active on the talk page, asking very naive questions at a rate that could easily be annoying to the other people there who are trying to get some editing done. I can see two possible explanations: (1) they (I'm using the singular they because it's just too tedious to keep writing "he or she") are earnest and trying to understand the new article, have not yet been scared away by all the complicated math, do not realize how much they're in over their head, and are asking naive questions in the hope that getting the more expert editors there to answer them will cause the article to be rewritten in a less inaccessible way; or (2) they understand that there is little hope of getting the article to be truly accessible to a general audience and are just asking questions to be annoying. Per WP:AGF I'd lean towards the first explanation; Connolley seems to have taken the second instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec's...) Another article is involved: AKNole added some information from Butcher group to the stub, Minimal subtraction scheme, and Mathsci objected. I am unable to understand either why this would be appropriate or inappropriate, and declined to comment on the content dispute accordingly. At my suggestion, however, AKNole posted requests for help on the talk pages of the math and physics wikiprojects. Wm.M.C. deleted the whole conversation from the article talk page as trolling immediately after blocking Nole. LadyofShalott01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot follow the mathematics here either, however a look at the general pattern suggests this primarily a content dispute, with some suggestions from Mathsci that AKN lacks some understanding of the mathematical principles at work. I can't see anything that looks like obvious trolling, nor anything that would obviously warrant a 24 hour block. AKN hasn't made a direct edit to any relevant page since 0649, instead posting to various talk pages. I'm finding this block highly dubious. Exxolon (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue here, which was also apparently the case with the recent block of ChildofMidnight, is that Connolley seems to regularly make questionable blocks just before going offline for the evening. When the CoM block was questioned, Connolley twice removed a subsection title of a thread on ANI that included his name [39][40], chastised the editor who started the subsection in a somewhat patronizing way, and then peaced out (no doubt to bed) for 6 1/2 hours whilst his block of CoM was discussed on ANI (and where it was met with significant objection). These problematic blocks, and just as much WMC's response (or lack thereof) to criticism about them, seem to come up with remarkable frequency. It would be nice if an administrator for whom he has some respect, and I'm guessing that is not me, could bring this issue up with WMC on his talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to go back and thank my father for his random quizzes on obscure mathematical concepts! I'm by no means an expert, but I can at least understand the article and good god, most people would need a graduate degree to follow the lead. Anyways, I can't find any way in which I'd characterize AKN's comments as trolling - both her questions were on point and resulted in improvements; they show a general understanding of the subject which is more than we expect for most topics. Mathsci's objections there seems mostly to stem from the fact that he's being questioned at all and I believe in the second question, he completely misinterpreted the actual point in his hurry to be dismissive. How all this ended up in a block, I can't imagine - is there something here we're missing? Shellbabelfish01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might be missing the relationship between Mathsci and WMC, birds of a feather. "Trolling" is one of the favorite block reasons for admins who have to make up a reason. I see no sign at all that AKN was seeking to inflame or outrage, which is what trolling would be, but, from another point of view, Mathsci was outraged and threatening AKN with being blocked, so doesn't that prove that AKN was doing something wrong? --Abd (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AKN's contributions here are absolutely trolling. AKN has only the most minimal understanding of this topic and no real interest in it, the only reason he got involved in this is to harass Mathsci following a disagreement at WP:FTN#A.K.Nole disputing fringe science involvement. It's a good block; we mustn't tolerate this sort of harassment. You should be aware that an early stage of the harassment was an attempt by AKN to imply that the user name "Mathsci" is a trademark infringement. He's just going after anything that he believes will annoy. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful info, and this remark in particular does not speak well for AKN. I'm not sure it rises to a blockable level (maybe it does), and the issue of a lack of a specific block rationale on WMC's part remains. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..so that sounds as if this was a culmination of AKN hounding Mathsci in various places - wasn't clear by the block notice or log, but if that's the case then the block is reasonable. Shellbabelfish03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And "Lady of Shalott" is the name of a copyrighted song. Having the same name as a database doesn't violate WP:U unless it's being used for promotional or deceptive purposes, and no one has made that suggestion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To speak in broad terms, trolling is not a desirable block rationale. Others who wish to review a block find it much more useful to encounter specific reasons and diffs that led to the decision to block. Also, the term has a tendency to be inflammatory. As a general practice, stating one's reasons and evidence is more persuasive than a summary conclusion. Durova273 featured contributions02:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should have more blocking of people for misusing talk pages. I can name any number of articles where there is a constant parade of ranting and raving about the topic with no real focus on improving the article itself. We're too tolerant of that stuff, and the flow of drivel gets in the way of -- what is it we're supposed to be here for? -- oh yes, building a reference work. Please see WP:TALK, especially Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior that is unacceptable which explicitly states Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Boris on this topic. Discussion about content is one thing, and legitimate content discussions can (and do) become heated on occasion, But endless ranting about some obscure POV position goes on far too much. Examine Talk:Scientific_method for one such case. Manning (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we somehow make it clear that an edit such as this is probably the worst possible response to potential trolling? If the evaluation is accurate, the comment fails to make the situation better, and if it is inaccurate, it is extremely rude. I'm comfortable with blocking people for talk page abuse, if necessary, but saying "DNFTT" to someone is truly unproductive, juvenile behavior, which we should do our best to discourage. -GTBacchus(talk)03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made 93 edits to Butcher group, a long article that was quite hard to write. A.K.Nole's running commentary on the talk page was not about discussing the content added in the main article and was easily identifiable as mathematically ill-informed, hence the abbreviated response. On the talk page, A.K.Nole referred to the lede of renormalization group, which also figures in the article, as incomprehensible. A.K.Nole's editing on WP has mostly been involved with adding tags. He has also edited Mathsci and suggested that my username is a copyright infringement. A more careful analysis might be that this was "truly unproductive, juvenile behavior, which we should do our best to discourage". Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. I'm sure you were (and are) very frustrated with that editor. His behavior may be entirely unproductive and juvenile. However, I'm addressing a different point, which is how to react to a difficult editor without descending to their level. If someone is trolling, that doesn't somehow make it helpful to start calling him "troll". That's a great thing to type, and then not hit "save".
Ultimately, if an editor is particularly troublesome, it becomes even more important to maintain a high standard regarding "comment on the edit, not the editor". Doing otherwise makes the situation messier and harder to resolve, and you end up taking part in long ANI threads. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this case. Before you get to the point of calling someone a "troll", get more eyes on the situation, and back away a bit. -GTBacchus(talk)06:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed this off-wiki with a very experienced mathematics editor, because of A.K.Nole's persistence on the talk page over a number of days. He agreed that A.K.Nole's edits were highly problematic and it looked as if he was trying to WP:BAIT me, possibly to get me blocked. In other words he was gaming the system. One problem is that he wasn't actually discussing content, probably because, as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was. If you spend just a little time looking at his editing patterns, which started as a joint account The Wiki House(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), you will see that he was lurking on the talk page of the article. It is his editing behaviour that is problematic and it extremely difficult to know how to deal with somebody like that. It's quite a rare occurrence, thank goodness! Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's nice to have some time left over for working on articles. It's weird for someone to focus on a specific (and not, I dare say, elementary) group, without knowing the ABC's of group theory. Occasionally though, a non-mathematician editor get a bee in their bonnet about some specific technical mathematics article, and insists that it be made clear and accessible to them, who know nothing of the language or the context. It's kind of bizarre, but I think it leads to some good edits. I'm not saying that's precisely what was happening here - just commenting generally.
I think that, in a situation like the one under discussion, it might be helpful to bring up the situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. As you know, there's a fairly stable population there of regulars who, at the very least, know about definitions. On Wikipedia, you really don't have to win arguments against other people. If two of us disagree, we can just stop arguing with each other and seek outside opinions. Even in a case that seems to be clear trolling or baiting, if new people arrive and call him out, that helps you. It helps you more, the more you've stayed away from accusations yourself, although the best kind of input from outsiders is focused on content, and not on people's motivations.
I'm not worried about WMC's blocks for trolling. Above Durova says that "trolling" isn't a desirable block reason--she is right, in a sense. The community, for a number of reasons, worries quite a lot about the block button being used to stop people from rousting up trouble absent a clear sign of malfeasance. I don't. I think that warnings and blocks can and should be used to stop people from misusing talk pages. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If trolling actually occurs (and of course sometimes it does), then the best course of action is to document samples of problem behavior and state one's reasoning. Reasonable observers will also conclude that it's trolling and the t-word need never be said. Durova273 featured contributions03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a dirty word. It's a facet of online discourse and we have two responses, DFTT (much prefered, obviously) and RBI (much less preferred). The assumption that folks are acting in good faith doesn't prevent discovery that they are in fact, acting in bad faith. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the suggestion is that it's dirty, simply that it's unhelpful. It introduces a whole new dimension to the discourse that is best avoided, because it does not admit of clear proofs, and it distracts from the work of encyclopedia-building.
I have yet to see a case where accusing an editor of trolling has improved any situation, in terms of resolving the dispute to the advantage of the project. If such successes occurred, then we would encourage the calling of "troll", but in practice, doing so mucks everything up. That's why it's a bad idea.
You cite a choice between DFTT and RBI; and you're clearly right that DFTT is much preferable. The question is, what does "feeding a troll" look like? In my experience, calling them out as trolls feeds them.
In fact the problem started with ChildofMidnight(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) here [42], who claimed he was patrolling new articles. A.K.Nole(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been attempting to edit the article Butcher group without any knowledge of either Hopf algebras or renormalization, the main topics of the article, which is at a graduate level in pure mathematics, theoretical physics and computer science. His mathematically off-key remarks, of which LadyofShalott(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was perfectly aware because of messages left on her talk page, came to a head with these two absurd edits [43], [44], where A.K.Nole attempted to copy-paste material written by me in Butcher group into another article, where it made no sense. This was because A.K.Nole did not understand in any way the mathematics or theoretical physics so was unaware that by copy-pasting content like that of out of context, he was essentially vandalizing the other article. This is not a content dispute: it is about disruptive editing by a clueless editor. He appears to have no idea about theoretical physics and made no attempt to find sources (there is a classic book by Collins on renormalization). This is not a content dispute in any way. Other experienced editors have been editing the main article Butcher group usefully, while A.K.Nole has continued making mathematically uninformed comments on the talk page. I've never seen behaviour like that before on wikipedia and I have edited mainspace mathematics/mathematical physics articles quite a bit. LadyofShalott was perfectly aware of the edits to Minimal subtraction scheme when she needlessly started dramamongering here, without mentioning these edits. I have no idea why she has done this. Mathsci (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do a few uninformed comments on the talk page merit a block, can someone show the diffs that allow us to overcome any assumption of good faith. P.S. If someone invited me to comment on the talk page of that article, I'd mention that the article as written is inaccessable to all but the experts and that a synopsis that would allow us mere mortals (morons, perhaps) at least know basically what the subject of the article is would be a welcome addition. I hope that such a comment wouldn't get me blocked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block happened I suppose because of the two edits mentioned above, which were vandalism, repeated after a warning. P.S. I'm sure that the same criticism would apply to almost any other graduate-level mathematics WP article, e.g. Hopf algebra. Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comments above have made the situation clear enough. This is complex maths, and most people have wisely noticed that they don't understand it well enough to even tell whether AKN is contributing usefully or not. The few with enough knowledge have realised that he isn't. I noticed too, and warned him to stay away (which is why Why do a few uninformed comments on the talk page merit a block etc shows an insufficient reading of the situation). He chose to ignore that warning, so I blocked him. AKN should keep away from maths stuff he doesn't understand William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not completely clear on the specific rationale for the block, which I think is the main issue. Regardless of how complex the subject matter, the reason for the block should be intelligible to most any other admin. "Trolling" does not cut it (ever really, but certainly in an ambiguous case like this); and in a situation where there are back and forth talk page comments between two editors, you should clearly explain why the one you blocked got blocked. The reason this matters is because we have had a lengthy ANI thread about it which perhaps could have been avoided had you provided a specific rationale with diffs and the like. You might chime in that this all could have been avoided if people would have trusted the blocking admin and not stuck their noses in tricky maths, but I would not buy that. If you're going to make a possibly controversial block before you go offline for the night, it would be helpful if, at the least, you could make sure that anyone who fields an unblock request (which are not uncommon, obviously) understands why you did what you did. Obviously that did not happen in this case, and I think that's just sloppy. Indeed I still don't know if AKN was blocked for editing somewhere he should not, for ignoring a warning of yours, for trying to wind up another editor, or some combination of those.
I think the one inescapable conclusion is that, for whatever reason, the block ultimately created more disruption than doing nothing would have, and in that sense it failed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor mentioned by David Eppstein and I agreed that over a prolonged period A.K.Nole was commenting on material that he did not understand in a way that was not useful for the editing of the namespace article. Please can we leave it at that? Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, and this I find somewhat upsetting, LadyofShalott (talk·contribs) received a WP email from me on June 26, disclosing my real life identity. With that information LadyofShalott could easily identify me as an established pure mathematician. This is not apparent in any of her contributions here. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(inserting this out-of sequence) I did get an email with a name other than your username. I was unaware, though, that your status as a professional mathematician was in question. LadyofShalott13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh right, I forget - being knowledgeable about the subject area is a get-out-of-jail free card. The question I want to ask - where is the trolling? It seems to be being used as a catch-all block reason to get someone annoying out of peoples hair, which isn't really acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of your argument stemmed from the idea that he doesn't understand the maths. If we work on that basis, why assume his edits there are an attempt to get a rise out of you and troll and not simply a bad good faith edit? Ironholds (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really seeing it. I note that Nole edited without issues up until now, so assuming after 700 edits or so that he's magically turned into a troll requires something more than "he said I wrote nice stuff". Again, I'm not contesting the idea that his edits were inappropriate, just that the description of him as a "troll", both here and in the block log, are inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, what you've just written is incorrect. Please look at the rest of the thread more carefully. Shell Kinney above said that he appears to be hounding me. WMC is the blocking administrator, not me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP's mathematical articles may well be the highest-quality articles (and the least often vandalised), simply because the subject matter is often so daunting that few non-experts will venture to edit them (as opposed to most other subjects, where there is no shortage of the uninformed who feel at liberty to jump in and edit.) I have no opinion on the block under discussion, I merely wish to note how "lucky" WP's mathematicians are (and yes, I am envious :-) ).--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try editing law articles, heh. I got an article to FA without any other content contributions minus c/e and no talkpage discussion. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent: wow, that's an impressive article. I assume (I'm not the best mathematician in the world) that the problem with getting higher mathematics articles up to a "good" or "featured" quality is twofold: one, you have to make them understandable to lay folk like myself and two, nobody understands the bloody things other than you so they won't get reviewed :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I may have fixed grammar or formatting, or added a comma here or there on Math and Science articles, but my additions will never get them to these places. Of course, the concepts in WP:EXPERT may sometimes apply :-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to identify a contribution from an established editor as "vandalism".... (A) Will generate more static than it's worth. (B) Is unprovable. (C) Distracts from the important questions involved. (D) Leads to threads like this one. (E) Doesn't help anything.
If an editor is making incredibly stupid edits to an article they don't understand, then they should be stopped. Calling their edits "vandalism" makes it harder to stop them, not easier. Let's remember that "comment on the edit, not the editor" puts you in a position of serious power. Take advantage of that opportunity, and save yourself many headaches. -GTBacchus(talk)16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit of this account was May 2 with 389 namespace edits. There are no substantial content additions to articles, just a lot of tagging, etc. Mathsci (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved editor with some mathematical knowledge, I agree with the comments by David Eppstein [46] and MangoJuice [47]. The issue seems to be how much good faith to show before blocking someone. I can offer some advice on how to communicate more effectively in these situations, if A.K.Nole is interested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the supposed connection between blocking and "good faith". I've blocked a lot of accounts, and I was assuming good faith the whole time. People are blocked to prevent disruption, and whether the disruption was intentional or not has nothing to do with it. Good-faith edits that are disruptive... are disruptive. -GTBacchus(talk)20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to comment on Mathsci's posting at the beginning of this section, which I regret to state is seriously inaccurate.
"attempting to edit the article Butcher group" - not correct. I made three concrete suggestions on the talk page. The only edit I made to the article itself was a trivial spelling correction. Mathsci actually accepted all three suggestions and added them to the article, although he doesn't care to admit that. Why would he do that if they were all "clueless"?
"mathematically off-key remarks of which LadyofShalott was perfectly aware" - comments made at another article entirely of which Mathsci had complained to Lady's talk page in a series of posting complaining about me and again inaccurately.
Comment: Mathsci was actually incorrect, in that the two models of a diagonal cubic surface are not equivalent over a field of characteristic three.
"two absurd edits where Mathsci attempted to copy-paste material". The first was a selection of a couple of sentences, with the technical formulae copied for accuracy, and where I added interpretation such as the reference to principal part of a Laurent series. The second was a summary and not in any way a copy-paste job.
I think this is enough to establish that Mathsci is giving an inaccurate account of this whole affair. I frankly think that he believes that my wording must be nonsense because it was I who added it and for no other reason. He is then backing up his belief with bluster, personal remarks, repetitiveness and accusations against any editors who do not entirely support his personal line. I have asked him to go to dispute resolution twice and he has rejected [48] my suggestions. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This related diff [49] of A.K.Nole confirms what almost all senior mathematical editors have said, notably Charles Matthews, David Eppstein and CBM: A.K.Nole has a very poor grasp of rather elementary mathematics. Here a simple elimination of one variable that most people can do mentally seems problematic. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of those bits from Butcher group to the other article are out of place in the renormalisation calculation articles. It is an understatement to say that the edit lowered the quality of the article. I hesitate to ramble too much here (but have done so on my talk page in response to Exxolon's request), as I have only been briefly acquainted with most of the general sphere relating to Hopf algebras. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block
So I think I understand the situation well enough to comment on the block. AKN was making comments on the talk page in good faith, but with such a low level of understanding of the subject that it was irritating. From my reading of things, this goes beyond the point where AKN could reasonably believe he was close to an understanding and qualified to get involved in technical issues: he clearly falls far short, yet he persisted in making edits along those lines. (Even my own humble level of mathematics background makes me realize that someone who implies they don't know what a group is is way over their head in this article.) Where does this leave us? I do think that if this pattern continues it can be viewed as trolling: AKN has to realize that with topics this advanced his comments and edits are pretty unlikely to be of any use. He has been told so. And then he continues to edit in the same way, basically ignoring the warning. I'm not sure I would consider this trolling yet, since he may in good faith have thought the warning was limited in scope to Butcher group (as he says) but it's certainly heading in that direction. If you aren't being helpful and you're getting a negative response, and people tell you why you're getting a negative response, and you ignore that and keep doing the same thing, the only conclusion is that you are looking for the negative response. Or, possibly, AKN is trying to learn about these topics from the more expert editors. Either way it's inappropriate: Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, the project is to build articles, it's not a classroom. I think the block at this time is harsh, but it's a 24 hour block and it's within the bounds of reason. Mangojuicetalk13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mango - thanks for giving such a lucid assessment.
It is a core part of Wikipedia philosophy that "All editors are equal". This is true, but it does not mean that "all editors are equally good at all things".
I agree that AKN is probably not being "maliciously disruptive", but it does appear that he/she to be "fighting above their weight class" and should probably walk away. With my own limited understanding of the topics, the disputes are not about "finer points of interpretation", but actually involve a fundamental misunderstanding of the core material. I'm hesitant to call this "trolling" per se but am quite happy to label it as "disruptive", albeit well-intentioned.
While I firmly believe that certain mathematics articles (eg. Fermat's Last Theorem, and associated Wiles articles) require a "layman's component" due to their popular appeal beyond the mathematical community, the more advanced topics should be free of this requirement. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a significant number of erudite articles on highly advanced topics, and there is simply no way to make these accessible to an audience which lacks the requisite background. (From my minimal grasp of group theory, I know that the article on Group homomorphism is already as accessible as it is ever likely to be). The reason we have this collection of quality articles is due to the work of some highly trained editors. As administrators - especially administrators who are otherwise unable to contribute - it falls to us to ensure that such skilled people are allowed to be productive.
In summary, the block was mildly harsher than how I personally would have handled it, but it a fully defensible action and there is no overwhelming case for over-ruling the admin's decision.Manning (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been addressed - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Wiki_House/Archive - short version - 3 people in same house decide to start editing Wikipedia and as they are on the same connection use the same account (hence the name). When it was pointed out this was against policy they all created individual accounts and for transparency have indicated this by linking back to their former shared account from their new individual accounts and have not used the shared one since. Nothing sinister here. Exxolon (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bit that Nishkid64 identified – the (obvious-in-hindsight) choice of a deliberately trolling account name and first edit – hasn't been addressed. Kind of makes WMC's block look rather prescient, actually.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Mango Juice's post above, I think that the case of Chuck Marean(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is relevant here. (I think how his interpretation of the Bernard Madoff case is bizarre, novel & disruptive, is understandable to more people than questionable edits to a graduate-level mathematics article.) Neither editor are trolling, but neither are truly showing the needed skill to contribute positively to Wikipedia in their chosen areas. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, admins are supposed to help get the encyclopedia written, that includes blocking people who get in the middle of getting complicated articles written, like A.K.Nole was doing. If someone with no expertise in the matter is making wrong edits, ignoring warnings from experts in the matter that he is completely wrong, and, apparently, doing all of it to troll other user, then it's normal that an admin blocks. That being said, maybe WMC was too fast in the blocking and should have given a warning first to the editor, and block only if/when he kept insisting in the same behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When some arbitration on a heated subject was submitted, an arbitrator who met one of involved parties via Wiki Meetup recused himself from the case for neutrality. That kind of integrity is also required to admins and practiced too. I was wondering why WMC who said dislikes ANI and barely comes here suddenly blocked CoM and A.K.Nole in too much favor for Mathsci. People pointed out Mathsci's incivility, but his blocks are "one-sided". The answer to the puzzle turns out to be too simple. They've met "twice" this year via Wikipedia Meetup. An image of them together can be found too on the pages. They seems to be also involved in some ArbCom case (cold fusion or fringe theory etc) according to Mathsci's user page.
WMC should've not get involved in blocking Mathsci's opponents given the offline interaction. I think this that could be construed as COI and warrant ArbCom on William M. Connolley's questionable administrative actions in a row.--Caspian blue15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not sure what your point is here. Regardless of the two having an offline interaction or not, this case should be assessed on the evidence of what transpired on-wiki and nothing else. Thus far it has been reviewed by several uninvolved admins who have assessed WMC's actions as possibly a bit harsh, but still acceptable. I also didn't see any evidence of a personal agenda between Mathsci and AKN that would warrant the use of the term "Mathsci's enemies". There is no discernable COI issue either as a result of them meeting IRL. Based on your COI reasoning, all Wiki-conferences would result in the wholesale disempowering of all of the admins who attend. Manning (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are saying that the mentioned arbitrator for comparison is exceptionally ethical among admins, I do not think so. Arbitrators recuse themselves even if they are slightly involved in commenting on cases or contacting with involved editors in the past. The blocking reason is lame to many editors, so I will leave other administrator to interpret this finding.--15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)That's a nice conspiracy theory you've cooked up there...tinfoil and all...but simply being acquainted with someone via a Wikimeetup is no cause for a conflict of interest. I'd wonder about a chilling effect this could have on future meets, will they have to second-guess who they're talking to or if they should even go at all? An/I has seen silly proposals in the past, but this is a new height. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, how typical. Read my first sentence again. Ir is rather obvious that you have a grudge for my warning to your inappropriate behavior to CoM. I want you to retract your absurd accusation, and disengage from the matter. --Caspian blue15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have no position of authority to issue warnings, so we will classify what you're referring to as "advice". And as I do not put much stock in the source, given your own closeness to CoM, your "advice" was rejected out of hand. Are we clear on that issue? Good.
As for this, I will weigh in as I see fit. While there may be issues with how Connolley is handling blocks, this idea of meeting a person IRL is grounds to demand a recusal is just patently absurd. That someone in the past did so is being a bit over-reactive IMO, and does not obligate others to follow such a decision. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, if you wish to continue "your conspiracy theory" to make yourself "mature", I just will let you indulge in cooking up that. Good luck with that.--Caspian blue16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that an admin might favor a particular editor is hardly a "conspiracy theory." However, I'm also leery of jumping to conclusions based on off-wiki activities. I'll be at the conference in New York next month. Will this mean that if I meet an arbitrator there, that arbitrator would have to recuse? I hope not! I'd better hurry and file that RfAr! But maybe it doesn't matter. Patience, Caspian blue. It will all come out in the wash. --Abd (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course admins favor certain editors...that goes on here a lot more than people think. I'm not objecting to the concept, I'm objecting to the "evidence" that being at the same Wikimeet is proof of such. I'm curious as to how Caspian even got onto that trail. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree that just having met at meet-ups is not evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part. sorry, forgot to sign before -LadyofShalott16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To LadyofShalott. WMC's favors for Mathsic are obvious in the case. The one lame block by WMC that sides Mathsic's stance is just a thing that I can ignore, but the second consecutive block by WMC for the lame reason is questionable. --Caspian blue16:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Yes I have twice been to Cambridge wiki meetups. I usually am here in Aix-en-Provence where I sometimes edit WP on the corner of rue d'Italie and rue Roux Alpheran next to the Musée Granet. When Bruno Ely, the conservateur of the Musée goes past, he often gives me an ironic smile of recognition, because he is fully aware that I have plagiarised his French text for Chateau of Vauvenargues.
WMC arrived late to the first meeting and I left early because I was booked to play organ music in Christ's College chapel. Somebody who'd been at Trinity Hall, Cambridge kindly bought me a caffe latte. The second time at lunchtime I arrived late because of the late running of the number 4 Citibus in Cambridge and WMC had to leave early. I bought Charles Matthews a tomato juice: he had eaten an interesting and delicious looking salad. I couldn't stay long, because I had to be back to see a student at 2pm. All present were mathematicians, including one graduate student who had an office 2 doors away from mine between 2006 and 2008. The main discussion was between Charles and me, because at different times we'd been in the same department and the same college: the BLP of Alexander Todd was the main thing discussed, because both of us had been told in person what he thought of mathematicians. Lord Todd did not mince his words. At none of these meetings have I chatted at any length with WMC. Where will conspiracy theory end I wonder? Yawn. Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody asked your whereabouts and your trivial description on your meeting (yawning). You have created "unbelievable stories" that people has harassed you when they copy-edit to improve articles in good faith, but nobody believe so except WMC. I'm just curious as to why you're behaving like that. In my eye, you're pushing yourself close to a block. In terms of WMC's definition on trolling, I wonder why you're not blocked yet by WMC for your inappropriate behaviors that other admins gave you warnings. I asked WMC, but he did not answer it at all.--Caspian blue16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think merely knowing each other off wiki does not require that level of response. It's one thing on ArbCom where there's a high workload and plenty of other arbitrators to handle any given case. It's another thing in a case like this. WMC should just be cautious that he doesn't end up blocking people merely to make Mathsci's life easier, and should ask for input from other admins where appropriate. Mangojuicetalk16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment. The article is highly technical, current research mathematics. There has been some quibbling on the Talk page. I was reminded of a comment from Frank Adams about how "anyone who knows enough to ask that question knows enough to answer it". User:A.K.Nole does seem to be being unnecessarily provocative about matters of exposition. Not as provocative as the first remark on the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the discussion of my contributions is based on notion that I have no expertise in mathematics. The logic appears to run in the circle "he is not an expert so his statements must be nonsense" and "his statements are nonsense so he can't be an expert". I should prefer to be judged purely on the content of my contributions but that appears to have become impossible in the present climate, in which my lack of expertise appears to be taken for granted following an astonishing campaign of reiteration and misquotation. Charles Matthews presents the interesting variation that I'm so non-expert that I must actually be an expert. Astonishingly no-one has yet taken the elementary step of simply asking me what my qualifications are! I have a first-class degree in a mathematical subject from an established British university. That is all I propose to say on that matter.
The quality of my suggested specific contributions to Butcher group can be judged from the simple fact that they were all accepted and incorporated in the article by Mathsci (and I challenge him to deny that here). In detail:
1. That the definition of the Butcher group itself (as it stood at that time) was incomplete [50]. Mathsci accepted this and added the missing material [51], acknowledging my assistance ("your question was useful") [52].
2. That the opening sentence was misleading as it identified the group with the associated formalism [53]. Mathsci argued quite strongly that this was absurd, then made the suggested change ("slight rewording of lede") [54].
3. That the phrase minimal subtraction scheme should be wikilinked to the article of the same name if that was indeed appropriate [55]. Mathsci again angrily rejected this as absurd and then made the suggested link [56]
Mathsci has worked assiduously to promote the notion that I must be an ignoramus. His descriptions (almost always presented without diffs) are seriously misleading.
I made the comment "To those of us who barely know what a group is, the initial sentence as it stands is confusing" [57] which "us" clearly refers to the whole community of non-experts in the context of a discussion on how to make the opening sentence both mathematically correct and intelligible to the non-experts. Mathsci has chosen to quote, or rather, misquote that as "as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was." [58] This misquotation is hard to understand as anything but a deliberate distortion.
I referred to the introductory paragraph of renormalisation group as "somewhat incomprehensible" [59], again in the context of discussion of opening sentences for non-experts. I think that is an accurate assessment of it if it is intended to to be an introduction for the non-expert. Mathsci again drops the context and presents it as if it were an admission of personal incompetence [60]. This is again misleading. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well this should be relatively simple to resolve: are you, or are you not, a qualified mathematical expert? Some--many even--articles on Wikipedia may quite easily be completely written by non-experts. Pure math, physics, chemistry? Not so much. They require extensive formal training in order to even understand the concepts involved, let alone explain them. So do you or do you not have such expertise? → ROUX₪22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of his edits and those as a member of User:The Wiki House, A.K.Nole seems to have attended the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham established in 2001. It has no undergraduate degree in mathematics. Editing using a Cheltenham IP, he made this edit [61], implying that he did not in fact himself know the definition of a group. In England this is standard first year material in university undergraduate courses in mathematics. Is there some way A.K.Nole can confirm his statement about having an undergraduate degree in mathematics from an established univeristy with an arbitrator or an administrator? My own qualifications are known to Charles Matthews, so are not in doubt. As far as I am aware I don't make errors editing mathematics articles (apart possibly from niggling constants and signs). His cut-and-paste edit [62] to Minimal subtraction scheme has a homomorphism with undefined domain, a rather serious and unhelpful error. Any reasonably bright mathematics undergraduate would have seen there was a problem. What is most puzzling with A.K.Nole is that, apart from the edits on AfDs started by me or articles started by me or articles which share my username, he has made no substantial content edits to wikipedia. Most of his edits are quick fly-by tagging. Usually people edit about what they know about. Mathsci (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re A.K.Nole: I believe that what David Eppstein, Charles Matthews, and I have each said is that your comments on Talk:Butcher group reflect so poorly that it makes one wonder if you might be writing in an intentionally naive way. There are certainly more productive ways to communicate, and they are not hard to acquire. There are many non-experts who edit math articles, so I do not think this is simply a matter of credentials. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One remaining, and possibly troubling, issue is the whole A.K. Nole = User:Elonka backwards thing. AKN addressed that here, I think quite inadequately. Either the username's resemblance to another user name is entirely coincidental, or it is not. If the latter, I think some explanation is in order. Elonka seems to be on a break right now, but she might also be able to shed some light on the matter, so I'll likely post a note on her talk page if questions remain about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to comment here to thank Mathsci for the excellent work, and to ask that admins do what they can to allow editors like Mathsci to continue without the totally unwarranted and misguided attention that I see on the talk page of Butcher group. I have never encountered the editors mentioned here (I noticed this at WT:WikiProject_Mathematics#Help), but I have sufficient mathematical background to form the opinion that Mathsci needs to be protected from misguided onlookers. It's tricky because we're all equal and we assume good faith, and the article content is so technical that it's hard to tell the difference between a good and a bad edit. However, I understand some of the concepts mentioned in the lead and my opinion is that it is not possible (or desirable) to make articles like this more accessible to general readers, and the repeated back-and-forth on the talk page is misguided. I think Mathsci gave replies that were more than reasonable at first; it was only when the barrage persisted that Mathsci started to show some understandable irritation. The issue of AKN's expertise and motivation are no longer relevant; it is the behavior that is the problem – please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the anagram thing. I am not User:Elonka, I have no connection with her. My username is not intended to cause her or anyone else any kind of difficulty or embarassment. If there are any problems please let me know and I will gladly change it. A.K.Nole (talk[) 06:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that you are User:Elonka, because she is based in St Louis, Missouri, not Cheltenham, is an admin and knows how to edit properly. You haven't explained how you came to edit Simutronics nor why your username is Elonka backwards. You have made no comment as to whether your university is the University of Gloucestershire, as your Cheltenhame IP and this edit[64] seem to confirm. I am sorry that you did not like the BLP of Dame Janet Trotter that I wrote and the fact that my local MP was Sir Neville Trotter when I lived on Tyneside. The sooner you learn how to add substantial sourced content to wikipedia articles the better. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(this and previous comment out of sequence to the one below) Mathsci it might be better for you leave off commenting on this for now. I'm pursuing the Elonka issue with AKN on their talk page so no worries there. Whether or not that editor is affiliated with the University of Gloucestershire is quite immaterial, and they certainly have a right to not have their personal details revealed here. You really need to let that aspect of this go. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs06:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, that would be the case if this user had not first claimed to have a first class degree in a mathematical subject from an established UK university. This is not reflected in their on-wiki editing skills as administrators from WikiProject Mathematics have confirmed. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That categorically does not matter. You're going after specific aspects of an editor's real life identity and should absolutely not be doing that, even if it proves your point about his or mathematical bona fides, or lack thereof. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs07:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci. I assume that you accept the assessment of my edits and your misquotations, since you choose to quibble only about the wording "I am told". Do you really believe that my self-deprecating usage (and yes, that was me on the IP of course) constitutes justification for your statement "as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was"? I think not.
I said that I have a mathematical degree from one British university and of course it is not the University of Gloucestershire since as you point out that university does not offer any such degrees. If you do not believe me then that's too bad. I am not going to discuss my CV or my current affiliation or my place of work or residence, or any other personal information, here and I regard it as a serious form of harassment that you should continue to badger me to do so. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your mathematical edits have been identified by other senior mathematcal editors as very poor/naive. I cannot disagree. I teach some of the brightest students in the country in Part III in Cambridge. Each time you try to write about mathematics you make howling errors (e.g. describing a projective surface as a "three-hold"). You'll have to confirm the statement about the degree/university with an arbitrator or an administrator. Please also read Essjay controversy. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't think Mathsci has been handling this in the best way in human terms, but neither do I think you have been handling this in the best way in technical terms. I picked up on your comment at Talk:Clebsch surface, as either ill-considered or faux naif - I guess it is the former, since a mathematics graduate ought to be able to see those equations as equivalent at a glance. The insertion of an example into a quantum field theory page by copy-and-paste without proper referencing and contextualisation is just annoying to everyone concerned. Homomorphisms being unital is a typical convention assumed in ring theory, usually just to avoid tedious explanations. The username thing concerns me. But let's all just move on now. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a bit of time looking at AKN's edits, and there is some weird stuff going on in terms of connections to User:Elonka (I certainly don't think they're the same person). I was going to post some info here but decide to save it off-wiki instead in order let AKN reply to some queries of mine on that editor's talk page (there could be legitimate explanations, but it looks rather odd). I'll wait and see but we might need to explore this issue further, though it's tangential to the Mathsci/WMC/A.K. Nole issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vegavairbob - ownership, consensus-stacking, disruption, etc.
Vegavairbob (talk·contribs) is quite passionate about the Chevrolet Vega automobile, and has contributed a great deal of high-quality material. However, he appears unwilling to participate according to community expectations:
Persistent ownership of Chevrolet Vega — he simply shoves aside most every attempt by any other editor to contribute to the article, often without so much as an edit summary, as evident in these sequential diffs [65][66] and in the article's history, he boasts that he wrote Chevrolet Vega, he complained to an admin that another editor touched his work, and he has tried to dictate what other editors may and may not contribute to "his" article and "his" work. Attempts (viz here, here, here, here, and here) to engage Vegavairbob in constructive, courteous discussion about editing coöperatively rather than combatively have all failed; he disregards them, dismisses them summarily, spits, or says OK and then continues with the ownership behaviour.
Persistently tendentious and disruptive pattern of making long series of many small edits. This effectively hampers (by dint of endless edit conflicts) other editors' ability to participate in discussion or contribute to articles. Examples are too numerous to provide diffs; pattern is clearly visible in his contrib history and in the history of Chevrolet Vega and other articles and discussions in which he participates. He has been asked politely to change this behaviour multiple times over a period of months by multiple editors — viz here, here, here, here, here, amongst others. These requests have gone wholly unheeded; once in awhile he says OK—and he thanked me with apparent sincerity for pointing him towards my quick guide to coöperating on Wikipedia— but he has shown no sign of changing this behaviour.
He seems to have the ear of one particular admin (search vegavairbob on Daniel J. Leivick's talk page) who appears to be trying to guide and mentor, though the difference between Vegavairbob's tone and approach when interacting with Leivick vs. interacting with others is troubling. I'm sort of at a loss here; we appear to have a willfully, doggedly disruptive, unduly belligerent article-owner here. I can certainly unwatch Chevrolet Vega if it will give some breathing space to help get this situation addressed, but I would not view that as a solution to the problem of an editor who exhibits no apparent interest or intent to coöperate in accord with Wikipedia community standards. —ScheinwerfermannT·C02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I had all of my good faith edits reverted in one fell swoop -- correcting numerous mis-spellings, grammatical errors, manual-of-style errors, a lack of referencing or verifiability, and so forth, I decline to let it evolve into a larger issue because Vegavairbob had taken the time to rant against my edits without actually constructively engaging others on the article. A classic case of ownership and persistent disruption. The article had issues of organization, plagiarism or excessive quote farming, MOS and so on that I tagged and then explained myself on the corresponding talk page. That did work, but it took a very long time to have anything resolved and I haven't touched it since because it seems as if the issues that I brought forth before have only continued to fester. seicer | talk | contribs02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My original edits consisted of what I stated above: copyediting, removing excessive quoting, reformatted headers per MOS, but this was wholesale reverted with no explanation. I deferred to tagging the article for issues --
Article tagging after I was wholesale reverted. I explained the rationale behind each of the taggings on the talk page. This was promptly reverted with the edit summary, "this article is a candidate for feature status."
He went complaining away at an administrator's talk page: User talk:Daniel J. Leivick#Vega article 2, stating that I should do "something useful." I did apologize that I was being bold and did a sweeping change of a damaged article that would have never passed Feature Article, let along "B" status, to at least bring it up to some coherent standard.
That I don't know, but I do know that there's a total of 6,059 total edits to the article from 196 different editors. As mentioned above, 5,200 of those are his. That's roughly 86%. Jauerbackdude?/dude.03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a revert that seems intriguing - seems to be introducing a distinct POV tone. Notice how at line 24 "Chevrolet cancelled the Vega after the 1977 model run." becomes "Without emotion, Chevrolet trimmed the car from its lineup after the 1977 model run". There are numerous other curious additions such as the death report of an engineer being changed from "killed in a plane crash" to "tragically killed in a plane crash". Manning (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scheinwerfermann...again
Hello-
First of all none of his edits that will help the article obtain FL status were reverted.
Second, I have contributed all the text and images. He has contributed some conversions, and minor grammer. The article was reviewed by Typ932 who I've been working with and have done everything he suggested. I DONT REVERT EDITS. I might tweak some, Why not. Nobody has contributed one referenced fact to the article. All that's ever done is as far as content goes is word substitution. I've got a 100 referenced facts in it. It's just that Scheinwerfermann is not easy to deal with and I have to spend a lot of time away from contributing when he gets involved on any level. I'm tired of the lecturing. I opened a title change for an article and he didn't like my comment so he wrote a whole page lecture on the article talk page. This guy is out of control. He is like an old watchdog waiting to lecture and police everyone. I can't stand it anymore. I have no problem working with others. check out my talk pages for the vega article and my talk page. As far as the the article title change for inline four i wasn't aware you couldn't contact others. I enjoy contributing content and images. my user page shows my contributions. quite a few since feb. This guy will scare away new contributors. Gentalman, Its been fun but maybe this is not for me. I've worked hard here as others would attest but this is not fun.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified user:Daniel J. Leivick (mentioned above) of this discussion. I think he could be quite a help. My own dealings with Vegavairbob are limited to another automotive article where he inappropriately (IMHO) inserted a mention of the Chevrolet Vega into the text, added a pic of his own car, and slightly messed up the spacing between sections. He queried my fixes in a civil manner and accepted the explanations without argument. It may be that he gets somewhat carried away by his intense enthusiasm for, and focus on, all things Vega, to the detriment of his regard for things WP? Needs more time to get the hang of things? Writegeist (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writegeist - Agreed. From what I have read thus far, it appears that Vegavairbob is simply extremely passionate about this subject, which is not itself objectionable. I have seen some actions by this editor which perhaps were "less courteous than the ideal" (chiefly in regard to revisions without appropriate edit summaries), but nothing I have seen (as yet) truly breaches WP:CIVIL.
The core of this AN/I (or at least the AN/I above this one) is the WP:OWN issue, of which there is some evidence to support, though I see no suggestion of malice. I do not feel that a heavy-handed response is warranted however. Maybe just some counselling and mentoring? Manning (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working with Leivick and Typ932 for weeks to get this article ready for FL status and I have not reverted any edits from them. We are working together. Check the chevy vega talk page and my talk page and you will see that although I contributed all the text and images they have advised me how to get it ready for FL status and I was given the choice from Leivick to revert any of his edits I didn't like but I didn't. I always took his advice and Typ932's as well I didn't revert any of Scheinwerfermann edits that helped the article. Some of his edits didn't help article like trimming the captions (eliminating Chevrolet from the captions) stuff like that. But all his conversions, adding "the" before Vega. He advised me just saying Vega is a marketing ploy. I had a feeling as my vintage films prove this. I thought it just sounded better without the before. Leivick said he thought it wasn't proper but we were going to cover that further. He was going to nominate the article for FL any day. Anyway Scheinwerfermann explained and all the edits remain, all mentions of Vega are now ""the Vega"" or in some cases I left it Vega's...So he is wrong when he says I revert edits. Some of his word changes I didn't like and were changed back, but we're talking about a word not a paragraph or even a sentence.Vegavairbob (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal would do nothing to address Vegavairbob's ownership behaviour on Chevrolet Vega. All three points of your proposal have already been tried—especially the last one, quite extensively, and by multiple editors over a period of months. I'm not seeking a block, a ban, or anything of the like, but it seems to me something considerably more effective than "encouragement" is called for; the problematic behaviour has got to stop. —ScheinwerfermannT·C15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having only done some reading of the back and forth going on this, it's clear to me that the main issue lies with Vegavairbob. He obviously has a ownership problem where he thinks any edit that he doesn't deem to be "corrective" gets reverted. If he doesn't like the wording, he changes it. No discussion other than to chastise the other editor for interfering with "his work". He often tells them to go and find some other article to edit as he has spent too much time writing and adding images to this one. This behavior has to stop. If he doesn't agree with a new editor's contributions, he needs to discuss it on the article's talk page, not immediately change it. If a consensus develops for one way or the other, then changes can be made. Also, on a less important note, Vegavairbob really needs to start using edit summaries and to make use of the preview button. Jauerbackdude?/dude.17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update:
Zero effort at AGF and additional remarks about what he "lets" other editors do to "his" article
dismissal of valid suggestion for improvement of Chevrolet Vega; accompanying claim of having implemented it does not square with his actually having reverted exactly this improvement twice in the last few days [70][71]
Hi all, sorry I haven't been around to address these issues in the past couple of days. The way I see it, there are two issues that need to be discussed. Ownership and string editing/not using preview. Frankly I don't think the attempts at canvassing or "asking the other parent" are anything close to bad faith. Vegavairbob was unaware of these rules was not attempting to unfairly manipulate the system, now that he is aware, I don't believe these will be issues. I also don't think that he has breached civility in any major way. I do however realize that the continued ownership issues are a problem, on the otherhand I think it would be beneficial to look at the situation from Vegavairbob's point of view. He has spent a tremendous amount of time expanding the content at Chevy Vega and turning it from a mess into what it is today, including uploading a multitude of images (and dealing with their copyright status). I don't find it that surprising that someone who more or less completely wrote an article might be possessive about it. I think what Vegavairbob needs to understand is the value of the collaborative editing process, while he might not agree with everyone of Scheinwerfermann's edits, he needs to understand that they where all made with good faith in an effort to make the article that Vegavairbob worked so hard on better, not worse. I think the issue is one of experience, I don't think Vegavairbob has much experience editing collaboratively on Wikipedia. For a long time he worked away more or less in seclusion, so I don't find his reaction to the shock of sudden collaborative editing that surprising. I think as he gains more experience in the particulars of editing here the issue will improve. As for the preview bottom issue, I can understand why this would annoy people, but in my opinion Vegavairbob's contributions far out weigh what is, from my perspective just a quirky editing style. Seriously, are we going to block a valued contributor for not making his edits in the manner we are accustomed to. We can ask him to change his style, but I don't see it as enough of an issue to warrant anything further action especially in light of his contributions. In conclusion, I am confident that the ownership issues can be resolved by all parties assuming good faith and trying to work together. I will happily discuss further suggestions with any of the involved parties. (sorry for the long message, but I wanted to put all my thoughts on the table at once) --Leivick (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I donno, DJL. Nobody's requesting a block, but Bob already has been asked, politely and repeatedly and by different editors, to read, understand, and heed WP:OWN. He has persistently and very overtly refused to do so. What makes you think asking again will bring a different result? Asking and encouraging (and begging, and pleading, and telling) haven't worked at all; there's been zero improvement. It's good that you've been encouraging him regarding the quality of the content he's providing, that's important and he really has put in a huge lot of good work on Chevrolet Vega, but I think it's clear that some close guidance and coaching is now called for, specific to behaving coöperatively and editing collaboratively. —ScheinwerfermannT·C22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's suggested a block, which would be unproductive and do little to actually solve anything. Bob does seem to be acting in good faith, whether he's assuming such on the part of certain others, I'm not sure. However, the collaborative process here seems to catch some people off-guard as I've seen more and more.
One thing that does need to come out of this is an understanding of the "preview" button. I just checked Bob's contributions, it shows two hours of near-constant editing on Talk:Straight-four engine, most recently being a half hour of small edits to complete a paragraph. I saw this a long time ago and never said anything, although it is extremely difficult to go through the page history when there are a hundred edits made in one time span, which no doubt makes for unnecessary edit conflicts. --Sable232 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I don't condone the alleged article ownership or the other issues raised, I'm just not prepared to say that it's intentionally disruptive. --Sable232 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really hate having to repeat myself and it really takes away from something productive. I have been working with three editors the last three weeks getting the Chevrolet Vega article ready for an FL nomination.
As stated, my talk page and Vega talk page show I have been working with these three editors. And a lot of discussion is in the other editors talk pages as well. Does that sound like I am not working with others on a common goal...to improve the article? There is no ownership behavior going on. I have made all the changes I have been asked to make including revising headings, quote farms, organization issues, neutral issues. Everything has been addressed, the article is now ready for a nomination and one editor wants to create someyhing that just doesn't exisit. The truth is the article is an effort of the three editors I mentioned and myself. I was just allowed to use my text because I basically wrote the whole thing, but the organization of the article I was instructed very carefully and did everthing I was told. I will practice better editing practices preparing the small edits and posting as one, and I have been labeling all edits. Also there has never been a complete revert of anyone's contribution. Sorry but here it comes. The reason for complaint is because the editor who submitted the complaint didn't hear want he wanted to hear in my article title change and he didn't like that a few of his "one word" edits to the Vega article were not kept in. All of his conversions and all of his corrections, of course were not changed. So who is showing ownership? I told him if he has a (text) contribution that actually adds to the article, bring it on. In four months not a bit of text came from anyone except some word substitution. But please understand, the article was a joint effort. I was instructed how it should be and how it should look. Quadell provided the copyright knowledge and thanks to him the article has many public domain images that even one I couldn't get in as a non-free image. He knew these pre 1978 images were PD, and he did a lot of hard work fending off editors who did not know of these copyrights and restored images for me that were deleted. Typ932 does edits and conversion additions in an on-going basis none ever changed or deleted, Seicer made a list a page long of needed work posted on the Vega talk page and I did all of it..in one day, including re-writing two sections within a week.. Daniel J Levick is a great adminastator who has helped me through the tweaks and changes needed for an FL rating and has worked with me for weeks getting the article ready, but the difference is he does things in a nice way, not like a boss or like he owns the site and that's why the article has benefited, because the work was not an edit war or any of this complaint stuff which was really not necessaryVegavairbob (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get defensive. Obviously someone thinks there is (or was), otherwise this wouldn't be here. However, I have edited my prior post, hopefully that meets your satisfaction. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vega, you're not getting it at all. You're holding the article hostage and get upset when someone else edits your article that's not to your liking and label it as being not being "corrective". This isn't how things work. You need to discuss other people's edits on the talk page FIRST before you revert them OR even change them to the way you like. That's how cooperative editing works. You don't drive people off and tell them to stop editing the article, because it's going to FA status (it's not even GA, yet, is it?). And, sorry, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion on the talk page. Yes, there's some, but not to the extent that that you're claiming. As of yesterday, you have 90 edits to the talk page and 5,200 to the article. That's a bad ratio. Jauerbackdude?/dude.00:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't been any edits to revert, sorry, you have no case. I said it three times. The only text edits that have been added were one word substitutions and most if any of these did not help article and most were left in anyway. Read the rest of my comment above.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vegavairbob, it looks to me as if you are missing the point. This AN/I was not placed to hassle or harrass you. It was placed because you are not behaving in a coöperative manner, despite numerous attempts by numerous editors to guide you politely towards a better understanding of the standards and expectations of this community. All editors have the right to edit all articles, including Vega, as long as their edits meet community standards. Placing yourself in a role as arbiter of who can and can't make particular kinds of contributions to "your" article, or of what edits are and aren't improvements, is just not okeh; we don't do that here. "Working with three admins" is not good enough, either. All articles are open to all editors, and routinely undoing most or all of others' edits — which is what you are doing, as has been amply demonstrated with diffs — is ownership. Yours is not the only valid perspective on what constitutes improvement of an article, nor does your obviously deep knowledge of the Chevrolet Vega give you carte blanche to control the Vega article here. That is what people are trying to get you to understand through talk page dialogue and pointers to WP:OWN. Can you please try to understand rather than continuing to deny and defend?
I am glad to see you say you will move away from making miniature edit after miniature edit after miniature edit in rapid succession, but you have said this several times before. What makes this time different, please? —ScheinwerfermannT·C00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got the point. How could I not get it. It's going on all day. I explained everything in my comment above and I'm tired of explaining it over and over. If your not convinced I've been working with others trying to get it a decent rating, I can't help that. There have been hardly any (text) additions added other than mine so the ownership or hostage accusations are really overkill, don't you think. What the problem really is here I think is my percieved attitude, right? Well, after four months of work (I won't get into the details) I would like it to be and remain a quality article that gets the GA or FL rating and wouldn't it be nice to see a few more auto articles with those ratings, but I don't feel I own it or have exclusive rights to what its contents should be. It's just I'm basically the only editor on the site that has had any interest in it since I began working on it in February, and to make it good enough for a possible FL rating (with the help of the mentioned editors). I am working on and have contributed to many auto articles as well. I'm working on several (my user page) that I would also like to see recieve a GA rating. I understand the way things work here as far as the editing goes. I see a lot of complaining going on about bits of text or editors contributions that get deleted. I wouldn't want my work deleted either. I had two sections deleted in their entirety from the article without any notice or instruction beforehand. Afterwards I was told they had to be re-written. So I know what its like to have a large pieces of work suddenly vanish too. Again I did what I was told and re-wrote them to Seicer's approval without complaining (too much). His comments in the discussion here were a bit severe under the circumstances of the two deleted sections and the fact I did everyhing on his article issue list in a day but I did get an apology for the deletions without warning. Thank you Secier. Did I give you a star yet? Try to be nice and I'll pick one out. That'll be fun. I respect the knowledgeable people here. I've had to bite the bullet on images and text I wanted in and as was told were not proper or not neutral etc, etc. I haven't and wont change anything that helps the article. If it disrupts or hurts the article it shouldn't be left in or tweaked just like my words get tweaked. As long as you said please..lol, I'll say I promise not to do separate strings of edits. this was not done intentionally I just keep reading it over and find things to change or improve. Not more than one or two edits (per article) per day. How is that? Buy the way I thought Bold editing was the term..Bulldozing? Scheinwerfermann, If you don't mind, I'll proceed: You should make an effort to get along better with people, meaning give em a little slack. (manners you're not lacking) I would think not many people know what you know but you might be scaring new editors away especially if they have a problem with difficult "authority figures". I have work invested with much more planned (user page) to be scared away. And finally, next time I propose an article title change, if you don't like my comments please don't disrupt the entire discussion with a page long lecture, and for readers here, I'm not referring to the canvessing mistake. Please use my talk page if you have a problem with me or my comment and need a full page to lecture about it. It ruined the discussion not to mention my discomfort. I feel like I'm being diciplined in the third grade by the principle when you get started. I'm 50, not 5. Regards, Vegavairbob (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Vegavairbob (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one or two edits is probably overkill especially when you are making major article expansions, more edits are probably needed. What editors are really concerned about is actually what you are doing right now (on this page), continually making minor changes to talk page posts. Once you write something like this, it gets read by someone almost immediately so changing it doesn't do much good. You should probably make an effort to cut back on the number of individual article edits especially in quick succession, but editing talk page posts over and over is (at least in my mind) more disruptive and less helpful. --Leivick (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vegavairbob, please stop continually editing your comments. It makes it very difficult to reply, as well as making replies made before your edits seem nonsensical or strange or whatnot. As for the issues above... see the new section below. → ROUX₪07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-topicban suggestion for Vegavairbob
I'm not an admin, but I've looked through everything above (and boy howdy would I like those hours back) and the net result is this: your apparent attempts to own the article and be the sole gatekeeper of what is included and how is antithetical to how consensus works on Wikipedia, and how collaborative projects work in general. In addition, your laserbeam focus on a single article is, while commendable for its dedication, contributing to the apparent feelings of ownership you have over it. As pointed out above, this article represents over 50% of your total edits to Wikipedia, and you are responsible for approximately 86% of all edits to it. Given the sheer number of these edits, this is concerning when there are nearly two hundred other editors who have contributed. So I propose the following, in order to a) wean you off your apparent feelings of ownership, and b) start drawing you into contributing more significantly to other articles (which really is the same goal).
User:Vegavairbob is topicbanned from editing the article Chevrolet Vega for 60 days starting from whenever (if, obviously) this is approved by consensus;
During that time period, he may propose edits on the talkpage of the article, to be implemented by an uninvolved admin (volunteer needed) if the edits achieve consensus;
For 60 days after the end of this period, Vegavairbob is held to a strict 0RR (excepting obvious and blatant pure vandalism) on the article, and must discuss changes at the talkpage and achieve consensus before implementing them;
During this 120 days, Vegavairbob is required to find an uninvolved mentor (perhaps from here? If not, someone with the track record of a Durova or a Shell Kinney would be good, and preferably an admin) to assist him in taking an article completely unrelated to automobiles in general to GA status. In an ideal world, this would involve a wikiproject-based collaboration (pretty much all content-based wikiprojects have periodic "Hey everyone let's improve XYZ" drives, is what I mean).
Since I have been working on other articles for several months (user page)your determination and ban is unfair. I am closing out my user page in 24 hours and will no longer contribute to this site, If you change the "verdict" you can e-mail me at Vegavairbob@gmail.com. I will no longer contribute (or view) the site. This is quite childish and I'm not going to tolerate it. I'm done here. Good luck trying to get the auto articles some decent ratings because they need a lot of work and now since you want to play dirty you wont have my help or any more of my time. Regards Vegavairbob (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Please pay attention to what was actually written; I am proposing the solution above for the community to approve/amend/reject as they see fit. There is no 'verdict'. → ROUX₪08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user has WP:OWNership issues over Shiloh, Alabama and Shiloh, Texas - both dab pages. Which I have marked with short page patrol, but s/he keeps reverting. Since the appearance of the articles are basically the same, the only rationale seems to be ownership and control of the articles. Short pages are patrolled as a quick way to check for crap insertions and unless long comments and marking is added, it just makes the short page patrollers must re-re-re-re-visit the same articles. Can someone talk sense to this editor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This will be my only comment. Carlos has taken my responses and come to the conclusion that I want to start an edit war when I do not. I have asked the user to explain to me the reason non-article pages require being marked as short articles and his only response so far has been to report me. I was very to the point with him in my response to his edits because I've dealt with short-fused editors who take rules and guidelines literally before and I tend to make a quick break to a "shoot or blink" decision because of that. I'll be more careful in the future, especially with Carlos, and continue to await a response from him in regards to the evidence I presented that support my actions. æronphonehome05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a case of WP:OWN. I think there is about a lack of consensus about the Adding comments to pad short articles issue. Carlossuarez46 is adding a wordless template to DAB articles so that they do not turn up in Special:ShortPages. The reasoning for this is discussed at here. AeronPeryton feels something else can be done to ensure that DAB pages do not get picked up and rejects the wordless template approach.
I can certainly see both sides of this dispute. Modifying MediaWiki so that Special:ShortPages not pick up DABs might be feasible and should be raised at Bugzilla. I believe that Redirects are not picked up, so the exclusion of DABs also would be a good thing.
Carlossuarez46 has developed a solution to a very real problem. Whether this is the best possible solution remains unresolved and should be examined.
Suggested Solution.
AeronPeryton is requested to be a bit more sympathetic to this problem.
Carlossuarez46 is requested to not make accusations of disruption or threats of blocking over what is essentially a procedural dispute.
The possible exclusion of DAB pages by Special:ShortPages be taken to Bugzilla for a technical evaluation.
Given the close time frame of my post above and the post you cite I think there is ample room to believe AeronPeryton had not seen my comments at that time. He has since posted a comment to my talk page which was quite reasonable. I would be grateful for your response to my suggestion about taking the issue to Bugzilla. Manning (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
202.249.50.60 making very rapid edits; content is probably correct, but stylistically poor and unsourced
202.249.50.60(talk·contribs·WHOIS) is making very rapid edits to biology- and biochemistry-related articles (often 2 to 3 per minute). See discussion on user's talk page. Given the complexity of the edits, and the frequency at which they're occurring, and the fact that the IP resolves to a school of pharmacy in Tokyo, I suspect that this might be a collaborative exercise. From my non-expert point of view, the information looks plausible. Unfortunately, it's mostly unsourced, and often uses poor style. Can someone look into this, and pursue action if necessary? TheFeds06:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the chemistry ones. Some are right (and even supportable by existing cites, though this editor does not ever use cites). Some are clearly wrong (or at least contradict pre-existing content and are again uncited, so a poor edit). Some are strictly analysis or qualitative comparison that make universal statements about nonuniversal issues. And some are just casually-worded throw-away statements. Overall useful/good-edit contribution level is quite low, requires lots of cleanup. DMacks (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
November 2008 they had this same pattern of behavior, so quite likely a class project. I can't read the full Japanese website (vs sparse English overview page) to know if these are similar points in successive academic semesters, or to search for which class it might be. DMacks (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting some guidance here from an uninvolved administrator at the above page. The issue being discussed is whether the intro to the article should state that "Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and 'look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.'" I changed this to a more qualified statement (dif) for reasons now discussed at some length on the talk page here. The change was reverted by User:Zara1709here, and another wording was reverted by the same editor here.
As I have just said on the talk page, I am willing to discuss this issue without reverting until consensus can be reached, even though I believe the wording is a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The problem is that, as a dispute over WP:NPOV, I consider that the disagreement should be marked by the corresponding banner; nevertheless Zara1709 insists on removing the banner, at the same time as insisting on maintaining their version of the page. Zara1709 simultaneously seems unwilling to work toward consensus on the page, throwing around insults and suggesting that they will continue to revert any changes, banner or otherwise.[75]
I could just continue to wait for additional comments, but it seems clear to me that an editor should not repeatedly be reverting and removing a neutrality banner over disputed material where the problems have clearly been laid out. Mackan79 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that all Christian denominations "embrace toleration" is ludicrous. Just because they don't slaughter non-Christians so much anymore doesn't mean they're "embracing toleration". Just ask the average fundamentalist Christian what they think about Islam. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful comment, Bugs. Editors should indeed not be removing banners until the problem that caused that banner to be there is cleared up. Are other users involved, i.e is there consensus either way as to whether his version is perferable? Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute here seems to be which NPOV-violating wording of the statement should be one the article. Hopefully the editors there will realize that balance does not mean "which Christian apologist's views are we going to endorse as factual -- the extremely strongly worded one or the slightly less strongly worded one"? DreamGuy (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If there were a reliably quoted statement of an expert saying something like, "Today, the majority of major worldwide Christian denominations embrace toleration of other faiths," I could see maybe adding that. But Christianity is so non-uniform that it would make no sense to try to say anything about "Christianity" as a whole, and the continued presence of some of the more militaristic groups would also make it erroneous. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you both agree. The POV statement was put back onto the article after I removed it, so your input (and of course that of anyone else who would like to chime in) there would be appreciated. (John: Even if a reliable source claimed that it couldn't be presented as anything other than that author's opinion and would require other opinions to be documented there as well. To do otherwise would be an obvious NPOV policy violation.) DreamGuy (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet?
MarkusBJoke (talk·contribs) possible Sockpuppet of Judo112 (talk·contribs).
MarkusBJoke took part in about 15 Afd's since account creation. In all of them supporting Judo112's position. The votes are very often made in a close timeframe to Judo112
[76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. Comparing their edits history i would say they come from the same computer. MarkusBjokes's first edit after account creation was a supporting vote for Judo122 [81] that made Judo122's position win, this behavior continues in an ongoing Afd. For me it looks like it is the same person but i may be wrong as i am quite new. So i would like you to have a look at it. Iqinn (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend submitting the case to SPI. Worse case scenario is that we would just put the case on hold until the afd is completed. Icestorm815 • Talk05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user is blocked since last August, but an IP (probably him) seems to be routinely adding sockpuppetry "notes" to it. I haven't researched the accusations and I don't remember why I have that page allegedly watchlisted in the first place, but could someone have a glance? -- Luktalk12:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't understand how that is a personal attack. Second, if you think it is, have you tried WQA first instead of here? MuZemike14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Goons and /b/tards were supposed to be super-cool Interwebz tough guys who lol at guro and love to remind everyone that "The Internet is [not] Srs Bizness"? Now they whine to Wikipedia admins for mercy when somebody tweaks their nose a bit? "Butthurt" doesn't do it justice. "Social phobicWalter Mitty in the Information Age" is more like it. Bullzeyecontribs18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is consistent evidence that one or more persons who are affiliated with Montana Meth Project (MMP) is/are not very happy with the presence of sourced information that is critical of MMP: regularly, around 20,000K from the article is removed. Editors who have done this include:
(Note: I notified all four users of this discussion with {{subst:ANI-notice}}.)
User:SarekOfVulcan is doing an excellent job monitoring the situation, ClueBot is also performing reversion tasks, and I'm keeping my eye on it as well. However, the problem persists: the editor or editors behind the inappropriate edits are wholly unresponsive to requests to discuss at Talk, and continue blanking. I suspect there is now block-evasion afoot, in the case of the blocked 64... IP range's edits subsequently being taken up by Antoine1786. As the situation has worsened, I am here to ask whether there is a more effective approach available than the game of Whack-A-Mole we've been playing. Thanks for your help. Whatever404 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Semi-protection may be worthwhile. The history log did not seem to have any constructive edits from new users (although I was not comprehensive in my checking), so semi-protection may not be unnecessarily disruptive. (I would note that playing Whack-A-Mole is sometimes oddly satisfying). Do you have any objection to semi-protection? Manning (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the edits are aggressive and disruptive, and the editors refuse to communicate, I think that semi-protection of this article would be appropriate. (I prefer arcade Whack-A-Mole, personally. :) ) Whatever404 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admins might want to get ready for a flurry of activity on the Karl Malden page as he has been reported as passed away. Whether it is true or not (ala Jeff Goldblum) remains to be seen. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first update came from TMZ (and I am not stepping in that wasps nest again) so I was a little leary. Thanks for the confirmation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been conversing on my talk page with this user, and am gaining a richer understanding of his problem, which isn't really about filters at all, so much as a number of programs that have made life rather difficult for him. May I direct your attention to the discussion on my talk page labelled 'Tagging?' To sum up: Back in February, User:Anybot created an enormous number of factually inaccurate articles about algae, based on an inaccurate source. By 'an enormous number,' I mean over 6000. Yikes. This is the discussion that WikiProject Plants had about it.] Many of the incorrect articles were simply deleted en masse in a single AfD discussion, but about 900 of them still exist, and are still inaccurate. User:69.226.103.13 has been trying to work his way through that list manually, cutting the inaccurate articles down to one-sentence stubs, but User:ClueBot has been reverting the corrections and warning User:69.226.103.13 to stop blanking articles, since doing so is an act of vandalism. Those edits which have gone through have been tagged by the abuse filter as possibly problematic. From the IP's point of view, he was trying to fix one bot's mistakes, and two more bots are preventing him from doing so, as a result of which (though I wouldn't like to put words in his mouth), he currently has a very negative attitude toward Wikipedia's bots. Does anyone have some suggestions as to how this problem can be solved? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note about FisherQueen's summary. These 900 are not all wrong, they were not deleted for various reasons. Most of the various reasons were legitimate. Unfortunately a few of the first ones in the list are really bad articles. I was just trying to go through the list quickly from the top down, when my edits started being rejected, being tagged, making it hard to do quick work on a large number of articles. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why weren't the 900 remaining articles deleted? (I'm assuming there's a reason, I'm just curious).
Could a bot (no, not a joke!) be coded to fix/stubbify the remaining 900?
Question # 1: I do not know the answer to this question. Question #2: that was my first thought as well, but since my complete knowledge of algae is "green, slimy," and my complete knowledge of bots is, "they work on magic," I don't think I'm qualified to have an opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem would largely be solved if they would create an account. AFAIK, ClueBot has a threshold beyond which it doesn't revert/warn users. No such threshold for IPs. → ROUX₪20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FisherQueen, would the IP be prepared to create an account to work on these 900? They could perhaps reference this thread from the userpage, to inform the less benign members of the community that they are a long-term editor on a serious mission.
Alternatively, I have no experience with bots but in real-life I'm a magician, so I could ingratiate myself with the bot-developer community and see if they/me/us could come up with some magic solution.
They don't need bot edited, most are redirects, most of the remainder are okay, a few are nightmares. They require human checking, one by one. Some need deleted. Kurt Shaped Box has politely agreed to delete articles I request be deleted, so deletion is not an issue.
I'm making a political statement by editing only with IPs. I've been doing it for years. The two times I've registered an account I also tried to edit the most egregious errors, of the type one wishes is never found on wikipedia. It did not go well.
Yes, most of the articles on my latest list are redirects. Some may be going to the right place, some may not - and either need retargetting or deleting outright. Unfortunately, the only way I can think of to do this is for an expert (which I am not!) to go through them manually and either fix the problems or indicate what needs to go... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The important point to remember is that we still have articles that list bacteria as eukaryotes. This spells: no science here. The list needs checked immediately, imo, that's why I was willing to do it, but, since I am being impeded, someone else will need to do it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict)I have nothing to do with the abuse filters or the anti-vandal bots - but (and this is aimed at anyone reading) would it be possible to make 69.226.'s edits exempt from scrutiny in future? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own this IP. See the first edit from it before you consider this.
Have you tried to contact the operator of ClueBot? It should be possible to write an exception to whatever rules it uses. Thatcher23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda had my fill of the bots' folks and their private club. Cluebot's not really a problem bot, as far as I can tell. The block messages appear to be generated by my getting the tags, also, as I deleted more text before (see my abuse filter log to see my prior incidents of abuse all properly logged).
Anyway, here's my suggestion of a heuristic: If an editor, IP or registered, edits text from an article created by a bot that has recently had 4077 of its articles deleted for being worse than garbage, don't tag the editor who is helping to correct the remaining garbage. This is codable.
Here's another suggestion: don't make things permanent if they're in the testing stage as the tags are. Editors are offended by having their edits tagged as vandalism-unlike the code, editors are human beings. From an outsider's point of view, software development on wikipedia is amateur hour. Software in the development stage should not create permanent and inaccurate logs associated with user accounts. With your tagging me an abusive vandal it'd be crazy to register and have a vandalism filter associated with my name.
Here's another one: when an editor doesn't blank the page, don't tag it as blanking.
Here's another one: don't whine about another editor's whining. This changes the focus and length (to longer) of all conversations on wikipedia to drain time from writing an encyclopedia. I wonder this has never been noticed before.
Here's another one: find someone to check the remaining 889 articles. My abuse log is so long after trying to edit 3 articles you may wind up blocking all of NoCal from my editing attempts alone. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The abuse log is not actionable by itself, and many "abuse filters" detect things other than abuse. No admin should ever act on the abuse log without checking the edits themselves. Thatcher00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an abuse log, because the edits are not abusive. It should not be called an abusive log. The title should reflect what it is. Why would someone bother to name something so inaccurately in the first place? It's either an abuse log or it's not. If it's not, don't call it one, don't attach it to editors names, and don't be surprised when it interferes with creating an accurate and reliable encyclopedia because writers don't like being told they're being abusive vandals when they're not.
The obvious solution is just that: call things what they are. It's not obvious that every time someone doesn't like the inaccurate and inappropriate name of something, pause from editing and correcting bad articles, and find a way to correct it.
If it's not an abuse filter, and it's not a log of tripping the abuse filter, stop calling it that. If it's not a log of an editor tripping the abuse filter, don't attach it to the editor's logs.
Anyone at all concerned about the bad articles that rewrite 2 billion years of evolution and how many more still sit on wikipedia? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These behind-the-scenes, "passive" reversions are called abuse filters because that's their intention. When written correctly, they work very well. When written incorrectly or too broadly, obviously they can cause problems. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that's the intention, no matter how much obfuscation is attempted by those denying the intent here and at the "report a false positive" board. Thank you.
Professional and experts care that their hard work is labeled vandalism. Vandals may not care, some other wikipedia editors mayn't care. But I'm not a full-time wikipedia editor. I just correct the science in articles when I have the chance, and I'm not an abusive vandal and should not be labeled one.
It spoils the ability to find a solution that shows the community wants a good, reliable, well-written, and accurate encyclopedia when you tell researchers that wikipedia labeling them as vandals means nothing. If it means nothing: don't do it.
Another factor is that vandalism frequently comes from IP addresses (I would say more IP address entries are vandalism than are not), so if the bot is reacting to IP address removal of text, it's understandable. Also, if you're remaining as an IP to stay anonymous, you're actually more vulnerable to exposure than if you had a user ID. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots08:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concealed original research (if you can call it that)
CaptainEagle(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) copied an existing paragraph, references and all, and changed one sentence to read "Although race and ethnicity tends to be not a factor in whether or not guns should be controlled or not, although ethnic minorities in inner cities tend to in favor of gun control than are Whites." (I discovered the problem while administering grammatical CPR.) When I went to his talk page to warn him, I found numerous warnings from other editors. A quick review of the past few days history finds these offensive or disruptive edits:
I've indef blocked CaptainEagle, see my note on the user's talk page for the rationale. In the end the simple fact is that the account is persistently disruptive (I don't necessarily see a racial issue here), though I can't say whether that's intentional or not (in a sense it doesn't matter). A thoughtful unblock request could be worth considering (I'll leave that to another admin obviously), but I don't think this user can contribute constructively at this point, and indeed they have already wasted a lot of other editors' time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite obvious that these edits, and the overarching behavioral problem, are better treated as a matter of WP:TROLL - one of the few bona-fide instances of trolling - not a matter of WP:OR. You have to be choking to death in a puddle of your own WP:AGF to see these edits as anything but. I really wonder if any admin will be so gullible as to unblock this account - then again, maybe I shouldn't wonder, it took months for people to come around on the "Aspergic Brazillian Concerned With Hot Jewish Sluts" incident... Badger Drink (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the image from that article formation section, but I see now that somebody changed the name of the file in the article. I put the correct name back now. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the Santana move and undid the cut'n'paste replacement of Ike and the cut'n'paste swap of Rockin' That Shit/ Rockin' That Thang. User's apparently making undiscussed changes to what should be primary topic and juggling around dab pages to suit this opinion. Some of those previous (and now reverted-to) forms appear to be consensus or at least rationalized via links to guidelines. IMO immedately block if she does it again, this is disruptive, breaks GFDL history, and goes against consensus/WP:BRD. DMacks (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complete agree with DMacks. User also creating needless redirects, I despatched a couple under CSD-R3. Warn again and block if user offends again. Manning (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user called me a stupid face on my talk page! This user must have an anger problem or something. I do find it a little bit funny, but as a rude comment. Rude enough to report it. I just thought that i'd bring this up. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we see a photo so that we can judge whether you actually do have a stupid face or not? LOL... Tan got there before I did, so I'll just close this AN/I off. Cheers Manning (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hostile behavior and edit warring
I am having a serious issue with User:Koalorka who has been blanket reverting my changes to articles such as MP5 and SG 550 in which I have attempted to implement subsections for very very long sections. He has continued to revert my additions despite general support of them from other people. He is demanding "consensus" but refusing to participate in a reasonable discussion. His refusal to discuss these situations properly and continual reversion despite the opinions of others makes me feel administrator intervention is appropriate.
He has continually made personal attacks on me in a manner that is unacceptable, including trying to discourage me from editing and suggesting I leave Wikipedia.
I could go on and on but I ramble too much. I hope this posting is appropriate. I apologize if I have done anything wrong. This situation is difficult. Some guy (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? You're going to do this again? Ever stop to think that it's you? I invite all editors to go back and spend the half hour necessary to see how Someguy escalated a minor issue completely out of the realm of reasonability, and got zero support - and even some admonishment from Arbcom members. Looking at these diffs, while Koalorka might have handles this a bit better, the process is to Be Bold, Revert, Discuss. The onus is on you to show why your formatting changes are for the better - and in the meantime of the discussion, the status quo should stand if there is dissent. Tan | 3923:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated I have had support of my edits from everyone except Nukes4Tots and Koalorka. Bringing up unrelated past dicusssion and personally attacking me is extremely inappropriate and I hope you will withdraw those comments. I have very clearly explained why the changes are necessary, shown how they follow MOS and guidelines, and again gotten support for the changes. The fact is not many people comment on these articles and part of that is probably because they are so unapproachable as to drive readers away. Some guy (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forgot the editor who thought you were forum shopping. You've gotten mediocre support at best, and the bottom line is that the problem that existed previously - your excessive wikilawyering - is evident here. Stop it; your editing history is extremely disruptive and if it continues, you will be blocked. Tan | 3923:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of those older issues apply here. There have been several other editors who have agreed with Some guy on these issues and some of us were hoping to have the issues play out in discussion if productive. The two editors that keep reverting him haven't pointed out any actual consensus...they say it is on their side but have yet to point to it when asked. They have told him that that he will have to get a consensus from a project (but not any consensus on the article talk pages). ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Posting an RfC to get commentary on a problem related to a specific article. Being told to take it to WP:GUNS. Going there and finding out structure is attached to WP:MILHIST. Going there to request change of structure. Barely getting any commentary from anyone, trying to get commentary, not battling an overwhelmingly negative response to my actions. You have succeeded in making me incredibly angry and offended, so congratulations, but I will not stoop to your level, and I will again ask you to please be WP:CIVIL and refrain from making personal attacks. I have attempted to discuss this problem with the parties involved but they have not engaged in much direct discussion, are mostly ignoring the details of my reasoning, and have not even acknowledged anyone else who has said anything, and as I already stated I am having to deal with some rather vicious personal attacks which make it difficult to approach this situation. Some guy (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's been going around "forum shopping" for support, requesting Third Party involvement on over 3 seperarate pages, and now this. I have good experience in dealing with abusive roving wikicrats, but I am at the limits of my patience. Koalorka (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide links for the consensus that Some guy is supposedly violating? From what I read at WP:MILGUN (the established Firearm MOS based on consensus) he is perfectly within his right. He has also tried to get feedback at the relevant projects. I don't see anything wrong with his changes..so why are they wrong? Show me. What consensus? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another personal attack: [87] As for "forum shopping", I have been trying to establish consensus since Koalorka is demanding it and there are not a lot of people who are commenting on this; he is trying to adopt a judgement position where I cannot "win" because not enough people are commenting. "Consensus" is arbitrary. I have been attempting to discuss this matter but Koalorka has not given much discussion beyond attacking me and saying we haven't reached consensus; I don't think we would ever reach a point which he considered a consensus and he has clearly demonstrated a preference for reversion over improvement so I felt ANI was appropriate. Some guy (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, could everyone involved here please make an extra effort to stay calm and avoid turning this into a dispute about personalities; once we go down that path, there's usually very little productive work that gets done. We have the seeds of a discussion on the actual topic of debate going at WT:MILHIST#Proposed modification of Firearm article structure; it would be very helpful if anyone with an opinion on how the sections should be organized could take some time and make a few suggestions there. Kirill[talk][pf]05:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abductive is edit warring to replace prods after they have been contested,
User:Abductive is edit warring to replace prods after they have been contested, and even after warnings have been given to him on his talk page. He has taken to harassment and name calling in response to my warning him to not replace contested prods.
Youup is blocked. He is obviously a sock of the two other people I have caught doing this in the last week or so, and I am getting very tired of having to manually revert him. J.delanoygabsadds00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop now, Esasus. We all know your patterns by now.
1durphul (talk·contribs) has been edit-warring on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to insert some rather innocuous but perhaps pointy trivial information about one of the group's tax numbers and trademarking information. The group itself is largely disliked by some conservative Catholic groups for obvious reasons; and rather beloved by LGBT communities likely for similar reasons. In all the sources I've every seen while trying to add references to the article nothing really talks about them being involved in financial scandal or even known for much regarding financing except they help raise funds for charities and do so quite often. This editor however is edit-warring and arguing as well as accusing myself and an anon editor of COI which I refuse to get baited into. However since I am likely the main editor there and involved in this I see little good of me warning them about 3rr, nor do I think they would take anythinng from me as anythning but in bad faith. I spelled out my reasons for the removal in the edit summaries as well as on the talkpage when they started there. If someone would be kind enough to look at this situation I will step away as I really don't need the drama. They've made less than a dozen edits altogether, all on ths same article so I feel SPA tag is accurate. I've left a note on their talkpage that this thread is in process. And yes they've again inserted the same information again. -- Banjeboi02:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit warring? You removed something from the article, I undid your edit for good reason. The information belongs in the article. SPI is a trademarked name by a 501(c)(3) in San Francisco. Your original removal was because it was in table form, and not in prose. It's numbers banjeboi, and numbers are best in table form. If you don't like the information in the table, that's too bad, it is accurate, in the right article, and is information others (aside from you) might find useful. 1durphul (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a two-day old account can properly be called an SPA -- most people don't cover a very wide range that soon. However, an account whose very first action is to revert an edit that occurred three months earlier, and then edit-wars about it, perhaps raises other questions. The tone of the previous response does too. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just never created an account before two days ago. I've been using and editing articles for years. Regardless of the length of time I've had an account, this is a discussion about whether or not something belongs in the article. Banjeboi removed something 3 months ago that had been in the article for over a year. This article isn't exactly a hot read so I'm sure few noticed the change. The length of time between his removal, and my undoing should have no bearing on this discussion either. This is a discussion on whether or not the information should be included in the article. 1durphul (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe calm down and figure out if IRS filing forms are acceptable sources... that seems like what the actual dispute is here. I'd lean towards no, as we tend to want secondary sources for information, not unpublished primary sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Chiliad22. As I understand it you're saying the preference would be for an article on what the tax forms say rather than the actual tax forms? These forms must be signed under penalty of perjury by the organization. It is as close as one can get to to a primary source of truth. I'm not sure I understand the rational of wanting a layer of obfuscation between the pure source and the article though. 1durphul (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because no one knows who you are, or who I am, or whether any of us has the necessary expertise to offer an authoritative interpretation of those primary documents. Please read the policies on reliable sources and original research. Primary documents are permitted in a limited way when they are used to flesh out non-controversial details about a topic. When you say these documents are a "primary source of truth" you are asking us to rely on your interpretation of them. Can you be sure that there are no branches or affiliates anywhere else in the US that are incorporated with the same or similar name? (In fact, there appear to be five.) Can you be sure that those particular form 990s are the sum total of all the Sisters of Indulgence, or only the SF branch? Can you be sure that the relationship between US and foreign affiliates is exactly as you described? Frankly, you can't. And even if you think you can, we can't be sure that you can because you (like most of us) are an anonymous nobody. You might have been someone different yesterday, and might be someone different tomorrow. On the other hand, if a reporter for a reliable source-type newspaper, wire service, TV station, etc. writes a story about the sisters, Wikipedia policy allows us to cite the story as a reliable source, because we presume that there is some process to check facts and correct wrong facts either before or after the report. Plus, it gives us a source to point to and say, "The SF Chronicle says so" rather than "Some anonymous guy on July 1 2009 said it was so." That's why Wikipedia requires secondary sources, and carefully proscribes the use of primary sources. Read the policies. Thatcher04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification Thatcher. May I assume that Banjeboi received the same admonishment for his violation of the 3RR that I received?1durphul (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to Tundrbuffy/Dajudem on a purely technical level. Thatcher 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
You can stop now, Esasus. We all know your patterns by now.