MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619. |
Jean-Jacques Georges (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1,047: | Line 1,047: | ||
I have extended it to a year and told the IP that if they return after and start again it will be two years without any further warnings. I'm not particularly interested in telling him how to use the unblock template yadda yadda. [[User:SGGH|S.G.<sup><small>(GH)</small></sup>]] <sub>[[User_talk:SGGH|ping!]]</sub> 09:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
I have extended it to a year and told the IP that if they return after and start again it will be two years without any further warnings. I'm not particularly interested in telling him how to use the unblock template yadda yadda. [[User:SGGH|S.G.<sup><small>(GH)</small></sup>]] <sub>[[User_talk:SGGH|ping!]]</sub> 09:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:This seems like a good resolution, unless someone wants to dig into the old SPIs and see if there's a new connection. The single IP seemed to be content to handle those two articles. I'm not sure the connection, but maybe someone could monitor those possible additional issues, but I don't see a lot of ongoing issues from here. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
:This seems like a good resolution, unless someone wants to dig into the old SPIs and see if there's a new connection. The single IP seemed to be content to handle those two articles. I'm not sure the connection, but maybe someone could monitor those possible additional issues, but I don't see a lot of ongoing issues from here. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Agressive message by Direktor == |
|||
It would be nice if Direktor could abstain from leaving me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jean-Jacques_Georges&diff=prev&oldid=368774274 this kind of messages]. I find this user to be quite agressive in general and have no particular interest in pursuing any kind of exchange with him, except possibly during a mediation, in the presence of other parties. Now he is apparently trying to create some kind of conflict with me, possibly with the hope of reporting me here. Having no use for this, I'd like to report his problematic behaviour, which I find uselessly menacing. [[User:Jean-Jacques Georges|Jean-Jacques Georges]] ([[User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges|talk]]) 10:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:48, 18 June 2010
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. 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) |
|
User:Captain Occam Unblock
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- On June 10, editor was blocked for a period of 2 weeks by User:2over0 for "edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith".
- On June 11, 2over0 unblocked - based on an unblock request, specifically "Unblocked to allow participation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence and associated pages only until expiry. It looks like your participation is vital to that case, and it would be unfair to prevent you from presenting your evidence. I have unblocked you for this purpose. I will make a note of this over there". This is therefore a de facto topic ban / editing restriction from everything else but that Arb case
- On Jun 13, Captain Occam requested an unblock - as he was not blocked, I declined and pointed him here, to WP:ANI - the same place he has been advised multiple times to come.
- On Captain Occam's behalf, I am requesting a review of the restrictions in place, with what I see as 3 possible solutions:
Option 1 - Complete Unblock
- Support until and unless specific evidence is brought forth to substantiate caims which seems to be lacking he4e. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Precisely because of this ArbCom case, it is now better to let him edit all of Wikipedia and only block him in case of very disruptive editing. Any mildly bad behavior which would normally prompt some form of intervention (warning on his talk page and then a block if this behavior persists) can now best be tolerated as how he behaves when not constrained is also relevant evidence in this ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that seems that argument would result in absurd results. An editor named in an ArbCom case has a "free pass" except in case of "very disruptive" behavior? I'm not saying that I necessarily support the original block. but I can't really support overturning it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I see that the "free pass" bit can be bit problematic, but at least let him freely all of Wikipedia during the ArbCom case. If I were an Arbitrator, I would want to see how this editor behaves in general on Wikipedia, what his interests are outside of this particular topic. E.g. it can make a lot of difference if you show the same signs of problematic behavior on all science related articles on controversial topics or only on the intelligence/race related topics. Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that seems that argument would result in absurd results. An editor named in an ArbCom case has a "free pass" except in case of "very disruptive" behavior? I'm not saying that I necessarily support the original block. but I can't really support overturning it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support for the same reason as Hell in a Bucket. Admin 2/0 has failed to provide any diffs illustrating edits by Occam that he finds objectionable despite the fact that several uninvolved editors have asked that he do so. David.Kane (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Based on the below, the user seems to have been obeying the terms of the unblock, seems like there is no problem. Looking at the user's edits prior to the block, he had not edited the article for 48 hours before the block. I see no justification for a preventative block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. My assessment of this issue would be the same regardless of my opinion about the editor. An admin should not be able to block someone and refuse to provide specific examples and diffs of the user's behavior that led to the block, especially after being asked multiple times by a variety of people. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
-
- It's really none of your business. You already asked me if I know him outside Wikipedia on my userpage, I answered honestly; anything involving personal details about how we know each other is irrelevant. It's not something that has ever been stated by us on Wikipedia or any page we've linked to, so I hope you're not trying to engage in WP:Outing here.
- If you think I'm voting this way because of my personal feelings toward Occam, rather than that the block itself is unreasonable, then you need to realize this is exactly how the votes from several other editors in favor of keeping the block look to me. A lot of these people have been involved in content disputes against Occam, and as far as I can tell this is why they approve of him being blocked, even in the absence of diffs and specific evidence from the blocking admin. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Information and links to the fact that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was the girlfriend of Captain Occam have been posted by Captain Occam multiple times on wikipedia, and is still in the archives: [1]. If you don't want this information on wikipedia you might consider contacting WP:OS to have that page (and this one, and any others where it has come up) scrubbed. aprock (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- This has been explained so many times already, I’m not sure what the point is in explaining it again. But I’ll do so anyway:
- The only information that I’ve ever provided about my girlfriend’s identity is that my userpage used to contain a link to a DeviantArt community that I said was “my and my girflfriend’s”. The community has over 100 members, and there’s nothing on the page that I linked to which specifically identifies my girlfriend as having this Wikipedia account. However, by searching through this community as well as well as the personal DeviantArt accounts that Ferahgo the Assassin and I have linked to, Mathsci has claimed to uncover evidence that this user is my girlfriend.
- If you think I’ve ever stated this myself, post the diff. All you’ve done is link to an entire 380 KB AN/I thread, and said the equivalent of “it’s somewhere in there”. I’m quite certain that the only people who’ve ever claimed this are Mathsci, and the various people who repeated this after Mathsci said it, which doesn’t give you permission to keep repeating the same thing yourself.
- And incidentally, I have contacted oversight about this, and in response they’ve told me that it’s not possible for them to remove anything from AN/I threads. The fact that Wikipedia’s rule against outing can’t be properly enforced here doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. Whether or not the wiki editor of the same name is impersonating your girlfriend is a separate issue. I've suggested this before, but if this is stuff you're not interested in having on wikipedia, it's probably best for you (and Ferahgo) to just ignore requests to verify your relationship status. If there are issues with scrubbing this from wikipedia, that's even more reason to ignore any such requests. aprock (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- “Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend.”
- And you’re just going to keep claiming this while refusing to address what I said in response to it? I just told you: if you think I’ve said this anywhere on-Wiki, post the diff. (That is, a diff from me, not from Hipocrite or Mathsci.) If you can’t, then as far as I (and probably anyone else who reads this thread) is concerned, you’re putting words in my mouth that I’ve never said. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let's be clear here - Captain Occam was open about his RL identity when he wrote his userpage initially. It took about ten seconds of not-even-googling to learn that Ferahgo the Assassin was his girlfriend, contrary to his constant protestations that it took some sort of gymnastics - however, to demonstrate this would be outing. Captain Occam used Ferahgo the Assassin as a meatpuppet before - and was not even a little open about it - see [2], [3], and multiple others. It is not outing to say that User:Captain Occam is dating User:Ferahgo the Assassin. It is outing if I were to say "Ferahgo the Assassin is Jane Doe" (She is not Jane Doe). It is a violation of WP:MEAT to recruit your real life girlfriend to campaign on wikipedia for you. Further, Ferahgo the Assassin recent wrote "I don't try to keep [my relationship with Captain Occam a secret and will answer honestly if asked"]. Where's the outing, exactly? If it outing if, to take a counterfactual, I was dating Beyond My Ken for someone to say "Hey, Hipocrite, aren't you dating Beyond My Ken? Isn't it meatpuppetry for him to recruit you to agree with him about topics you've never edited before?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- @Captain Occam: As Hipocrite said, posting the details would certainly constitute outing. If you restore your User page to a state where the scrubbed information is again displayed on the page, I will be happy to explain where you made it clear that "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. aprock (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- For Christ's sake. Can an admin please step in here and block these people who are trying to get an outing confirmed? The original question Ferahgo was inappropriate, both that editor and Occam have refused to confirm the allegation that's been made. Persisting on this topic is flagrant outing. Rvcx (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's not clear from WP:OUTING whether relationship status constitutes personal information: Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information. I don't think anyone has ever published that sort of personal information, only that the two are/were in a romantic relationship. However, that is a personal issue, and in general it's not something I'm really interested in. In this case, my only interest is in correcting the claims by Captain Occam and Ferahgo that this information was not provided on wikipedia. Had they ignored it, or not responded with misrepresentations, there would be little to discuss. At the admin level, this is somewhat of a complex issue. It's not clear how this relates to WP:MEAT, or WP:OUTING, especially since this information was provided by Captain Occam through his user page and discussions elsewhere on wikipedia. Updating the policy pages to directly address this sort of personal information would help here. aprock (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that pointing out two users' admission that they have a relationship does not constitute outing; hence no action from me. However, anyone posting speculation as to real-world identities or identifying information here will certainly and clearly fall foul of our policy - and shortly thereafter of some admin's tools. Perhaps not mine. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- SheffieldSteel, I don’t think you’re understanding the point here. This information has not been provided by me or Ferahgo the Assassin at Wikipedia, nor has it been provided at any page that either of us has linked to. I’ve asked Aprock and Hipocrite several times to support their claim that either of us said this by providing a diff, and both of them have declined to do so while giving a nonsensical reason why not. (If they think it would be outing for them to point to what I’ve said on-Wiki that they think proves this user is my girlfriend, how can it not be outing for them to keep repeating the personal conclusion they’ve drawn about me from this?) The link that Hipocrite posted that he claims supports his assertion about us is only Ferahgo the Assassin admitting she knows me outside Wikipedia; it says nothing about the personal details of how we know each other.
- I’m quite certain that the reason neither of them can provide a diff in which either of us have said this is because no such diff exists. Is their unsupported claim that I’ve stated this on-Wiki is sufficient for admins to overlook their attempts to confirm non-public personal information about us? And if so, does this policy apply in other situations where someone claims this? If the only thing that’s necessary to get away with posting non-public personal information about another user is to claim that the user has divulged it themselves, and then refuse to provide a diff of where the user said this, it will be possible to get away with absolutely any instance of outing by making this claim and then refusing to support it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The diffs from your User page were scrubbed because you were concerned about outing issues. There are diffs elsewhere, but since they would out you, providing them seems contrary to your desires. If you restore the scrubbed version of your User page, I'll provide the diffs. Alternatively, if you definitively state that you would like me to out you, I'll provide the diffs. aprock (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Umm, you’re still not being consistent here. If you agree that it would be outing for you to link to diffs in which other users were talking about the content that was removed from my userpage, why is it not outing for you to talk about the personal conclusions about me that you’ve drawn from this content?
- You don’t have to answer this. I expect that an admin will probably be closing this thread soon, so hopefully when they do, they’ll also make a decision about whether what you and Hipocrite have been doing here is acceptable. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I referred explicitly to the WP:OUTING guidelines, asked for guidance and got guidance. If you want me to provide diffs, which would expose personal information as described in WP:OUTING, I will only do it with explicit permission from you. Alternatively, you could drop the whole thing, as I've suggested several times now. aprock (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. There was no reason given for a block in the first place. The argument to continue it is that people didn't like the manner of the complaint about this? Stop the madness. The only thing being achieved here is the exposure of some serious favoritism, which warrants investigation. mikemikev (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Per Mikemikev and others above. Providing no diffs and then accusing an editor of "not hearing it" serves no useful purpose. I am involved (as of recently) at the R&I article and had seen no recent behavior which would precipitate a block--and is that not what a block is supposed to be about? PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC) - Note to closing admin - The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- By "almost entirely" you mean David.Kane and mikemikev, right? Because only 2 of the 7 "support" votes here so far are involved in the ArbCom case. In what universe is 2 out of 7 a majority?
- Support. Per Mikemikev and others above. Providing no diffs and then accusing an editor of "not hearing it" serves no useful purpose. I am involved (as of recently) at the R&I article and had seen no recent behavior which would precipitate a block--and is that not what a block is supposed to be about? PЄTЄRS
- Even if what you're saying was correct, how is it any different from the votes against the unblock? Muntuwandi and Arthur Rubin are both opposing Occam in the ArbCom case, and you’ve brought up your content disputes with him in several past AN/I threads even though you’re not involved in the arbitration. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, I mean pretty much everyone in this section except Count Iblis. I didn't say they were involved in the ArbCom case, I said they supported Captain Occam's position in the ArbCom case, a claim that is easily evidenced by their editing and commentary throughout the many noticeboards and talk page discussions on Race & Intelligence. The closing admin should be aware that these !votes are here for reasons other than neutral evaluation of the circumstances, but instead are probably motivated by personal connections and ideologically-based sympathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t even know who B and Hell in a Bucket are. The past day is the first time I’ve ever interacted with them. I also had never interacted with Vecrumba before around a week ago, and I have no idea what his viewpoint is about this topic; he’s stated a few times that he has no idea what mine is either.
- This is a rather lame attempt to try and disrupt the consensus which seems to be forming, coming from one of the group of people who appear (based on their comments in past AN/I threads and on the R & I talk page) to have long-term grievances against me, which make up more than half of the votes in favgr of keeping thm ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Occam. Beyond my Ken should be commenting on the opinioins given not the id of the people giving it. WOuld this somehow be more valid if he brought this up? Just saying.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, block !voting -- the core subject of the ArbCom case under consideration -- is akin to meatpuppetry, and does not legitimately establish a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Occam. Beyond my Ken should be commenting on the opinioins given not the id of the people giving it. WOuld this somehow be more valid if he brought this up? Just saying.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, "The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks."? It's quite simple, an editor was blocked with a pile of accusations and not a single diff. I don't even know if I support Occam's editorial position or not at the article, but let's pile on the bad faith crap. Oh, and "anyone who disagrees with someone else who disagrees with me/someone I'm against is a meatpuppet." Really, this "note to closing admin" is not helpful whatsoever. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, "The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks."? It's quite simple, an editor was blocked with a pile of accusations and not a single diff. I don't even know if I support Occam's editorial position or not at the article, but let's pile on the bad faith crap. Oh, and "anyone who disagrees with someone else who disagrees with me/someone I'm against is a meatpuppet." Really, this "note to closing admin" is not helpful whatsoever. PЄTЄRS
- Support complete unblock, unless or until there is some explanation for the original block. This block seems to go against the basic notion that blocks are practical and not punitive. Further, it really looks like this was an admin making a statement about the parties to the ArbCom case (which concerns, among other things, whether "editors in good standing" deserve special treatment); there is at least as much cause for blocking User:Mathsci. Whether the appearance of favoritism is accurate or not, the block severely undermines faith in admin neutrality. Rvcx (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- No administrator has so far shared your views, even though you have posted them now in many forums. I believe I'm in good standing with 8,200 content edits and about 40 articles created. Because I've participated in various ArbCom cases, I'm also known to various members of ArbCom. Most administrators can distinguish between an WP:SPA and an editor who adds quite a lot of content in a wide range of areas. As far as WP:CPUSH is concerned, here is a classic case. What you have written above verges on a personal attack and I would ask you please to refactor your comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your content-free claims to special privilege on the basis of number of edits (which, I should point out, would be reduced by a factor of five if you'd ever learn to use the "Preview" button and stop littering Wikipedia's live pages with typos) have no relevance to the matter at hand. Thanks, Rvcx (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't claim any special privilege. You on the other hand have just tag-team edited with two WP:SPA editors that have recently been blocked. I wonder whether your advanced skills with the preview button would help you write The Four Seasons (Poussin), Handel concerti grossi Op.6, Differential geometry of surfaces or Europe#History. You seem to have a lot of advice to offer, but very few content edits. Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your content-free claims to special privilege on the basis of number of edits (which, I should point out, would be reduced by a factor of five if you'd ever learn to use the "Preview" button and stop littering Wikipedia's live pages with typos) have no relevance to the matter at hand. Thanks, Rvcx (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support complete unblock unless the original block has any evidence to it. Blocks are not punitive, but preventive, so if the blocks don't prevent anything, the block is not valid. The restrictions put in place seem pretty harsh—only edit the ArbCom pages? Until he disrupts Wikipedia or evidence for the original block is provided, a completely unblock should be put in place. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support complete unblock until admin who issued the block deigns to give his reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - Two of the three editors who have !voted since my comment above are also members of the block in question. I make it that there are only
twothree !votes in this section from non-aligned editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (miscounted) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note to Ken There is nothing wrong with their opinions and to exempt them solely because they agree with Occam at ARBCOMis beyond ridiculous. You don't have to have completely unbiased people to make a consensus, unless there is a policy saying those who agree with you are exempted from doing it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you are incorrect. !Voting in a block distorts any actual community consensus that may be forming, by misrepresenting the balance of the discussion. Admins are not supposed to count noses in determining consensus, they're supposed to take into account numerous factors, such as the quality of the arguments, and among the many things they should consider is block voting, such as has occured here. An uninvolved admin may not be aware of the en bloc behavior of the hereditarian faction involved in the Race & Intelligence dispute, so I think it is helpful to point it out. Absent the !votes of that block, there is no clear consensus in this discussion at all, which will, presumably, leave the status quo in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- So you'll have no problems pointing this out with a official policy disqualifying them from arguing on this persons behalf? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- So, @Beyond My Ken, is it the case that a "block" one disapproves of evil and a block one agrees with is consensus? It's a small step from conspiracy theory to witch hunt. Let's not go there. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)- @Hell: I never said or implied that they were disqualified from arguing on behalf of Captain Occam, what I said was that the closing admin should take into account that they are part of a !voting block and act accordingly. That is why I slugged my comments for the attention of the closing admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- @Vecrumba: The evidence of block behavior on the part of the heredetarian faction is very strong, and has been presented by numerous editors here and at the ArbCom case. No similar array of evidence has been presented for other block behavior, but if it exists, I expect that someone will present it to ArbCom. There's no witch hunt here, no wild conspiracy theory - anyone who's followed this issue over the last few months can see the clear behavioral evidence of block behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- So there isn't a problem with not shouting from every section you didn't agree with that those people are involved, if what you say is correct the admin will be able to sort this out without you throwing the seeds of dissension and decide on the arguments merits without the color commentary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- So, @Beyond My Ken, is it the case that a "block" one disapproves of evil and a block one agrees with is consensus? It's a small step from conspiracy theory to witch hunt. Let's not go there. PЄTЄRS
- So you'll have no problems pointing this out with a official policy disqualifying them from arguing on this persons behalf? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you are incorrect. !Voting in a block distorts any actual community consensus that may be forming, by misrepresenting the balance of the discussion. Admins are not supposed to count noses in determining consensus, they're supposed to take into account numerous factors, such as the quality of the arguments, and among the many things they should consider is block voting, such as has occured here. An uninvolved admin may not be aware of the en bloc behavior of the hereditarian faction involved in the Race & Intelligence dispute, so I think it is helpful to point it out. Absent the !votes of that block, there is no clear consensus in this discussion at all, which will, presumably, leave the status quo in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note to Ken There is nothing wrong with their opinions and to exempt them solely because they agree with Occam at ARBCOMis beyond ridiculous. You don't have to have completely unbiased people to make a consensus, unless there is a policy saying those who agree with you are exempted from doing it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - Two of the three editors who have !voted since my comment above are also members of the block in question. I make it that there are only
Option 2 - Reblock for remainder of original block
- Support.
(1) It prevents further spilling out onto pages covered by the topic ban, and (2)It gives Captain Occam what they want - an opportunity to request an unblock, and contest the original block. TFOWR 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Part struck, re-signing. TFOWR 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Except that it should get reset to a new two weeks. When you evade a block, it starts over. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)User had permission for edit, does not seem to have violated terms of block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)- Support This not the first time Captain Occam has edit warred over race and intelligence articles. He has been doing so since October 2009. This 3RR noticeboard archive report shows Captain Occam made 10 reverts to the race and intelligence article within 24 hours and continued edit warring 3 days after his block expired (diff to report). Occam is fully knowledgeable about edit warring and the consequences but was edit warring on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ according to the article'srevision history. Furthermore the administrator Georgewilliamherbert placed race and intelligence articles on a 1RR [[4]], which Captain Occam was fully aware of, even citing it in this diff .[5]. I see no reasonable excuse for edit warring. Unblocking him would set a very bad precedent and would be a punch in the gut to those editors who while being bold, have avoided edit warring. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - The complexities of this situation are entirely the result of the attempt by the blocking admin to show latitutde to Captain Occam so that he could participate in the ArbCom case on Race and Intelligence. Instead, Captain Occam chose to post on Jimbo's talk page, in contravention of his unblock conditions, and has refused multiple suggestions that he take his appeal here. In addition, only in the last day has he taken advantage of the purpose of his unblock and posted to the ArbCom case. The easiest way to reduce the uncertainties of this situation is to restore the physical block and have Captain Occam's participation in the ArbCom case continue by proxy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- In reading this over, I realized that my comment may be taken as criticism of the blocking admin, but that was not my intention. I think 2over0's actions were an admirable attempt to be very fair to Captain Occam. It's not his fault that CO has taken advantage of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support.
Option 3 - Remain unblocked, with original editing restrictions intact for the duration of the original block
- Support 3 Although the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has continued on Jimbo's talk page, requiring Bwilkins to bring this here against Occam's wishes, I support the restriction until the expiration of the original block. Would change to 2 if problems persist, and editor could post AC comments on his own talk (as has been done before). CO has been extended a lot of good faith here. Verbal chat 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support per verbal. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Confirm community ban for remaining duration of original block length (pending explanation of original block - I might disagree at that point).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per Verbal; I agree that allowing him to appeal to the God-King is a extension of the original relaxation of the block. I don't yet agree with option 2, but I could be convinced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Just reading this made me dizzy. You keep asking the same thing over and over and kept getting the same types of responses but you would reject what information you were receiving. I don't think that there is any single dif to show the behavior. I think it's the overall way you react to things. You really WP:IDHT. I think the block should stay and if this behavior of ignoring what other's say is repeated then I would say to make the block again without assuming good faith that you will stop the disruptive behavior. Sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Although I am recused from this particular case, I can state that it is a common practice to unblock an editor with restriction to participate in an Arbcom case in which the editor has a notable interest; such appears to be the case here. Since his unblock is specific to his participation in the Arbcom case, his focus should be solely on providing evidence and commenting on the workshop page of the case. Risker (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
CO Unblock Discussion
Discussion and !votes above would be appreciated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not want to discuss this here. And it’s not because I’m afraid of being blocked again; it’s because every recent thread here that’s involved me or the race and intelligence articles (which the subject of the ArbCom case for which I was unblocked) has turned into a mudslinging match about the content disputes over these articles. Several other (uninvolved) editors who’ve commented on the thread in Jimbo Wales’ user talk understand this also. If this thread is allowed to continue, it will likely turn into nothing but a colossal waste of everyone’s time, just like every other recent thread here on this topic.
- Is it permissible for an admin to force me to appeal my block here when I specifically have a desire against that? If I’m being disallowed from continuing to discuss it in Jimbo Wales’ user talk, I can bring it up at the Arbitration Committee Clerks’ Noticeboard, per EdChem’s suggestion. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Incidentally, another question: if this thread degenerates the way I’m predicting, am I going to be accused of forum shopping if I attempt to appeal my ban in the ArbCom case? If so, I want this thread closed right away. An administrator does have the right to essentially take away an editor’s right of appeal, by using it against the editor’s will in a channel that the editor has specifically stated that he does not want to pursue. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you wish to appeal your block, you can email the blocking admin or use the {{unblock}} template. Your block was removed soley for the purpose of participating in the arbitration. Editing
here andJimbo's talk pageareis not permitted. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)- B, he was already denied on unblock based on the grounds that he wasn't blocked, and told that he would not be blocked for participating here. Catch up, please. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you wish to appeal your block, you can email the blocking admin or use the {{unblock}} template. Your block was removed soley for the purpose of participating in the arbitration. Editing
- B, the blocking admin also has specifically given me permission to request information about how to appeal my block in Jimbo Wales’ user talk.
- He gave that permission retroactively, after you had already violated the terms of your unblock by posting on Jimbo's page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- B, the blocking admin also has specifically given me permission to request information about how to appeal my block in Jimbo Wales’ user talk.
- If people are going to be voting here without being familiar with the details of this situation, I recommend that everyone also read the discussion about my block in 2over0’s user talk. (2over0 is the admin who blocked me.) Since he did not provide any specific examples of what my block was based on, four different users have asked him to please explain in detail the justification for my block, but he’s failed to respond to any of them. As explained in ImperfectlyInformed’s comment there, a single admin also does not have permission to enact editing restrictions without any community discussion; to do so would be an example of discretionary sanctions, which is a failed proposal. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Verbal if this case was as clear cut as you claim, Occam would still be blocked and there would be a flood of diffs to prove this was a prudent course of action. I for one would like to see the diffs proving the allegations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't said it was clear cut. He's been given a lot of leeway, and decided to continue his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Verbal chat 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're repeating yourself without proving anything. Can you please show us why these are needed? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ecX4) Indeed, I don't feel that we require CO's additional participation here if he does not wish to: this discussion and !votes can be made based on the contributions that are visible to everyone. In effect, it's a group response to an unblock request, only it will remove any and all doubt. Indeed, he was told that he would not be blocked for filing this, nor for commenting here. I was tired of seeing the lack of direct action, and am otherwise uninvolved in the entire situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the community isn’t able to come to a consensus either way (which is what I’m predicting will happen, and that’s another reason I suspected that discussing this here wouldn’t be productive) what will that means in terms of my editing restrictions? Since there was never any community consensus for these restrictions in the first place, it seems like this would just leave open the question of whether the restrictions are valid. (That is, whether 2over0 had the authority to implement discretionary sanctions on an article where Arbcom hasn’t authorized them, and whether it was acceptable for him to do so without providing any diffs of objectionable behavior from me, even when he was asked for them.) --Captain Occam (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ecX4) Indeed, I don't feel that we require CO's additional participation here if he does not wish to: this discussion and !votes can be made based on the contributions that are visible to everyone. In effect, it's a group response to an unblock request, only it will remove any and all doubt. Indeed, he was told that he would not be blocked for filing this, nor for commenting here. I was tired of seeing the lack of direct action, and am otherwise uninvolved in the entire situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You will ultimately lose that appeal The only person other then 2/0 to remove it would probably have to be Arbcom if no consensus can be made here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I need to apologize to Captain Occam. I was looking at this strictly as a question of whether or not the editing restrictions were obeyed, rather than as to whether or not the underlying block was appropriate. He hadn't edited the article for two days before the block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and once I looked at the actual edits, I don't see a reason for the block at all. The editing restrictions should be removed. --B (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note Just in case no one looked, 2over0 has not been here since 6/11.--CrohnieGalTalk 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- He was still online and editing other Wikipedia pages while people were asking him for an explanation of why he blocked me, though, as well as for a few hours afterwards. The fact that he went offline shortly after this doesn’t explain why he never responded to anyone’s questions about this in his user talk. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note Just in case no one looked, 2over0 has not been here since 6/11.--CrohnieGalTalk 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Review of BWilkins unblock decline
(out) Incidentally, I believe BWilkins' description of Captain Occam's circumstance as "a de facto topic ban" is quite wide of the mark. In fact, what Captain Occam is under is nothing more or less than a de facto block. If the software had the capability of blocking someone from everywhere but specific places, that option would have been used, and CO would only have been physically able to post on his talk page, at the ArbCom case, on Jimbo's page and here (Jimbo's at CO's request and AN/I as the proper place to appeal his block). That physical capability is not available, so 2/0 allowed a conditional unblock for those areas only. In point of fact, Captain Occam is virtually blocked from every place on Wikipedia except those 4 places, which is not at all like a topic ban, where one is allowed to edit anywhere on Wikipedia except the place where the ban is in place. The two situations are mirror opposites, not equivalents, so describing CO's situation in that way is entirely incorrect. For this reason, Fqb's suggestion that CO use an unblock request was perfectly apt, and BWilkin's declining to countenance it on procedural grounds was not only very un-Wiki-like, but incorrect as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that public undressing, but "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." If CO was currently unable to edit due to technical means, then he would be blocked. He is technically able to edit. Period. If you want to discuss that in a better forum, let's do so - but don't detract from the point that someone finally tried to provide resolution to a situation. There was enough disruption and badgering taking place on Jimbo's page, that nobody else needed to continue it here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let's please be clear -- I think your decision to bring this here was a good one -- Captain Occam had "beat around the bush" (so to speak) for quite a while, and it's good that you forced the issue to a decision by bringing it here. But that doesn't change the fact that you should have dealt with his unblock request as an unblock request on his talk page, since he was (and is) de facto blocked. Your decision was a bad one, and (like all admin decisions) is subject to scrutiny from the editing community. Your apparent conviction that he was topic banned is demonstrably incorrect and unsupported by the evidence, and you should have expected it to be second-guessed when you brought the whole megillah here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to have my own actions reviewed, so I have made this into a separate sub-section, so that it does not detract from the issue at hand. I have clearly stated why I declined the unblock on the user's talkpage, Jimbo's page, and elsewhere. I stick by the decision that it was not an unblock request that was required to appeak a conditional unblock because he was not technically blocked as per WP:BLOCK - if anything, it was closer to WP:BAN as it was a socially-imposed condition. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- A few things need to be clarified here. A conditional unblock is the equivalent of a de facto restriction because it is a socially imposed condition rather than a technical means of preventing someone from editing. Conditional unblocks can be listed at WP:RESTRICT under "final warnings", though this is not a requirement like with formal community imposed editing restrictions. This is because a conditional unblock is not effected with a community consensus; therefore, an administrator may lift the condition because it does not require a community consensus to be lifted. However, should a reviewing administrator prefer to send the appeal to the community or have his/her action reviewed by the community for any reason, that administrator is entitled to do so. Theoretically, it could also be appealed to ArbCom or Jimbo, but practically, they would expect (or be expected to assert) that the community is to consider such an appeal first because they are a "last resort". In this case, 2/0 (the administrator who imposed the condition) requested that the restriction be considered by the community (at ANI) should the sanctioned user desire to appeal - should another administrator have refused to comply with this request and lifted the ban anyway, it would be predictable that 2/0 or someone else would have brought it here. In this particular instance, Bwilkins actions are therefore sound, and both Fqb and Beyond My Ken were/are off the mark. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah - he brought the issue here, I responded here. There's no need for back door discussions when the front door is open. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I'm the one who added the heading, as even though B my Ken felt it "incidental", there was a clear and strong questioning of my action, and I'm open to such critique (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the main point of my critique, it seems to me that refusing to deal with an unblock request because, in the admin's opinion, a conditional unblock is more like a ban than a block, is process for the sake of process. The block was imposed by a single admin, and was made conditional by a single admin, and the usual and normal block procedure is for a single admin to review it when an unblock request was made. The community need not get involved unless the admin requests a review of the block, which normally happens here. The only practical difference BWilkins' choice made was to muddy up the situation unnecessarily; however, as I stated above, I do applaud his fringing the issue here (where it would have gona in the normal course of events%, despite the sqbject's fear of having his case reviewed by the community at large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if Beyond my Ken is drama mongering or acting in good faith. IMO he seems to be trying to discredit anyone with a opinion that differes from his own. In this BWilkins did do the correct thing by directing the editor to here. Granted it could've been handled anywhere but a topic ban should always be decided by the community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Jeez Louise, if I'm "drama mongering" I'm doing a damn bad job of it. No, this really is good faith concern on my part, in this case about unnecessary process, a concern I've raised in the past in completely different circumstances as well. I have no desire to rake BWilkins over the coals, nor do I have any opinion about his administrative actions in general, I simply think his take on the situation was wrong and his actions made things unnecessarily complicated. Obviously, others disagree with me, but that's what makes horse racing, politics and Wiki-discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Beyond my Ken is one of the main reasons why I wanted this issue to be resolved somewhere other than AN/I. There are a few editors who show up in nearly all of the AN/I threads related to these articles and generally turn them into mudslinging matches, and Beyond my Ken has been one of the worst examples of this.
- I was also worried that his doing this would prevent the thread from reaching a consensus, regardless of whether or not my ban is justified, but it looks like the opposition to my ban is strong enough that this might be happening anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Will that be happening soon? This thread seems to have served its purpose: there are four votes to completely re-block, five votes to keep the current restrictions in place, and ten votes to completely unblock. At this point, the only remaining discussion seems to be Beyond My Ken and Hipocrite attempting to drag out the issue and muddy the water, and I don’t think allowing the thread to continue down this path will accomplish anything.
- If an admin doesn’t close this thread soon, I think it would be best if everyone stopped replying to both of them. By continuing to reply, we’re only contributing to this thread being diverted from its original topic, and making it more difficult for an uninvolved admin to make a decision about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- A marvelous example of the passive/aggressive behavior BWilkins pointed out on your talk page, Captain Occam -- reiterating the bogus !vote count from above as if the objection about block !voting had never been raised, at the same time getting in a dig at those raising the issue -- all while moaning about how badly you've been treated, when, in fact, you've been on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of special treatment -- justifiable special treatment, but special nonetheless. I'm only sorry that the middle option (return to straightforward block) didn't receive more support, so that you could see the difference between what it means to be blocked, and what has happened to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I find it pretty ironic that I’m the person who’s been accused of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. I know, I know I said that I wouldn’t reply anymore… --Captain Occam (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I guess I'm pretty dense. I don't see any "irony" and I don't know what it is you think I'm not hearing. I hear perfectly well that my point's been made, and there'd be no need for me to restate it if you hadn't barged right it and acted like it never existed. I'd be quite happy to let it lie, if you would agree to as well.
Pax? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I guess I'm pretty dense. I don't see any "irony" and I don't know what it is you think I'm not hearing. I hear perfectly well that my point's been made, and there'd be no need for me to restate it if you hadn't barged right it and acted like it never existed. I'd be quite happy to let it lie, if you would agree to as well.
- My point was that nobody commenting here other than you thinks that the “alignment” of the users voting makes any difference in this thread. Even some of the “non-aligned” users apparently think this idea is ridiculous, but you don’t seem willing to accept what they have to say about it either.
- I don’t expect you to be willing to change your mind about whether this makes a difference or not, but if you’re willing to acknowledge how many other users disagree with you about it (both “aligned” and “non-aligned”), I guess I’m willing to let this drop. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't concur with your analysis of the situation, which overstates things in a way that's quite inaccurate, but I have no desire to delve further into your misapprehension, as it's essentially a side issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I regret my experience with the use of "meatpuppets" is that it is a code word used to discount the "side" one disagrees with. Let's just deal with the issue of a block with no supporting documentation provided with the block. That is a question of procedure, not a popularity contest. If you have specific accusations, then please make them in the appropriate forum, not here. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikilawyering
I think there is way too much wikilawyering taking place. We need to step back and look at the bigger picture rather than debating whether this is a block or a topic ban. Let us imagine there was no arbcom case, Occam would have been blocked and would have had to go through the normal appeals process. This is what all the blocked users on the edit warring noticeboard have to go through. By coincidence, Occam is involved in an Arbcom case, and because there is a deadline for submitting evidence, it is only fair that Occam participates. It is for this reason only that Occam was conditionally unblocked, and nothing else. Most blocked editors listed at the edit warring noticeboard are not involved in an Arbcom case, and therefore do not even get conditional unblocks. They do not get a chance to post on Jimbo Wales' talk page or to post an unblock appeal on ANI either. I therefore believe that Occam has been given a lot of preferential treatment, that most blocked users don't get because he is coincidentally involved in an Arbcom case. The main problem here is inconsistencies in the application of the blocking policy. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. However the one thing that is really really lacking and killing this case is the refusal for the blocking admin to participate here. I would be open to reviewing the evidence for this block if the admin would discuss. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Muntuwandi, if I could’ve just used the unblock template and gotten an admin to review my block in the normal fashion, I would’ve preferred that. I suspect that most uninvolved admins would have overturned a block that was implemented without any specific explanation of what it was based on. But because of my conditional unblock, the unblock template was removed on a technicality, and now I’m having to go through this protracted AN/I argument that (as I stated above) I would have much rather avoided. What you regard as “preferential treatment” for me, I regard as nothing but a massive inconvenience required of me in order to achieve the same result (appealing my block) that I could have achieved much more easily otherwise. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wish I was a wikilawyer. I could charge 300 wikidollars a wikihour, and show my wikiskills in the wikicourtroom. It'd be wikisweet... HalfShadow 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Review and decision
- This is an unusual situation - we rarely impose the type of edit restriction that limits someone to Arbcom case responses only, though it's been done a number of time. The admin who imposed it also has become idle for 5 days. Community "votes" also aren't exactly a standard way of resolving issues with blocks.
- Logically - the edit restrictions were a modification to the original block. The place to start in determining what to do going forwards is reviewing the specifics of the original block.
- In the days leading up to the block, Captain Occam focused editing on the Arbcom case and on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article. Having reviewed all the threads there, in the days leading up to the block, Occam edited in a manner which was somewhat milder than the prior months, was discussing largely in good faith, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary for the situation currently under arbitration. There were extensive fruitful multiparty discussions going on on the talk page.
- The underlying content and behavioral issues at play in the Arbcom case can be seen in the ongoing activity, and perhaps it would be best for all parties if we simply lock the article from editing for the remainder of the case, but the editing slowed down significantly over the last few days (since I full-protected for 1 day on June 8th). It was certainly not worse than prior times.
- I believe that the block was done in good faith. However, I believe that in retrospect, nothing was going on at the time of the block that was out of the ordinary or beyond that already subject to normal Arbcom review and needing admin intervention. Admins should not be afraid to enforce policy normally against Arbcom case participants, but we also shouldn't focus overly critically on them. Arbcom will make any out-of-the-ordinary decisions required.
- Had there still been an active block I'd overturn it at this point. Given the edit restriction was a replacement for that, I believe that it should just be vacated at this time.
- This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors. However, reasonable normal behavior with due respect for the Arbcom case underway is not a problem for the encyclopedia or community.
- As an uninvolved admin, having reviewed, I am doing so. The additional restrictions in place on Captain Occam are vacated. I am going to copy this section to WP:ANI, the Arbcom case workshop, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:2over0.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment on Georgewilliamherbert's review
(copied from ArbCom workshop) Georgewilliamherbert's review of Captain Occam's behaviour on Talk:Race and intelligence and Race and intelligence prior to the block does not seem to be accurate. He seems to have failed to notice that Captain Occam was reinserting material rejected by consensus for the third or fourth time. This behaviour of Captain Occam is typical. Here is another example of WP:CPUSH [6]. Georgewilliamherbert is making value judgements about content and failing to notice long term behaviour, which is precisely the problem with WP:CPUSH. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Occam didn't edit the article between my full protection of the 8th for 24 hrs ending and the block. He had made 2 relatively minor edits (in comparison) earlier on the 8th, and a long series on the 6th which were immediately reverted by someone else without fuss.
- Occam's edits on the talk page for the days leading up to the 10th were, as I said, in the context of friendly and productive multiparty discussions on the talk page and were not disruptive.
- We are arbitrating whether there's a problematic long term pattern. The arbcom case is the place to plead that case. We are not supposed to use admin discretion to presume the outcome of the arbcom case while it's in play. If Occam had done something serious during the case that's one thing. What he did leading up to the block was clearly not serious and urgent requiring admin attention despite the Arbcom case, and doesn't justify the block.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- At this point this is at Arbcom. They will catch shit either way they decide but maybe it's best left there to be decided because [[WP:CPUSH}]] is advice and not official policy. I'm actually somewhat surprised by this action as well but at this point I think there is a lot of eyes on the situation now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Georgewilliamherbert had placed race and intelligence issues on a 1RR restriction, Captain Occam violated the 1RR restriction by edit warring here. Captain Occam was blocked for edit warring, which was later amended to a conditional block and has now GWH has vacated these restrictions. My question for Georgewilliamherbert is what is the point of making rules if they are not going to be enforced when editors violate them. I think it is only fair that when rules are made, they are enforced because some of us take these rules quite seriously and we get demotivated when we abide by them, and others get a free pass for violating them. I am sure everyone knows the feeling you get when this occurs. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- A number of parties violated the original 1RR. That calmed down and had not acted up again when the block occurred. Again - Occam hadn't edited the article between the protection and his block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Georgewilliamherbert had placed race and intelligence issues on a 1RR restriction, Captain Occam violated the 1RR restriction by edit warring here. Captain Occam was blocked for edit warring, which was later amended to a conditional block and has now GWH has vacated these restrictions. My question for Georgewilliamherbert is what is the point of making rules if they are not going to be enforced when editors violate them. I think it is only fair that when rules are made, they are enforced because some of us take these rules quite seriously and we get demotivated when we abide by them, and others get a free pass for violating them. I am sure everyone knows the feeling you get when this occurs. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Making a single-handed decision when a community discussion (based on precedence) is ongoing? Just, wow. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The ruling of Georgewilliamherbert is justified on the basis that the blocking admin did not provide reasons for the block. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
E-mail from 2/0
Just as a matter of record, I had contacted 2/0 by e-mail while the community discussion was ongoing, and received this response today:
Thank you for letting me know. If it is still a going concern, would you please mention that I am moving and am suffering unexpected delays in setting up my internet access? Clearly, I endorse whatever conclusion the community reaches, though I do express some hope that people who comment do due diligence by reading the relevant contributions first. Thank you for your help in this matter.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
1RR violation by Captain Occam
Fresh from his unblock Captain Occam has just violated the 1RR restriction on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ [7], [8]. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Both editors warned. I suggest actually linking to this restriction somewhere findable by other-than-psychic means.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The link is already in some of the above threads. But here it is again [9]. Occam had previously edit warred on the FAQ page, which was why he got blocked. He later argued that 1RR only applies to article space rather than talk pages stating here, "Georgewilliamherbert’s 1-revert restriction applies only to article space rather than to extensions of the talk page". However he was advised here that the 1RR applies to any page. So this is the second time Occam is edit warring on the FAQ and he was fully aware that the 1RR applies to it. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I was the other editor involved in the 1RR fiasco. I was fully aware of the 1RR restriction, and I should have been more careful in editing. There really is no excuse for my violating 1RR. I will be taking a 48+ hour wiki-break at this point to cool off. aprock (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- SarekofVulcan, your comment in my user talk is the first time that any admin has said told me the 1-revert restriction applies to the FAQ. Since 2over0 still hasn’t provided a specific explanation for why he blocked me, there isn’t any way for me to know whether or not this was one of the reasons for it. It also does not carry much weight for me to be “warned” about this by Muntuwandi, who is an ordinary actively engaged in a content dispute against me, and who obviously objects to my edits for that reason. Now that you’ve pointed this out to me yourself, though, I’ll be careful to avoid violating 1RR on the FAQ as well as the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- That fact the 1RR applies to the FAQ is mentioned in my response to Captain Occam found at this link Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence#Responses. This is what is written
- Occam states "Georgewilliamherbert’s 1-revert restriction applies only to article space rather than to extensions of the talk page".However, Georgewilliamherbert wrote "Anyone not already under a 1RR restriction in Race and Intelligence issues should consider yourself under one now [10]". "Issues" is plural. There is no distinction between article space and any other space .
- Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule states with regard to what pages edit warring applies to "A `page` means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space."
- This statement was made 4 days ago, so Captain Occam was notified well in advance, yet still proceeded edit warring on the FAQ. Once again this is typical Captain Occam, selectively interpreting rules. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- For Captain Occam's benefit, warnings by non-admins are to be attended to, even if the warning is from someone you have had negative interactions with in the past. If you have questions about the validity of any warning, the thing to do is to seek out opinions from experienced uninvolved editors, preferably an admin, rather than to ignore it.
Since I probably fall into the same categeory for CO as Wapondaponda does, it might be helpful for someone else to confirm this for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- For Captain Occam's benefit, warnings by non-admins are to be attended to, even if the warning is from someone you have had negative interactions with in the past. If you have questions about the validity of any warning, the thing to do is to seek out opinions from experienced uninvolved editors, preferably an admin, rather than to ignore it.
- Muntuwandi: did you read my entire comment? Let me say it again: “It also does not carry much weight for me to be “warned” about this by Muntuwandi, who is an ordinary actively engaged in a content dispute against me, and who obviously objects to my edits for that reason.”
- It happens fairly often that I receive a “warning” to stop editing the article in a particular way from someone who has made it very clear that they object to my edit in terms of content, and who is not providing this “warning” to any of the editors on the other side of the dispute who are engaging the exact same potential rule violation at the same time. It also happens fairly often that I receive a “warning” to stop engaging in a particular behavior from someone who is themselves engaging in the exact same behavior that I am, or even more of it. Often times, the “warning” is the other editor’s substitute for discussing the content dispute on the article talk page, even when I’m making an effort to discuss it with them there, and they’re ignoring my attempt at discussion. When the “warning” is this obviously an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by introducing some additional politics to it, can I really be expected to take it seriously? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Considering the block-unblock you just went through, I would expect you to take every X-RR violation warning seriously. The fact that you don't and would rather edit-war (even if waiting for the opposing editor to make his case) I think speaks for itself. At this point, I'd be inclined to recommend that your editing restrictions (except for participating in the ArbCom case) be reinstated. You obviously haven't understood what a warning not to edit war means. There's no "ifs" no "buts", just don't edit-war.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Captain Occam, I have not been involved in all these recent edit wars you have participated in. My comments were not made as a warning because they were made in retrospect. I was commenting on your previous edit war on the FAQ page, and how that constitutes a 3RR violation. So what I wrote was not a warning, rather it was discussion about how the 3RR applies to talk pages as well. To be honest, I have always known that you can be belligerent, but I didn't expect you to start edit warring so soon after your unblock. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Considering the block-unblock you just went through, I would expect you to take every X-RR violation warning seriously. The fact that you don't and would rather edit-war (even if waiting for the opposing editor to make his case) I think speaks for itself. At this point, I'd be inclined to recommend that your editing restrictions (except for participating in the ArbCom case) be reinstated. You obviously haven't understood what a warning not to edit war means. There's no "ifs" no "buts", just don't edit-war.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I’m aware of your argument that 2 reverts in a 24-hour period is sufficient to violate 3RR. You don’t need to explain again why you think this is the case. However, I’ve never heard this particular claim from anyone other than you. Are there any uninvolved admins here who can comment on whether or not this is actually correct? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ramdrake, what we’re dealing with here is a warning from Muntuwandi which was argued based on his conclusion from the fact that Georgewilliamherbert had chose to pluralize a single word (which GWH had never clarified), as well as the assumption that 2over0 blocked me because I’d violated 1RR on the FAQ. (Which 2/0 had never stated). I take SarekOfVulcan’s warning seriously, but your own comment about this is an example of the same problem I’ve just described. Your past interactions with me make it obvious where your vested interests lie, and even if they didn’t, this would be obvious enough from the fact that the only person whom you think deserves any sanctions here is me (and not Aprock). Could someone who is actually uninvolved please answer the point I’m making about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that it would be most constructive to assume that everyone acted in good faith in the past in the presence of a little ambiguity and chose different interpretations.
- With that said - going forwards, I think the 1RR restriction should apply to related article talk pages and the FAQs contained therein as well.
- Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Help required
Hello. Today I requested that the redirect "Dum Dum Diddle" be deleted per CSD G6, since I created a new version here. However, administrator Nyttend declined the speedy with the explanation here. The problem is that initially the "temp" page was dedicated to another article, "One Man, One Woman", which was previously restored by User:Juliancolton per my request. This is why the page history has to be separated before performing the move, and after the move, a history merge is required. I hope I managed to clarify the situation. Best, Qweedsa (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can see what he's done. The article on the song One Man, One Woman was created by User:Insaneace1 on 20 March 2007. It was AfD'd in Feb 2009 with a keep result on 14 Feb, but User:LtPowers redirected it to The Album. On 1 June 2010 Juliancolton transfered a copy of the article, including all the history, to user:qweedsa/temp so qweedsa could write an article about the single One Man,One Woman. However, qweedsa couldn't find any sources to establish notability, so he decided to scrub the page content and turn it into an article on another Abba track (from Arrival), called Dum Dum Diddle. The page Dum Dum Diddle already exists as a redirect to Arrival (ABBA album), because User:Insaneace1 also tried to create a page for this track, and an AfD resulted in a redirect to the album.
queedsa wants you to delete the current redirect page, so he can move his article into mainspace. The two reasons that you shouldn't do it are:-
- It will make an enormous screw up out of the history, as qeedsa's article started out as a different topic, and the current redirect has a previous article in its history
- IT STILL ISN'T NOTABLE.It was only released in Argentina, it never charted, and the only place that it gets a mention (and the only source for the article) is the sleeve liner notes for the album.
Hope this helps.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Elen of the Roads, your comment rightly describes the situation in a clearer way. But I would ask you NOT to distort my nickname (thank you).
- It will not make an enormous screw up out of the history, it is nothing but a history separate-and-merge. If I had been a sysop, I could have done it myself, since I am familiar with MediaWiki administrative interface.
- Your claim that the subject of the article is still isn't notable is here inappropriate, because this is not an AfD discussion.
- Best, Qweedsa (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is Wikipedia's test for whether or not there should be an article on the subject. If you want there to be an article, this is exactly the right place to discuss it. Having reviewed the article and sources, I would agree that the single isn't notable. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Now I see that, according to WP:MUSIC, itself the fact a song was released as a single does not make it notable. So what kind of sources should be provided to let the article exist? Qweedsa (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Qweedsa, apologies for spelling your name wrong one time. You would need to either meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC or else of WP:GNG - non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of other sources, Qweedsa, you might want to consider adding to the Arrival article the material that's sourced to the album notes. This material would then be attributed to you in the History. If other sources are later found, a stand-alone article can then be written about the single. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Qweedsa, apologies for spelling your name wrong one time. You would need to either meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC or else of WP:GNG - non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Now I see that, according to WP:MUSIC, itself the fact a song was released as a single does not make it notable. So what kind of sources should be provided to let the article exist? Qweedsa (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is Wikipedia's test for whether or not there should be an article on the subject. If you want there to be an article, this is exactly the right place to discuss it. Having reviewed the article and sources, I would agree that the single isn't notable. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Tony1/delinking scripts - failure to correct obvious errors
A handful of editors have for a while now been running delinking scripts across hundreds of pages on the project, which have the effect of removing internal wikilinks to terms that are described as "common". The cited justification is the wording of the wp:overlink guidelines, which does indeed suggest not linking terms that are common, but with a specific exception to that when they are relevant to the topic. The guideline of course does also stress navigability as being a key aim behind wikilinking. I first noticed this a couple of months back, when one of the editors stripped links to France from the article on French wine. Broadly I agree that there is probably too much redundant and trivial linking on articles and I would support most of the removals in most cases, but I have occasionally tried to raise the issue with those editors when I've noticed problems with the effects of these semi-automated removals. Very occasionally I and others have restored the odd link, often in turn to find that one of those editors comes back to remove it again.
Anyway, there does not seem to be any broad consensus for this "campaign" or for the running of scripts, or as to what terms would be seen as "common" or "well known" enough for links to them to be removed on each and every occasion they occur, regardless of context. There has been a lot of discussion on this (see my talk page, WT:LINK). Perhaps the wider issue is something that needs to go to an RfC, but in the short term there does seem to be a need for admin intervention. One editor, Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently ploughed through around 60 articles on Australian TV programmes, stripping out not only every link to Australia - which may or may not be a good thing - but also removing links to items in the Categories and See Also sections and hence messing up the format of the page, eg with this edit. I raised this on their talk page, pointing out the mistakes, here. They simply deleted my comment (their edit summary refers back to a previous talk page thread, where they had previously made light of genuine requests from both myself and another editor to be more careful and manually review the results of their script). They have since made no effort to correct their mutiple errors - instead one of the only two article edits they have made since then rather pointedly involved themheading off to a page they surely know I have on my watchlist, the Champagne article, to remove links, at least one of which I had previously restored some time ago.
The other reason that admin intervention of some sort is perhaps warranted is that we seem to be heading down a similar road to the one that ended up here over the delinking of dates, with many of the names involved oddly familiar. N-HH talk/edits 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the example you gave is characteristic, this is a total mess. Tony1 should stop until he can get proper consensus for this or at least exercise some common sense and double-checking on these script edits. The crusade against overlinking seems to be removing perfectly valid links (including category links) indiscriminately. Fences&Windows 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the de-linking of common everyday words and places. I have not seen Tony1 de-link a word I think should be linked. Giacomo 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify: I don't have problems with most of the removals. There are, despite that, occasional issues about removing for example each and every link to France from pages about things from France - issues that several other editors have commented on over the past few months - but these are not the point either of my post here on ANI. The problem here, as noted in my post and the one example diff provided, is with removals that are manifestly wrong, and which muck up formatting and take pages out of categories, and then with an editor deleting and ignoring comments that bring it to their attention. If Tony won't sort out an obvious problem when I point it out to him - and then makes an edit to another page clearly designed to needle me - I'm going to go and ask for help. Our interactions to date have been largely friendly, albeit based on slightly heated disagreements at times (see my talk page), by the way - this is not a personal spat of any sort. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Was Tony was never specifically sanctioned regarding future automated delinking? That would seem to have been an oversight if true. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- According to Tony1 topic banned, an indef from guidelines on date linking, and via Tony1 restricted a 1-year ban from reverting said linking in articles. Curious timing that the latter expired only yesterday, though. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, then, it is an oversight. It should have been apparent at the time that any restrictions of this sort would be followed to the letter and not the spirit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, not an oversight -- if you look down a bit in that case, at least one person was banned from any script-assisted editing, so it's plainly a remedy that was considered, but rejected, in Tony's case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, then, it is an oversight. It should have been apparent at the time that any restrictions of this sort would be followed to the letter and not the spirit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted a whole bunch of his recent script-assisted edits -- while a couple of the ones I reverted were valid, the vast majority left non-links in the See Also sections or unlinked categories. Someone else might want to do a few more of these, as they're kind of messy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You should never use the rollback feature to revert good faith edits! Rollback is for reverting vandalism, you should have used the Undo function or fixed the edits (which I've tried to do by the reverting has made it harder then it would have been). Bidgee (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
My two cents... the delinking campaign causes these issues largely because of a dogged insistence on the part of the handful of editors doing the majority of delinking that their opinions are the only valid opinions, and that anyone who disagrees with them is just plain wrong, wants to link everything, and so on. (I'll freely admit that Tony and I have been at loggerheads over this for ages now, stemming back to his unilateral rewrite of the "What to link" and "What not to link" sections of the linking guideline in July 2008.) The reality is that while many people do agree with the notion that there is overlinking - multiple links to the same article, overly simplistic words linked, and so on - there is no established consensus regarding the use of these scripts, the haste with which the scripts are being used, and the insistence that non-linkworthy "common terms" include a wide range of cities, countries, major world events, religions and the like that Tony et al feel readers "should know". Moreover, the list of "common terms" is presented as nigh-on policy, but is actually not even easily accessible by other editors as it is buried in the depths of the delinking script. As I've said repeatedly, there is certainly merit in cleaning up the truly overlinked material. However, the problems we're facing are centred on the opinions driving this campaign, which has seen arguments that (for example) New York City is not a valid link in an article about that city's subway system, and that the article Canada does not warrant a single link to United States. Editors who disagree are told that the delinking is all about "improving the reader's experience", but are also told that readers who want to find these "common terms" are expected to use the search box instead of a link. Sadly, this is at its core yet another MoS-related dogfight, with much fervour on the part of the participants and little or no interest (or even awareness) from the community as a whole. We need to determine a consensus as to what the larger body wants, not just what the MoS gnomes feel like arguing over, and it should be resolved before the actions are taken on such a wide scale, not after. --Ckatzchatspy 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a fair summary of the problem. We might need an RfC to sort this out, and Tony1 could be heading for a block for disruptive editing, or another sanction against using scripts. Fences&Windows 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- An RfC would probably be the best approach for a long-term resolution, and I personally would prefer to see some form of restriction on the use of the script; at the very least, the "common terms" list should be discussed and also made easily accessible for input and change by any editor.
As for the idea of a block, even without the personal involvement I'd be reluctant to endorse such a move at this point in time as I think that Tony1 honestly feels he is doing the right thing.We do need to develop an understanding of how the larger community wishes to approach linking, instead of leaving it to the handful of editors who have the patience to sift through the guideline discussion pages. Hopefully, by adding more voices to the discussion, we can find common ground and move forward instead of the "all or nothing" approach currently in play. --Ckatzchatspy 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- An RfC would probably be the best approach for a long-term resolution, and I personally would prefer to see some form of restriction on the use of the script; at the very least, the "common terms" list should be discussed and also made easily accessible for input and change by any editor.
- (Disclosure: I'm a pretty good Wikifriend of Tony, and I was a party in the date delinking Arbcom case) Tony has actually been running these scripts for some time now, and for the the substance of his edits has not been challenged by most editors. If you look through his recent talk page archives, most of the complaints about his link edits are of a technical nature (the removal of categories cited is an example of the glitches). It's fair to say Tony is rushing these edits somewhat, and needs to test the scripts first before using them on articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I have just woken up to this. I don't know why my last twiddle to the script started unlinking the odd category—I will fix the problem, technically. It's the first time this has ever occurred. The venom expressed above is part of a campaign by two users, CKatz and N-HH, at WP:LINK—put simply, they have tried over some time but have not a hope of gaining consensus to have the guideline changed so that every instance of common English-speaking countries, and world cities such as New York and London, must be linked on every occasion. CKatz, in particular, has been kicking up dust about once every six week—it's quite regular. No, Fences and Windows, what CKatz says here is far from "a fair summary", and you are way out of line talking about blocks. Get your facts right about "topic bans", Tarc and Chris Cunningham—you're patently wrong, and I expect retractions. And your accusation about "timing" is laughably irrelevant to those facts. Where did you get your information from? Please read it properly. SarekOfVulcan, why did you revert "valid" edits? That seems to show a herd mentality. Tony (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC) PS And I had no clear idea from N-HH's post on my talk page yesterday that there was a technical glitch. It was a gigantic post, as usual, wrongly accusing me of edit-warring. I usually remove such posts from him and Ckatz. If the post had been a short paragraph with a diff to an example of the glitch, I'd have taken immediate action. But no, it was the usual diatribe. This page is turning into just what N-HH and Ckatz want: a diatribe—all over a glitch that can be fixed and, in repaired by me in the articles involved (almost all small, marginal and probably not often visited). Tony (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Tony's post above - "every instance of common English-speaking countries, and world cities such as New York and London, must be linked on every occasion" - is a perfect example of the misrepresentation used as a means of shutting down anyone who complains about the removal of wikilinks. With respect to the spurious claim listed above, N-HH and I are both on record as saying that is clearly not true, and Tony has repeatedly been asked to please stop misrepresenting opposing positions. I find it very frustrating that someone who is himself very quick to make accusations of incivility can be so uncivil in this way. --Ckatzchatspy 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really have a dog in this fight but here is my two cents anyway. Since WP is a globally accessed website, used by millions of users from grade school to Doctoral scholars and all in between with various levels of understanding of he english language I recommend caution when employing the term "Common terms". What is common to you or I may not be common at all to others and I for one find it rather handy to simply click on the link and be wisked away to the related article. To me the bother over do we link or not link is a 2 dimensional argument in a 3 dimensional Wikipedia. Can it be annoying to read through an article with sea of blue links? Certainly, but does it hurt anything? My opinion is that it does not and in my opinion there are far better things to spend ones time with such as expanding the content of the thousands of stubs or creating some of the hundreds of articles that have been created. Anyway, thats all the comment I have and I will leave you to your discussions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is not the place to conduct such a discussion, which should be at WP:LINK. Please read the title of this section.Tony (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Venom? Hysteria? Diatribes? Please calm down Tony. I don't see any evidence of that from anyone else here. Yes, you could have repaired the glitch, but you didn't. Even when I came to your talk page, with a diff, and pointed out the problem, which affected multiple pages. You just deleted my post, and now admit you did that without even reading it, something that you are now trying to somehow blame me for. And of course another editor had just the day before, on a different talk page, advised you to take more care to review the effects of your scripts. And now you're accusing someone who actually took the time to come and correct your multiple errors of exhibiting a "herd mentality", after I came here asking for help and they responded. Just to correct a couple of points -
- I have never IIRC ever posted to your talk page before this. Even if I had, your proud assertion that you "usually remove such posts [without reading them]" hardly deserves commendation. People can also see that you often come to my talk page, and that I not only read what you say, but that I supply you with substantive answers
- As both myself and Ckatz have pointed out - even in this very thread - neither of us have ever asked for "every instance" of certain cities and countries to be linked. Do you not read those bits either?
- You say there is no hope of changing what wp:link says. How would you know, since you've never asked for any wider community input on your delinking campaign? Plus of course, I don't want it changed. I want it adhered to, eg where is says "Think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers" and where it says common terms can/should still be linked where they are "relevant to the topic of the article"
- Tarc seems to have broadly accurately summed up the ArbCom ruling against you. What did they get wrong?
- Anyway, as you correctly note, and I acknowledged from the outset, this is not the forum for a wider debate about linking per se. It was however the right place to come to get help in correcting outright errors introduced by your script over multiple pages, and to get you to perhaps at least take more care in future to review the impact it has on pages. Problem seems resolved, for now. N-HH talk/edits 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Venom? Hysteria? Diatribes? Please calm down Tony. I don't see any evidence of that from anyone else here. Yes, you could have repaired the glitch, but you didn't. Even when I came to your talk page, with a diff, and pointed out the problem, which affected multiple pages. You just deleted my post, and now admit you did that without even reading it, something that you are now trying to somehow blame me for. And of course another editor had just the day before, on a different talk page, advised you to take more care to review the effects of your scripts. And now you're accusing someone who actually took the time to come and correct your multiple errors of exhibiting a "herd mentality", after I came here asking for help and they responded. Just to correct a couple of points -
- This is not the place to conduct such a discussion, which should be at WP:LINK. Please read the title of this section.Tony (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's crap like this that makes me seriously wonder if we'd be better off without a Manual of Style. So far, it's one benefit has been to bring an end to the AD/CE edit wars, & its drawback has been to enable one small group to create policy without involving the rest of this community, then force it on a surprised majority thru bots & arrogance, acts that have ignited a larger number of disruptive edit wars. -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- A minor point. Revert can be used to reverse the effect of a malfunctioning bot. Regardless of whether Tony's edits are appropriate, we all agree that Tony's edits have the effect of a malfunctioning bot; he's not checking, or he would have noticed the unlinking from within the #See also sections, and the unlinking of categories. (Note that I've opposed Tony on a number of issues in the past, not including this particular one on WP:LINK.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tony1 was using a script but I see no evidence of him running a bot, but more like using a script and making the mistake of not looking at the changes. Fact is some of the edits broke nothing and most did take out [[]] in some Also see links and categories but with the reverts the articles which didn't have any problems were not checked by the reverter. I took an hour of my time to undo and fix these problems and everyone going "he did it, he should fix it" is unhelpful, rude and goes against what Wikipedia is about. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The MoS is, in general, an enormous benefit to the project. It's editors who use it as a power mechanism who are problematic. There really aren't that many of them, and the project should be able to deal with them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whom are you accusing of using the MoS as a power mechanism? If it's me, I'll take it up by filing against you in a separate venue. I have seen no retraction of your aggressive behaviour above, nor an admission that is it based on false claims. This page is discredited, as far as I'm concerned: it is being used as a forum for malcontents who want maximal, undisciplined linking, including Arthur Rubin above. Tony (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- A minor point. Revert can be used to reverse the effect of a malfunctioning bot. Regardless of whether Tony's edits are appropriate, we all agree that Tony's edits have the effect of a malfunctioning bot; he's not checking, or he would have noticed the unlinking from within the #See also sections, and the unlinking of categories. (Note that I've opposed Tony on a number of issues in the past, not including this particular one on WP:LINK.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Malcontents who want maximal, undisciplined linking"?!? Tony, can you please, please, just consider for a moment the possibility that you may have pushed this too far, too fast? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider compromising your personal goals - even just a little bit - in order to accomodate other viewpoints? Surely that would better reflect the collaborative spirit than does this name-calling directed against editors who disagree with you, or the repeated attempts to discredit their opinions? --Ckatzchatspy 09:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe you have a point, CC. However, whenever I have been in doubt about the best style to use in an article I simply use my copy of the MLA Style Manual; I find nothing useful in the MoS -- except examples of how not to behave on Wikipedia. While arguing for its deletion it might be one of those proposals akin to requiring an account to edit Wikipedia or ranting against WP:IAR, a serious & well-supported nomination at AfD might be the cluebat needed to reach through certain thick skulls.
And to our threat-making friend: if the shoe fits, don't whine. -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe you have a point, CC. However, whenever I have been in doubt about the best style to use in an article I simply use my copy of the MLA Style Manual; I find nothing useful in the MoS -- except examples of how not to behave on Wikipedia. While arguing for its deletion it might be one of those proposals akin to requiring an account to edit Wikipedia or ranting against WP:IAR, a serious & well-supported nomination at AfD might be the cluebat needed to reach through certain thick skulls.
- If NHH had actually drawn Tony's attention to the actual errors in Tony's script - as he should have done on his talk page, rather than getting caught up in trying to sort out old scores - I sincerely believe we would not be here now. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Um, in what way is "I quickly looked at some of these, and noticed that many of them have removed links to items in the "Categories" and "See also" sections, which also of course has messed up the formatting." not drawing Tony's attention to the errors in the script? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh. It seems OC followed Tony's lead and didn't read what I wrote. Also, I was not "settling old scores". I was noting - and explaining - a disagreement with him over his edits that same day to the Dubai article, in the first separate bullet point, while letting him know I would back off from any pointless edit war. The notice about script errors was the first sentence in the second bullet point. I then, yes, expanded on that to point out broader and less immediately obvious problems with the script. N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Any speed reader will tell you that the simple lesson in making sure you point doesn't get missed is to keep it concise, and not to bury it with chaff. The issue NHH raised with Dubai is old hat which he has been banging on for ages, and could have been done en passant at the end if he wasn't content with leaving it at WP:Linking; while the important, if it was indeed important, messed up formatting should have been mention up front and with a diff - yes, links do heighten perception. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- What's speed reading got to do with anything? And the Dubai issue is not "old hat". It was an edit of mine from the day before, correcting what appeared to me to be a previous poor edit from Tony, which he had then reverted again, hence why I approached him about it. I've never edited or commented on the Dubai page before. Nor had I been on his talk page before. Having noted that Tony had been responsible for creating gaps in the infobox links, I then looked at his other recent contributions, and saw the outright errors being put into the TV pages. Hence the "two points" raised on his talk page, bullet-pointed, with the Dubai one first. You know the effort to paint Tony as some kind of victim, and me as being engaged in some kind of political stunt against him by coming here, might actually carry some weight if we choose to ignore the rather salient point that he simply deleted a clear and straightforward message on his talk page alerting him to script errors. Sarek's quoted it above - what's not to understand there? Simply taking responsibility for what happened, rather than saying I didn't express myself properly or whatever, and then raving at everyone who has commented here, would seem to have been the more sensible and less drama-inducing way forward for Tony and others. N-HH talk/edits 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Any speed reader will tell you that the simple lesson in making sure you point doesn't get missed is to keep it concise, and not to bury it with chaff. The issue NHH raised with Dubai is old hat which he has been banging on for ages, and could have been done en passant at the end if he wasn't content with leaving it at WP:Linking; while the important, if it was indeed important, messed up formatting should have been mention up front and with a diff - yes, links do heighten perception. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh. It seems OC followed Tony's lead and didn't read what I wrote. Also, I was not "settling old scores". I was noting - and explaining - a disagreement with him over his edits that same day to the Dubai article, in the first separate bullet point, while letting him know I would back off from any pointless edit war. The notice about script errors was the first sentence in the second bullet point. I then, yes, expanded on that to point out broader and less immediately obvious problems with the script. N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Um, in what way is "I quickly looked at some of these, and noticed that many of them have removed links to items in the "Categories" and "See also" sections, which also of course has messed up the formatting." not drawing Tony's attention to the errors in the script? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Re reverts: An use of script without monitoring the changes is functionally equivalent to a bot, and should be treated the same way, except that the user should be warned before blocking, while bots may be "warned" after blocking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Can it be annoying to read through an article with a sea of blue links? Certainly, but does it hurt anything?"[11] Yes, it does; it hurts the reader's capacity for attention to the high-value links, and even his/her ability to find and distinguish them. It drowns them in the sea of blue. Tony's well-judged (in my opinion) removal of low-value links has the function of making the high-value links much more visible and useful. That's what wikilinks were designed to be: carefully selected for their helpfulness; inviting, and relevant.
- I don't see any need for admin intervention here. Tony has stated that he intends to fix the problem, which is not major, as soon as possible. Please give him a chance to do so, rather than rush in to do it for him; his userpage indicates that he's Australian, and it may be a little much to expect editors to work through the middle of the night. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
- First off, the "sea of blue" term that is so often used in this matter is a bit of a misnomer; the disputes arise over a handful of links here and there, whereas the "SoB story" muddies the water by implying that we're disagreeing over articles that are packed with dozens of links. Secondly, it is clear that there is a real problem in the overall attitude involved in this matter. Tony, for one, has in the course of this one ANI discussion demonstrated a clear disdain for any editors and admins who try to question his methods. Already, he has labelled N-HH, Arthr Rubin, and myself as "malcontents", accused Tarc of misleading ANI readers and being "biased and possibly involved in muddying the waters", and claimed Thumperward's post here was "aggressive, partisan, personalised, uncivil, threatening, and based on false information". That's just three examples from this one incident, and I could easily list numerous similar incidents from related discussions about the issue. At what point do we say enough is enough? --Ckatzchatspy 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- At the point where we find something more useful to get on with? --John (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware civility issues were subject to convenience. Also, given that Lightmouse is now back from an Arbcom-imposed block for script-related issues, it would be helpful to establish a clear understanding of what the community expects in terms of this large-scale script-based work. --Ckatzchatspy 23:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- At the point where we find something more useful to get on with? --John (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- First off, the "sea of blue" term that is so often used in this matter is a bit of a misnomer; the disputes arise over a handful of links here and there, whereas the "SoB story" muddies the water by implying that we're disagreeing over articles that are packed with dozens of links. Secondly, it is clear that there is a real problem in the overall attitude involved in this matter. Tony, for one, has in the course of this one ANI discussion demonstrated a clear disdain for any editors and admins who try to question his methods. Already, he has labelled N-HH, Arthr Rubin, and myself as "malcontents", accused Tarc of misleading ANI readers and being "biased and possibly involved in muddying the waters", and claimed Thumperward's post here was "aggressive, partisan, personalised, uncivil, threatening, and based on false information". That's just three examples from this one incident, and I could easily list numerous similar incidents from related discussions about the issue. At what point do we say enough is enough? --Ckatzchatspy 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am very sorry to see how easily ANI can be used for a political stunt by N-HH, Ckatz, and now Arthur Rubin et al. That is exactly what has happened here. We don't want ANI to lose credibility as a forum for dealing with difficult behavioural problems: this could have been solved immediately if the message had been clearly expressed and diffed on my page in the first place. The admins who have leaped in here on the bandwagon should think twice about their actions: they are giving every appearance of partisanship, which degrades this page. Tony (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, you've made all sorts of accusations, none of which you've substantiated. Now, instead of simply responding to the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed, you are trying to sidestep this discussion by claiming it is some sort of coordinated "stunt"? Look, I don't care much if you choose to ignore my concerns; I'm certainly used to that by now. However, there are people who have made observations here who are new to the fray; can you at least consider the possibility that they might have a point? --Ckatzchatspy 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ckatz, I think we have a melt-down in process here. Out of sheer nosiness, I took a look at the last 50-100 edits Tony1 made & was gobsmacked by the wild accusations he posted, mostly concerning WP:NPA, on the Talk pages of almost every person
whowhom he believes was critical about his behavior in this thread. Anyone who considers her/himself a friend of Tony might want to have a quiet word with him about taking a WikiBreak before he loses it & repeats the bizarre exit of a former editor. -- llywrch (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ckatz, I think we have a melt-down in process here. Out of sheer nosiness, I took a look at the last 50-100 edits Tony1 made & was gobsmacked by the wild accusations he posted, mostly concerning WP:NPA, on the Talk pages of almost every person
- Tony, you've made all sorts of accusations, none of which you've substantiated. Now, instead of simply responding to the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed, you are trying to sidestep this discussion by claiming it is some sort of coordinated "stunt"? Look, I don't care much if you choose to ignore my concerns; I'm certainly used to that by now. However, there are people who have made observations here who are new to the fray; can you at least consider the possibility that they might have a point? --Ckatzchatspy 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe any uninvolved observer will agree with me: this is not going to end pleasantly. Not for those involved, & I strongly doubt for the rest of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Llywrch, you're well-known as a partisan on the issue of overlinking. You continue to dramatise the issue and attempt to smear me, which is the cynical reason it was brought here in the first place. The place to discuss the wider issues of overlinking is at WT:LINK. I rest my case that this is a political stunt. Tony (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but how is Llywrch "partisan"? Could you please provide links to support this claim; it is possible I missed it, but I really don't recall Llywrch being involved in the discussions regarding this matter at the link guideline page. (Nor do I see Llywrch listed as contributing at the guideline page or talk page over at least the past year.) --Ckatzchatspy 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Llywrch, you're well-known as a partisan on the issue of overlinking. You continue to dramatise the issue and attempt to smear me, which is the cynical reason it was brought here in the first place. The place to discuss the wider issues of overlinking is at WT:LINK. I rest my case that this is a political stunt. Tony (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh for goodness sake, what nonsense. Let it go. Lay off Tony and find something useful to do... --Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Lay off Tony"? Sorry, but I must have missed the memo that said long-term editors can do what they want, when they want, in whatever way they want. Maybe we should add that to WP:CIVIL: "If you've been here for a long time, have your way with the place, rules be damned." It is illuminating to note this recent edit to Tony's delinking script: the edit summary for delinking operations now reads simply as "copyedits" instead of "rem gratuitous links". Again, since when is this sort of conduct acceptable? --Ckatzchatspy 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tony made a mistake with the script, which is easily done, and he's an editor who can be trusted to fix whatever errors he makes (and we all make them). This seems a bit of an over-reaction. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is the script error "easily done"? Yes, of course. We've certainly all made mistakes, and we'll no doubt do so again and again. The difference is in how we respond to our mistakes, how we repair the damage and move forward. You say you trust Tony to "fix whatever errors he makes"; I have to be perfectly honest and state that based on my interactions with him over the past few years, I do not share that confidence. I've witnessed too many instances where I have found Tony to say one thing and mean another, too many debates where he has repeatedly misrepresented my (and other editors) positions, too many times when he has simply ignored any concerns raised about his actions and instead attacked the messenger. He's certainly done it again this time, as witnessed by his posts to Tarc, Thumperward and Fences and Windows's talk pages. That is why I find the change to the script to be a direct example of the problematic attitude: instead of actually addressing the concerns raised here and elsewhere over these actions, he's just changed the edit summary to disguise the actions in question. Frankly, the script error appears to have been a catalyst for finally bringing some of these problems into the light and thus up for discussion. --Ckatzchatspy 11:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure other people are tiring of Ckatz's personal and political vendetta against me. She knows that writing huge posts further dramatises what was a trivial matter. I won't even bother responding to it. My talk page, and that of other users, has been the usual venting point for both Ckatz and N-HH. I think it should be kept to WP:LINKING, and that it should avoid the personal.Tony (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, let me be absolutely clear. I do feel that you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why that cannot be the case for a long time to come. However, the fact you "won't even bother responding" when others raise concerns about your style is at the heart of the matter here. So, too, is attempting to trivialize these concerns. You claim that this is some sort of "vendetta" (your words, certainly not my motivation) yet you refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. For example, you claimed Llywrch is "partisan", but have not responded to a request to support that claim. You've just said that N-HH uses your talk page as a usual venting point" - but the talk page history says that N-HH's first post (of only two) to your talk page was on June 15, 2010. I, for one, find those sort of actions troubling. --Ckatzchatspy 11:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want to achieve here, Ckatz. Tony acknowledged his error with the script. That apart, I see strong consensus to remove the sea of blue that Wikipedia articles have been for too many years, but if there's disagreement about the extent of it, that's best discussed at WT:LINK. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also believe that Tony has done a lot of good work however he has also displayed obvious contempt and has also done a lot of contreversial things as a result of his strong beliefs. The problem I see here personally os not just one of wether the edits were valid or not but more importantly how he responded to criticism of them. Once he locks his teeth into something in WP that he perceives as as problems such as date delinking or common term delinking (also evidenced by the previous ban that was levied in him from date delinking). It should be made clear to him that this is not Tonypedia, it is Wikipedia and is a community effort. It is not his sole responsibility to make the project right in his eyes and if consensus determines that he is out of line then he should accept that without bullying them into conformity, insulting them or ignoring them completely. As an example here is a link to one of the articles I pulled up at random that he had edited with his script [12]. In this edit he broke links to categories leaving them stranded at the bottom of the article, changed date formats from one to another for no reason, and removed links to Australia and Sydney. Know the latter could be argued as common terms however using myself as an example I don't know much about Australia or Sydney being from the US and although I have heard of them, after reading the paragraph I fealt myself compelled to click on the Sydney link, but it was not there. Certainly if these were linked a number of times in the article I would agree with tony and say that one is enough, but to not have them linked at all, to me, is wrong. --Kumioko (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want to achieve here, Ckatz. Tony acknowledged his error with the script. That apart, I see strong consensus to remove the sea of blue that Wikipedia articles have been for too many years, but if there's disagreement about the extent of it, that's best discussed at WT:LINK. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ckatz, re Llywrch being "partisan": you need only search the WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM archives to see that he has been at odds with Tony before (they also had a brief debate at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-08/Dispatches, but no fireworks there). Does that make Llywrch less qualified to participate in this discussion? No, but he cannot be labeled a neutral and uninvolved admin in this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem was that Tony did not reverse the error, even when it was pointed out to him - he deleted my message, and then went off to edit other articles. That's why I came here, to get the problem solved. And, as pointed out, I have never posted on his talk page previously, so this "venting" allegation is a little off-beam. Examples of "venting" on others' talk pages are, as also noted, far more easily found in Tony's recent contributions history. As Tarc, Chris Cunningham and others can attest. Equally, this thread has also had the beneficial effect of shining a little light on the wider issues with scripts, and with Tony's attitude to criticism or queries of his behaviour. Can probably be shut off now though. N-HH talk/edits 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, let me be absolutely clear. I do feel that you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why that cannot be the case for a long time to come. However, the fact you "won't even bother responding" when others raise concerns about your style is at the heart of the matter here. So, too, is attempting to trivialize these concerns. You claim that this is some sort of "vendetta" (your words, certainly not my motivation) yet you refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. For example, you claimed Llywrch is "partisan", but have not responded to a request to support that claim. You've just said that N-HH uses your talk page as a usual venting point" - but the talk page history says that N-HH's first post (of only two) to your talk page was on June 15, 2010. I, for one, find those sort of actions troubling. --Ckatzchatspy 11:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- In response to Tony1, yes I'm involved but if I were posting here solely out of "partisan" interest I would have hardly suggested that a friend talk to you & suggest you take a WikiBreak. Your bullying & intimidating posts I alluded to above are a gift to anyone whose primary motivation would be to block you; instead I made a far friendlier suggestion. (And resisted the temptation to call you "buddy boy" -- which offends you for some obscure reason; it must have some offensive connotation in Aussie slang.) The issue is not that there are duplicate or unneeded links in many articles, but how you handle contrary opinions, how you interact with other users. No one is so valuable to Wikipedia that they should be allowed to respond to criticism as tony1 has done. -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tony made a mistake with the script, which is easily done, and he's an editor who can be trusted to fix whatever errors he makes (and we all make them). This seems a bit of an over-reaction. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Lay off Tony"? Sorry, but I must have missed the memo that said long-term editors can do what they want, when they want, in whatever way they want. Maybe we should add that to WP:CIVIL: "If you've been here for a long time, have your way with the place, rules be damned." It is illuminating to note this recent edit to Tony's delinking script: the edit summary for delinking operations now reads simply as "copyedits" instead of "rem gratuitous links". Again, since when is this sort of conduct acceptable? --Ckatzchatspy 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is just the opinion of a very partisan user. When a user here talks immediately of blocking me for getting something wrong in a script, and calling edits such as diff 19 "a total mess", that is, indeed, bullying. It may suit you to label my objection to it as bullying, but you are partisan. Kumioko, diff 19 you link to has significantly improved the article, and brings it into compliance with the style guides in three respects: dashes, correct date format, and common-term links. The fact that two links in the See also section were erroneously unlinked is a trivial matter to fix once it's pointed out, not "a total mess". Here, it is being whipped up into hysteria by people who want to smear me. N-HH, I have already explained why I missed your point on my talk page. It has been fixed by someone else in all of the articles (after Vulcan went through and damaged many of the edits). I'd have fixed them myself gladly had I been properly apprised of it rather than presented with a long diatribe on my page. That should have been the end of it. But there will be continuing posts to keep the drama boiling over. Tony (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, Tony, edits such as diff 19 were not a total mess, having 30 other edits around it with the same blessed mistake was the total mess. Running around calling everyone who criticizes your actions "partisan" is bullying. Stop, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was bullying you? Please, don't be so melodramatic. I'm not 'partisan', I just object to careless editing with scripts and removing valid links. Fences&Windows 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Was this a bit of a cock up? yes. Is the thing fixed now? I believe it is. Is Tony sufficiently chastened? undoubtedly. We're not well served by speculation whether this might be a politically motivated thread, but it seems to be over and done with. We should move on. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is the technical issue resolved? Well, changes were made to the code, although one of the changes does appear to be aimed at simply obscuring the controversial actions. However, we have to ask if the fundamental behavioural issue has been addressed. Given the general tone of Tony1's recent talk page posts, I would suggest it has not. Even today, after all the comments here regarding his attitude from editors who are not involved in the linking discussions, he's still describing people who question his methodology as "extreme". That doesn't strike me as "chastened" in the least. --Ckatzchatspy 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- And the point is not to chasten anyone, it's just to make sure that Tony's scripts don't damage articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- So what else should be done? Obviously, "chastening" Tony in this manner seems to have an adverse effect. The scripts have been fixed. If there are further problems, it may be more productive to continue discussions at another venue, such as Tony's talk page, WT:LINKING, or an RFC(/U). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, the problem here is not in removing redundant or unneeded links, but in Tony1's inapproriate response to criticism. Such as this post on Chris Cunningham's talk page, where he began to repeatedly make hostile accusations confusing CC with Fences & windows -- despite CC's repeated protests -- until DaBomb87 stepped in to confirm CC's protests that he hadn't said anything Tony1 accused him of. Then there was this exchange with Tarc where Tony1 started ranting when Tarc addressed him in a friendly manner as "buddy boy"; Tony1 responded by accusing him of "rank rudeness" & rhetorically asked if he had read the policy about civility. And then there is this comment to SarekofVulcan, complaining about SoV's "partisan" involvement & failing to retract SoV's statements. He did all of this without any participation from me. While Tony1 has subsesquently apologized to Chris Cunningham & Fences & windows for his comments to them, he has left both Tarc & SarekofVulcan wondering just WTF was up with Tony1, & likely gun-shy over dealing with him again. (And I won't bother mentioning his interaction with Ckatz or N-HH; some might believe his words to them justified.)
So what are our options here? Maybe someone who is a friend to him could explain just how he is his own worst enemy, because AFAICS no one in this thread wants an article to be "a sea of blue links", but he's acted in ways I've linked to which would have resulted with another editor being indefinitely blocked. And if I discover another interaction where he's acted this badly, despite an apparently conflict of interst, I will block him. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, the problem here is not in removing redundant or unneeded links, but in Tony1's inapproriate response to criticism. Such as this post on Chris Cunningham's talk page, where he began to repeatedly make hostile accusations confusing CC with Fences & windows -- despite CC's repeated protests -- until DaBomb87 stepped in to confirm CC's protests that he hadn't said anything Tony1 accused him of. Then there was this exchange with Tarc where Tony1 started ranting when Tarc addressed him in a friendly manner as "buddy boy"; Tony1 responded by accusing him of "rank rudeness" & rhetorically asked if he had read the policy about civility. And then there is this comment to SarekofVulcan, complaining about SoV's "partisan" involvement & failing to retract SoV's statements. He did all of this without any participation from me. While Tony1 has subsesquently apologized to Chris Cunningham & Fences & windows for his comments to them, he has left both Tarc & SarekofVulcan wondering just WTF was up with Tony1, & likely gun-shy over dealing with him again. (And I won't bother mentioning his interaction with Ckatz or N-HH; some might believe his words to them justified.)
Edits made on a protected page/ Caroline Glick
No action required, poser misunderstood purpose of protection. Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am simply looking for a clarification on the following activities which make me unsure as to whether there are supra-editors or not. With regards to the page Caroline Glick the page has been protected from editing up to 21 June 2010 1.
I had previously brought this to attention on 7 June 2010 [1]. My comment regarding this had to do with the previous discussion regarding the blocking which I felt was non sufficient. As a response, it was stated that it is a BLP issue and that one should simply wait for the expiry date of 21 June 2010 to occur. I did not contest this response.
My concern as stated was that an editor that had blocked this from being further edited could edit further without any question. As of June 7, there have been 3 edits on this page even though the page is protected from editing. All from the same editor. 1.
My question has nothing to do with the edits in question but I would like to ask just so it will be stated clearly. Are there supra-editors who stand above normal editors who have the ability to edit pages which are blocked? Is there in Wikipedia an ability for supra-editors to block editing content for a certain time period and include edits in such a blocked context which is not accessible to all?
That I would like to know. GaussianCopula (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The first 2 edits seem OK to me...assuming that the edit summaries are accurate for both. The edit today is more than I'd like to see done on a protected article. --Onorem♠Dil 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I should add...I don't know anything about the subject of the article and don't necessarily think the last edit was bad from a content standpoint. I just don't think that an average editor proposing the change with an edit request template on the talk page would have been seen as having consensus for the edit. --Onorem♠Dil 22:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- And I should read more, post slower. I'm guessing that consensus would have been found had the template been used. Seems most of the talk page was in favor of toning the section down. Doesn't look like what specifically should be changed/reworded/removed was approved, but in general seems ok. --Onorem♠Dil 22:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of protecting an article and stating "bring it to the talk page, folks" if you are going to have supra-editors coming in and changing the content anyways. It seems to me that "all editors are equal but some editors are more equal than others"?GaussianCopula (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me Guassian, I just nudged your comment against the margin to format it properly. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I checked both Talk:Caroline Glick and User talk:Shimeru, but I don't see it on either place- did you try talking to Shimeru about your concern? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is a page that has been protected by an administrator stating that until 21 June this should be discussed. The protected page has been modified by someone who has the tools to modify such page and go against what has been clearly stated as a block to editing. I have previously indicated my concerns regarding this block.
- I checked both Talk:Caroline Glick and User talk:Shimeru, but I don't see it on either place- did you try talking to Shimeru about your concern? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me Guassian, I just nudged your comment against the margin to format it properly. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of protecting an article and stating "bring it to the talk page, folks" if you are going to have supra-editors coming in and changing the content anyways. It seems to me that "all editors are equal but some editors are more equal than others"?GaussianCopula (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- And yet, it seems that the burden of question falls upon me as to why an editor with the tools to override this was not notified? Seriously, 3 edits?
- A supra-editor with the tools to override this was not informed that a protected article had a "bring it to the talk page, folks" tag?
- Look I don't expect this to be reverted. The editor in question has been notified by Onorem as to why he made such modifications on a protected page. He is not here and why should he, considering the responses. I believe there is an "all editors are equal but some editors are more equal than others" circumstance. I do find it strange that when I point at an egregious misuse of the admin tool that it somehow falls upon me to have the burden for not telling the supra-editor that there is a 21-June protection on the article.
- With all due respect, it makes no sense.GaussianCopula (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Are you under the impression that admins are not permitted to edit protected pages? They are- in fact, they're supposed to, in certain situations. The way it's supposed to work is that, when there's a disruptive dispute, the involved editors can come to a consensus about what changes should be made, and then an administrator will make the agreed-upon changes on their behalf. There seems to be clear consensus on the talk page that the section on alleged racism was biased and should be re-written in a more neutral way, which seems to be what User:Shimeru did in those edits, in accordance with the discussion. You seem to be objecting to her editing the article, but that's exactly what is supposed to happen. Is your objection that you don't think her edits correctly represent what the consensus on the talk page indicated? If so, you should simply say so, on the talk page, suggesting specifically what you think should be changed. Perhaps she could have waited until the discussion agreed on an exact wording for the changes, but the discussion doesn't seem to have gone in that direction, and her changes do seem to be in the spirit of the consensus on the talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- As to your implied accusation that User:Shimeru has not contributed to this discussion because he is in the wrong... you only opened the discussion an hour ago. It's possible that Shimeru is eating, or sleeping, or spending time with his family, or watching television, or having drunken-weasel sex with his husband or wife, or any of a thousand things that people do when they aren't on the internet. I don't think that spending an hour away from Wikipedia is definite evidence of wrongdoing. I occasionally sign out, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Are you under the impression that admins are not permitted to edit protected pages? They are- in fact, they're supposed to, in certain situations. The way it's supposed to work is that, when there's a disruptive dispute, the involved editors can come to a consensus about what changes should be made, and then an administrator will make the agreed-upon changes on their behalf. There seems to be clear consensus on the talk page that the section on alleged racism was biased and should be re-written in a more neutral way, which seems to be what User:Shimeru did in those edits, in accordance with the discussion. You seem to be objecting to her editing the article, but that's exactly what is supposed to happen. Is your objection that you don't think her edits correctly represent what the consensus on the talk page indicated? If so, you should simply say so, on the talk page, suggesting specifically what you think should be changed. Perhaps she could have waited until the discussion agreed on an exact wording for the changes, but the discussion doesn't seem to have gone in that direction, and her changes do seem to be in the spirit of the consensus on the talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- With all due respect, it makes no sense.GaussianCopula (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Shimeru is an admin folks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that point was overlooked by anyone commenting so far. --Onorem♠Dil 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you may be a bit confused, GaussianCopula. First, I am not the admin who protected the page ("blocked this from being further edited"), nor did I have any influence in causing it to be protected. Second, the first two edits are entirely uncontroversial: the first, eliminating a sentence that was not supported by the source it was cited to; the second, correcting a misspelling and a mistaken citation that had been pointed out on the talk page by another user, Potterjazz (talk · contribs). Third, I had in fact proposed the third edit on the talk page 6 days prior to making it, and there have been no objections. Fourth, I was entirely aware that the page was protected; even if I'd missed the notification, the entire editing window shows up in pale red-orange, rather than its usual white, which is very difficult to overlook. (And fifth, I wasn't here because I wasn't online.) I'm open to reverting the third edit if a good case for it is made, although I don't think making it was an error. I'm not open to reverting the first two, because reintroducing factual errors would not in any way be helpful. Shimeru 23:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The article is protected until June 21. The first edit made was on 7 June a day after it was protected. As someone with the editing tools, as an admin, why did you not resort to the discussion pages instead of making 3 edits to a protected page?GaussianCopula (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Which edit do you think is in contradiction to the consensus on the talk page? Do you object to all three of them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not understand the context which you are bringing up. I object to an editor changing the "context" of a protected page. It has little to do with me objecting to the content of how the page has changed, it has to do with an editor (a supra-editor) (admin) modifying the content of a page that has been previously deemed as protected. I do not object to the modifications in the article, even though it seems ABSURD, that said article can only be modified by the supra-editors.
- Which edit do you think is in contradiction to the consensus on the talk page? Do you object to all three of them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is just a question of an editor making continous modifications on a supposed protected article. Protected in 6 June and modified by a special admin starting on 7 June.
- I have always clearly indicated and will further indicate that it has not to do with the edits, it has to do with edits made starting a day after the article was protected. A protection which stated "take it to the talk page, folks" and yet was ignored and modified.
- FisherQueen, I have stated it over and over that I am not discussing the edits but that admin tools where used (have been used) to circumvent a protection. That is it.GaussianCopula (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Did you read my response to you above? Administrators are supposed to make changes to protected articles that reflect the consensus on the talk page. Do you think that these changes did not reflect the consensus on the talk page? Or, as you seem to indicate, is your complaint based on a misunderstanding of the rules about who can edit protected pages? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then why bother giving on 6 June a 21 June deadline for commentary if on 7 June a super-editor is going to come along and make changes. Consensus, a day after? I mean seriously. Seriously. Seriously. Why bother? GaussianCopula (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- It seems like you aren't objecting to this specific situation, but to the fact that Wikipedia has administrators at all. If you'd like to discuss changing that, I guess the right place to do that is at the talk page for WP:ADMIN. If you agree that Wikipedia needs administrators, but you'd like to change their access so that they can no longer edit protected pages, you could discuss that at the talk page for WP:PROTECT. I don't necessarily agree with you, though, and I'm not sure that the results of those changes would be good for the encyclopedia. If you don't have any objection to these specific edits, but simply object to administrators being able to edit protected pages, then that's the guideline you want to try to have changed. I'll be honest, though- I don't think you're going to be successful in making that change. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are completely taking a tangent here and I can't blame you for that. I have stated specifically as to why an article deemed protected on 6 June was edited the next day even though it was clearly stated that "take it to the discussion page, folks". You have changed the conversation regarding this to something about me objecting about "Wikipedia has administrators at all". Fine you are free to do that. I do stand on previous argument which states "why bother giving on 6 June a 21 June deadline for commentary if on 7 June a super-editor is going to come along and make changes. Consensus, a day after? I mean seriously. Seriously. Seriously. Why bother? " GaussianCopula (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- What rule did User:Shimeru break? What administrative action are you requesting? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus does not allow for unsourced negative information to remain in a BLP. Since my first edit was removing negative information which the cited source didn't actually support, it falls within the BLP policy. There was therefore no need to seek consensus before removing the erroneous information. Shimeru 00:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are completely taking a tangent here and I can't blame you for that. I have stated specifically as to why an article deemed protected on 6 June was edited the next day even though it was clearly stated that "take it to the discussion page, folks". You have changed the conversation regarding this to something about me objecting about "Wikipedia has administrators at all". Fine you are free to do that. I do stand on previous argument which states "why bother giving on 6 June a 21 June deadline for commentary if on 7 June a super-editor is going to come along and make changes. Consensus, a day after? I mean seriously. Seriously. Seriously. Why bother? " GaussianCopula (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- It seems like you aren't objecting to this specific situation, but to the fact that Wikipedia has administrators at all. If you'd like to discuss changing that, I guess the right place to do that is at the talk page for WP:ADMIN. If you agree that Wikipedia needs administrators, but you'd like to change their access so that they can no longer edit protected pages, you could discuss that at the talk page for WP:PROTECT. I don't necessarily agree with you, though, and I'm not sure that the results of those changes would be good for the encyclopedia. If you don't have any objection to these specific edits, but simply object to administrators being able to edit protected pages, then that's the guideline you want to try to have changed. I'll be honest, though- I don't think you're going to be successful in making that change. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then why bother giving on 6 June a 21 June deadline for commentary if on 7 June a super-editor is going to come along and make changes. Consensus, a day after? I mean seriously. Seriously. Seriously. Why bother? GaussianCopula (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Did you read my response to you above? Administrators are supposed to make changes to protected articles that reflect the consensus on the talk page. Do you think that these changes did not reflect the consensus on the talk page? Or, as you seem to indicate, is your complaint based on a misunderstanding of the rules about who can edit protected pages? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- For what its worth, I give credit to Shimeru for doing a decent job in fixing and re-working a POV edit created by a fluctuating IP, in a manner that is more consistent with BLP, UNDUE guidelines. My hat goes off to him/her.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Conversely, Toddst1 has some explaining to do in light of the fact that he gave deference to a fluctuating IP (who was the subject of a Sock investigation as well as an ANI complaint) over the consensus of nearly all established editors on this thread. Clearly, the accusations of racism by marginal bloggers amount to defamation and libel and violate WP:BLP as well as WP:FRINGE. Devoting an entire section to it violates WP:UNDUE. This calls into question Todd1's objectivity and his sarcastic and gratuitous remark here call into question his judgment and ability to be an admin.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Admins always protect the wrong version in a content dispute. I don't think the matter's as clear as you're making it out to be. Shimeru 01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- 3 edits were made to a protected article. You have the tools to make such edits. I am tired of indicating what makes an "editor" more equal to another "editor". The article was protected on 6 June. You made changes on the protected article that were supposed to be discussed starting on 7 June. You proceeded to make 2 other changes on such article which at the moment seems to be only accessible by the person who protected it and by you.
- Admins always protect the wrong version in a content dispute. I don't think the matter's as clear as you're making it out to be. Shimeru 01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fine.
- It's not like I can be playing around with this circular logic all day.
- I mean give me a break. Have a good one.
- GaussianCopula (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The circular logic is indeed getting annoying; the problem is that you have misunderstood the rules. It isn't against the rules for an administrator to correct problems in a protected article. It's a very helpful thing to do. You are correct that there are two tiers of editors, and that administrators can do some things that other editors cannot do. I don't understand what you want to do about that- you got angry when I asked if you thought we should stop having two tiers of editors, or if you thought we should stop allowing this specific administrator function. Your choices are now (a) accept that you misunderstood the rules, thank User:Shimeru for making the article better, and apologize for wasting everyone's time, (b) work to change the rules to whatever you think they ought to be, or (c) save your own pride by pretending that you didn't misunderstand the rules, and keep saying the same things over and over again. I don't think there's anything more I can do to help you, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I never got angry. I did get frustrated that noone had previously indicated to me what you have indicated to me now. There are TWO TIERS OF EDITORS IN WIKIPEDIA. I was not aware of that. I was always aware that there are editors and other editors who have administrator tools. Tools which are supposed to be used judiciously.
- It appears that there are indeed tiers with regards to editors and some editors are indeed more equal than others.
- For the record, I did NOT misunderstand the rules. You are putting the burden on me for an editor that made 3 changes on a protected aritcle.
- Work on changes regarding what? The stated two-tiered editor situation? Why? Should it not be that way?
- Attacking my pride is silly. I mean, what pride? GaussianCopula (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there are different kinds of editors. Registered users have functions that anonymous users don't. Administrators have functions that registered users don't. Bureaucrats have functions that administrators don't. Rollback-approved editors can do things that most registered editors can't, and checkuser-approved editors and bot-approved editors can do things that I can't do. The ability to edit a protected page is one of the things that an administrator can do. You have not even claimed that the ability was misused in this case. You're simply saying that you don't think the ability should exist. So go, start a discussion about eliminating the ability to edit protected pages from the list of administrator tools. Or stay here, and make a clear case that the ability has been misused in this case. Or, I guess. just keep saying the same thing again, if that seems useful to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's hardly that exclusive a club. Any administrator could edit the article, or any other protected article, if he had reason to. There are 1,729 admins as of this writing, apparently, and the status is pen to any editor who 1) wants it and 2) achieves community support for it, which basically boils down to showing an understanding of policies and guidelines and an involvement with the project. I just happen to be the one who came along. Shimeru 01:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with FisherQueen with regards to some editors being above other editors and I do not agree with Shimeru and whatever his obfuscated arguement is with regards to why 3 edits were made on an article that was protected. That remains my point of view.GaussianCopula (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say that some editors were 'above' other editors, merely that administrators have tools, and are allowed to use those tools. Shimeru's explanation was extremely clear, and not difficult to understand at all. If you are not able to understand written English, though, I don't know what other means I have to communicate with you. I'm not comfortable calling you on the telephone or visiting you in person to explain that administrators have the ability to edit protected pages for exactly such cases as this- to make edits in support of the consensus on a disputed article, and to remove potentially harmful, unsourced information and bias from articles that are being damaged during such disputes. To make the encyclopedia better. Written English is the only way I have to communicate with you; if you can't or won't understand written English, there are no other methods of communication available. Again I ask you: What action are you requesting here at the administrators' noticeboard today? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- " If you are not able to understand written English, though, I don't know what other means I have to communicate with you.". This kind of language is not needed.
- "I'm not comfortable calling you on the telephone or visiting you in person." This is also not needed.
- "Written English is the only way I have to communicate with you; if you can't or won't understand written English, there are no other methods of communication available." There is very little I can respond to this.
- I do not understand this latest comment you made, considering my adequate English. I can only state again my point of view but will also indicate that I'm concerned about your comment since it was very strange.
- My continuing comment states that "I don't agree with FisherQueen with regards to some editors being above other editors and I do not agree with Shimeru and whatever his obfuscated arguement is with regards to why 3 edits were made on an article that was protected. That remains my point of view."
- If you have a problem with my English there is very little I can do about it. As far as I know it is native. GaussianCopula (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- What action are you requesting here at the administrators' noticeboard today? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say that some editors were 'above' other editors, merely that administrators have tools, and are allowed to use those tools. Shimeru's explanation was extremely clear, and not difficult to understand at all. If you are not able to understand written English, though, I don't know what other means I have to communicate with you. I'm not comfortable calling you on the telephone or visiting you in person to explain that administrators have the ability to edit protected pages for exactly such cases as this- to make edits in support of the consensus on a disputed article, and to remove potentially harmful, unsourced information and bias from articles that are being damaged during such disputes. To make the encyclopedia better. Written English is the only way I have to communicate with you; if you can't or won't understand written English, there are no other methods of communication available. Again I ask you: What action are you requesting here at the administrators' noticeboard today? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with FisherQueen with regards to some editors being above other editors and I do not agree with Shimeru and whatever his obfuscated arguement is with regards to why 3 edits were made on an article that was protected. That remains my point of view.GaussianCopula (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The circular logic is indeed getting annoying; the problem is that you have misunderstood the rules. It isn't against the rules for an administrator to correct problems in a protected article. It's a very helpful thing to do. You are correct that there are two tiers of editors, and that administrators can do some things that other editors cannot do. I don't understand what you want to do about that- you got angry when I asked if you thought we should stop having two tiers of editors, or if you thought we should stop allowing this specific administrator function. Your choices are now (a) accept that you misunderstood the rules, thank User:Shimeru for making the article better, and apologize for wasting everyone's time, (b) work to change the rules to whatever you think they ought to be, or (c) save your own pride by pretending that you didn't misunderstand the rules, and keep saying the same things over and over again. I don't think there's anything more I can do to help you, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- GaussianCopula (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
convenience break
- GaussianCopula - Whether you agree with the protected article admin edit policy or not, that is in fact the policy in existence today. Admins are not supposed to use protection to "win" content disputes, but previously uninvolved admins editing protected articles is normal, expected, and desirable.
- Protection of an article does not put it in a complete freeze state in which even admins are not supposed to edit it. You misunderstand protection.
- Protection is supposed to prevent editors who are misbehaving on the article from continuing to do so; forcing them to discuss issues on the talk page, and allowing uninvolved administrators to both continue to make normal direct edits and to update the article per talk page discussion conclusions.
- If you believe that editors who are already involved in a dispute on an article page have used protection to win that dispute, please lay out specific evidence for that.
- If that has not happened, then there is nothing to discuss here. You can propose policy changes if you object to the current policy. But the policy as it stands has not evidently been violated here.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- What prevents an editor from locking an article and then selectively editing this article? That is the situation which I believe happened, where an article was protected and then an outside editor made 3 edits even though it was supposed to be protected so that it could be discussed up to 21 June. I mean, that is the only question I have. Can an editor with administrator tools circumvent a protected article and edit 3 times an article?GaussianCopula (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The answer is "Yes". The coda is that if the admin was making edits against consensus, or in favor of their own prefernces, they can be raked over the coals, because doing that is against policy. The consensus here is clear: that didn't happen in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- What prevents an editor from locking an article and then selectively editing this article? That is the situation which I believe happened, where an article was protected and then an outside editor made 3 edits even though it was supposed to be protected so that it could be discussed up to 21 June. I mean, that is the only question I have. Can an editor with administrator tools circumvent a protected article and edit 3 times an article?GaussianCopula (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- This editor's apparent inability or unwillingness to understand straight-forward declarative statements of fact, and their acting as if they were opinions to be agreed or disagreed with, is either legitimate – in which case serious questions of WP:COMPETENCE arise and the corpus of their contributions should be closely examined to see if they've done the encyclopedia any harm, with their future contributions closely watched – or feigned, in which case this is simply standard trolling behavior and they should be blocked forthwith for disruption. I would say that, at this point, the distinction hangs in the balance, and may depend on how they respond to GWH's statement above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are indicating that I should be blocked. You must be kidding me. GaussianCopula (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, try reading what I wrote again. I said that if you were deliberately screwing with our heads, you should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There's a third option as well, that the editor is operating from some kind of highly inaccurate fixed idea of what people will be saying to them, and this prevents them from perceiving what is actually being said. If this is the case, then I urge the editor to try to clean their mind of preconceived notions about what's going on here, and try re-reading the entire conversation from the start. You are being told a point of fact, that different editors have different editing capabilities, depending on their status, and that a protected page cannot be edited by regular editors, but can -- and should -- be edited by administrators under certain circumstances. That is not an opinion, it is an accurate representation of the current state of Wikipedia policy. You may disagree that it should be that way, but if you're objecting to that as a statement of fact, you're dead wrong. In addition, you're being told that, in the judgment of the commentators here, almost all of them long-term and experienced editors, there was no breaking of Wikipedia policy. You may, of course, disagree with that, but if your aim is to get the admin who made the edits admonished or reprimanded in some way, it is apparently not going to happen. Given this, an answer to the question asked above needs to be forthcoming from you: this is an administrators' noticeboard, where one goes when one wants administrators to do something -- what is it you want them to do? If you simply want them to agree with you, that's apparently not going to happen either - so what's your purpose here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- GaussianCopula -
- Responding to your first response to me - What prevents an editor from doing that is that if an editor involved in a content dispute protects the article, and then that same editor or someone working in concert with them then edits it to win that content dispute, you report it to ANI and they are blocked and possibly have their administrator rights revoked.
- You have not established that there was any connection between the administrator who protected it and the administrator who then edited it, and whether the administrator who then edited had any prior involvement with the content dispute. Uninvolved administrators getting involved after a protection is normal, expected, and desired. It's only if there's collusion or an administrator acting directly to cheat like that that there's a problem.
- Regarding Beyond My Ken's comment and your reply - what I just told you has been said a number of times in the discussion previously. You have created a large disruptive discussion on ANI and are apparently doing so without listening to the responses, many of which have answered your specific questions. You appear to not have believed the answers. The end result of all this has been disruptive.
- Editors who are sufficiently disruptive can, in fact, be blocked. This is not there yet, but to give you fair warning, if you keep this up for another day you are likely to face a block.
- Again - we've told you what the policy is, that uninvolved administrators are supposed to come edit after a protection. If you believe that the administrator in this case was not uninvolved you need to present some evidence. If not, you should feel free to object to the policy and feel that it's somehow wrong, but it is thoroughly discussed and community agreed established policy. Believe that. You can always start a discussion on the WP:Village pump to change that policy if you think it's wrong. But the policy is what it is.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. It is clear enough that I should not post further. I have indicated my comments and concerns previously and I thank you for you acknowledgement regarding my concerns.GaussianCopula (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You shouldn't feel that the talk of disruption was an attempt to stifle you going on to discuss changing the policy, if you feel that the policy is wrong. It is up for community discussion and could be revised if people conclude it's a bad thing - I don't think it's a bad thing, but don't let that keep you from forming your own opinion and acting on it. That community discussion should generally happen at the Village Pump board, rather than here. The primary point of this noticeboard is to respond to policy and behavior violations and incidents, not discuss long term policy shifts, though there are some exceptions.
- We do take involved admins abusing protection seriously, and that would be entirely on topic here.
- Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was threatened to be blocked or else stop posting my opinion. Are you serious about your comment? Can't you read the previous comments? As I have indicated, I will not post a comment regarding this subject but please don't patronize me and tell me that I should not feel this or that. I will not comment any more on this subject simply because there was a clear indication that I will be blocked if I do. Are you kidding with me telling me this fluff about not feeling bad about not continuing the conversartion? You have the gall to write about not feeling bad about not writing any more about this subject even though I can't because of a threat to be blocked? You think people can't read up to the several comments above me? More importantly, at least regarding me, should I care? Just don't patronize me with some silly comments about how I should not feel bad about what I think. Spare me whatever pity comments you have in store for whomever you previously blocked. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously the overall interaction here has gone poorly between the way you posted and the way we all have responded. I don't think there's any way to undo that now. I think your reaction is overly emotional and that you're overreacting to what we've actually said - but that's not a policy problem. You obviously feel what you do,.
- Your opinion on the policy isn't disruptive. What was disruptive was you not listening or believing that the policy exists and says what it says. Now that you understand it there's no problem with your holding or espousing any opinion about to the policy that you care to.
- This noticeboard not being entirely the right place to discuss reforming or changing that policy makes ongoing conversation here less than optimal, but not overtly disruptive. The best place would be the Village Pump.
- It may not make you feel better about this all. But, going forwards, you shouldn't feel afraid to have opinions on policy or to get involved in discussing changing policy. Everyone is welcome to participate in that. Even if you are upset by the way the discussion evolved, don't be intimidated from wanting to have a voice in how Wikipedia structures itself and why. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- GWH, you're much too nice. Please don't apologize for anyone here, the only person misbehaving in this thread has been the editor in question, who seems bound and determined to behave like a WP:DICK, and has throughout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- User was unfamiliar with the noticeboard and with the policy - the fight against WP:BITE is constant and must be attended by all, experienced and not so experienced. Pretending that our responses don't put people off sometimes is silly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The user's unfamiliarity with this noticeboard has nothing whatsoever to do with their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. I agree that it's silly to pretend that people aren't put off by being told stuff they don't want to hear, but it's just as silly to pretend, after plentiful evidence otherwise, that every newbie who ducks under the WP:CLUEBAT when it's being swung by numerous polite and patient people (other than my cantankerous self, of course) is a sweet doe-eyed innocent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- User was unfamiliar with the noticeboard and with the policy - the fight against WP:BITE is constant and must be attended by all, experienced and not so experienced. Pretending that our responses don't put people off sometimes is silly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- GWH, you're much too nice. Please don't apologize for anyone here, the only person misbehaving in this thread has been the editor in question, who seems bound and determined to behave like a WP:DICK, and has throughout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was threatened to be blocked or else stop posting my opinion. Are you serious about your comment? Can't you read the previous comments? As I have indicated, I will not post a comment regarding this subject but please don't patronize me and tell me that I should not feel this or that. I will not comment any more on this subject simply because there was a clear indication that I will be blocked if I do. Are you kidding with me telling me this fluff about not feeling bad about not continuing the conversartion? You have the gall to write about not feeling bad about not writing any more about this subject even though I can't because of a threat to be blocked? You think people can't read up to the several comments above me? More importantly, at least regarding me, should I care? Just don't patronize me with some silly comments about how I should not feel bad about what I think. Spare me whatever pity comments you have in store for whomever you previously blocked. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. It is clear enough that I should not post further. I have indicated my comments and concerns previously and I thank you for you acknowledgement regarding my concerns.GaussianCopula (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are indicating that I should be blocked. You must be kidding me. GaussianCopula (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- This editor's apparent inability or unwillingness to understand straight-forward declarative statements of fact, and their acting as if they were opinions to be agreed or disagreed with, is either legitimate – in which case serious questions of WP:COMPETENCE arise and the corpus of their contributions should be closely examined to see if they've done the encyclopedia any harm, with their future contributions closely watched – or feigned, in which case this is simply standard trolling behavior and they should be blocked forthwith for disruption. I would say that, at this point, the distinction hangs in the balance, and may depend on how they respond to GWH's statement above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are OK George and it's pretty obvious. I'll stick to football scores which is what was my intention from the start. I still think that an admin abused the tools but to be honest, I really don't give a fark.
- I will also state that the whole "please don't feel that you are being stifled in your opinion", is a bunch of BS. But still, it is what it is. There are people WAY WAY invested in all this stupidity going on in certain parts of the world and I'm thankful that I'm not.
- I was stifled though with regards to my opinion. I know and you know that I was. Like I said, some people have some big vested interest on a big bunch of stupidity happening in certain parts of the world. I am glad I can walk away from that. That's it. The World Cup = Bread and Circus. I can live with that. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I still think that an admin abused the tools Why? When the rules clearly state that what they did was not only permitted but expected. That's like saying that the cops broke the law by running a red light, when the rules not only allow them to do so, it is expected that they will run red lights when chasing villains. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible disruption at Peter Schiff
All mention that Peter Schiff advocates for minority viewpoints outside of mainstream thinking keeps being removed from the article.
There is some back and forth between editors because some continue to characterize the text as somehow not relevant to the article subject, yet there have been NO objections against the assertion that Schiff does advocate for these minority views. The information has citations which have received no challenge at all --- and, in fact, one of the citations is Schiff himself explaining that the views come from outside of the mainstream. Generally, among those who are familiar with the field, it is pretty well-known that the views being advocated by the article subject fall outside of the mainstream.
Despite being sourced, edits like this one continue to occur, deleting cited information that is relevant to an understanding of the article subject and which is presented neutrally.
If this deletion is considered disruptive (as suggested by policy guidance), what can be done? (Not necessary looking for sanctions against any particular editors.) BigK HeX (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I see that you have not notified any of the other editors alluded to as you are required. In any case, this is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article talkpage. If that doesn't work, please consider taking further steps. Bear in mind, though, that all edits to the article must comply with the BLP policy. —DoRD (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Review my reblock and revoke of talk page access, please?
Rossdegenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user was blocked indef by Tedder for disruptive editing in January, specifically "not communicating on census numbers changes despite repeated efforts from many editors". Thereafter Rossdegenstein seems to have rather missed the point about (a) why he was blocked and (b) what he could use Wikipedia for. His unblock requests in May were declined. He continued to use his user page (while logged out from various IPs) and later his talk page for keeping track of how many Facebook friends he has. I first spot this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rossdegenstein, which I close with a speedy deletion and a "belt and braces" semi-protection of the user page; as the same pointless activity then transferred to the talk page, I reblocked with talk page access revoked, reverted to the last declined unblock template, semi-protected the talk page to stop him carrying in the same way with IPs and left a message about appealing his block via email. As I've been involved at the MfD as well as the reblock, another pair of eyes on what I've done wouldn't go amiss, to make sure I'm not misbehaving. BencherliteTalk 02:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but I think this is a good talk page block. User was misusing his talk page. I would recommend seeing an oversight to get rid of some of those IPs just to be on the safe side. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Always unfortunate, but I see no sign that they understood what Wikipedia was for and could edit towards that goal. Wikipedia isn't therapy, etc. If they don't get it after that much effort, they probably won't. Regrettable but probably necessary now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) I've reviewed this briefly and to me, Bencherlite's actions sound "about right". This seems to be a single minded editor whose grasp of English is poor, but who nevertheless ought to be able to use Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia - or not at all. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Always unfortunate, but I see no sign that they understood what Wikipedia was for and could edit towards that goal. Wikipedia isn't therapy, etc. If they don't get it after that much effort, they probably won't. Regrettable but probably necessary now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
IZAK's behavior
I'd like to bring to attention IZAK's recent behavior and comments made towards other users. It all began in late May at this DRV discussion regarding Jew-related categories. To summarize, Mayumashu (talk · contribs) nominated several categories for speedy renaming, changing Foo-American Jews to American Jews of Fooian descent, presumably with this CFD as a precedent. IZAK then listed the renamed categories at DRV. Nothing problematic... until IZAK begins making baseless accusations towards several users, including Mayumashu, Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs). He accused Good Olfactory of pushing his "POV interpretations and ideas", calling Mayumashu "[Good Olfactory's] reliable partner in speedy deletions", among several other things [13]. Both Good Olfactory and Cyde called his comments out for being over-exaggerated and misrepresenting the situation [14] [15] [16] [17].
Good Olfactory suggests relisting the categories for a full discussion at WP:CFD, where IZAK responds with "First you are party to speeding them then you want to follow normal slower procedures when things don't go your way." [18]. Good Olfactory respond, explaining that none of the admins at CFD are responsible for speedy renaming of these categories, we simply cleaned up after Cydebot, who failed to delete some of these categories after moving their contents, as well as rebutting IZAK's claim of "follow[ing] normal slower procedures when things don't go your way" [19]. IZAK goes on to make several other baseless claims in the DRV, reading the thing may be more worthwhile than my endless diffs.
During the DRV, IZAK engages in discussion on Good Olfactory's talk page, where his baseless accusations, incivility and bordering personal attacks continue, where IZAK goes on to say that the renames of the categories were "causing havoc with your renames that seem utterly un-educated" [20], and he goes on to the point where Good Olfactory redacts IZAK's subsequent uncivil post.
Recently, another CFD regarding these categories came into play, and IZAK went on to continue making accusations towards the same users [21]. Good Olfactory naturally doesn't appreciate these same old accusations [22], where Mayumashu concurs with Good Olfactory's statement. After observing both the DRV and this discussion, I sternly warned IZAK of his comments, as his behavior was simply unacceptable, especially after being told to cease from making these claims. He then goes on to accuse me of stalking him and "advises" me to "make constructive suggestions to the actual discussions focusing on content and facts", among other accusations [23]. I went on to reply with this and initiated this report.
IZAK's behavior has been nothing but troublesome and offensive, and I'd say could be characterized as baiting and battleground mentality. As his recent accusation mentions my username, I would have brought it here to ANI for other admins to review. All involved parties (IZAK, Mayumashu, Good Olfactory, Cyde) will been notified of this discussion. — ξxplicit 03:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Cyde Weys here. I'd just like to address one of the points in particular brought up by Mr. IZAK, if I may. My emphasis below in bold. Original caps-lock-is-cruise-control-for-awesome left intact.
- "When bots take on a life of their own they are in effect like Frankenstein creatures and only by contacting their creators can there be any hope of finding out who was responsible for the changes. Maybe you can look into that." link
- "and then with the help of User Cyde (talk · contribs)'s killer HAL-like "User Cydebot (talk · contribs)" -- something straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- dozens of perfectly fine Jews' categories are terminated (i.e. killed off) [...] aided by his reliable partner in speedy deletions User Mayumashu (talk · contribs) who then deploy the INSATIABLE and UNSTOPPABLE monster killer bot created and run by Cyde (talk · contribs)." link
Cydebot is in no way, shape, or form a killer robot. SkyNet and other killer robots that rebel and destroy their creators are science fiction, not science fact. Why, I can shut off Cydebot at any moment. Here, let me demons__Ac.6:l%5Of@(y0isRH@9QvlO4Y|kl_h()!z) <CARRIER LOST>
- I tole you that you should'a used Perl for that, for defensive reasons. But noooo.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is a very serious purpose. We just had a long-established editor and bot operator run away with himself and attempt to correct his bot's obviously superior intervention here. That will never do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Hm, yes—my condolences to Cyde, may he rest in peace. Explicit's summary is a good one, and comprehensive. It gets a bit tiring to have IZAK continually make false accusations against me. I've made attempts to discuss things with him a few times, but he always seems to invoke a conspiratorial mindset that I am repeatedly trying to pull a fast one on the category system. (See below, where he attempts to shift the focus to an inquiry of "all the massive changes in other categories [I am] conducting UNDER THE RADAR".) I'd appreciate any assistance in having him stop harassing me on various pages by making false accusations based on bad-faith assumptions about my actions and intentions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Concur. IZAK's response is problematic, on at least the following points.
- If a speedy rename is overturned at DRV, with specific instructions to resubmit to a full CfR, then questioning that submission is absurd, and shows bad faith, not just of the renominator, but of the DRV closer.
- Having (say) Category:Mexican American Jews, with no "parent" Category:Mexican American or Category:Mexican-American, is also an absurd result. If IZAK wants to be credible, he should nominate Category:American people of Mexican descent for a return to Category:Mexican American. It's quite possible that others have acted badly, but it's clear that IZAK has. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- He again asserts that no one who is not Jewish can understand the weight of his arguments. I'm Jewish, and I don't understand the weight of his arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The difference between origin, descent, and nationality seems to require most of the categories, except African-American be split in 3, if we are to do things cleanly. But that's not really on the table, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, the ball can start rolling. An uninvolved administrator—a Jewish one, at that—reviewed the situation and has found IZAK's behavior troubling, just as those involved has pointed out. This insight, among IZAK's continued bad faith assumptions after the warning I have given him on his talk page, one can only expect that he face the proper sanctions. — ξxplicit 20:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can't claim to be uninvolved. I've opposed IZAK on some of his template proposals before. I don't recall whether the proposals obtained consensus, but that's too close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, I see, my mistake. Thank you for disclosing this information. Point of the matter is, I don't think anyone has agreed his behavior is anything near acceptable, and his inability to change his behavior, redact his comments, or even admitting to his inappropriate behavior really says more than any diffs brought forward can display. — ξxplicit 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
IZAK's response
If I may be allowed a word in my own defense. The bottom line at this point is that a CfD and TWO DRVs have gone in my favor as pointed out above. This has not come easily. I have long familiarity with all the categories in question. Therefore when it came to my attention that massive changes were being made on very tenuous grounds by the three users above, I called a spade a spade, perhaps somewhat bluntly, but in no way meant to insult anyone. On the contrary I take the three opposing users mentioned above very seriously and that is why I confronted them directly. At first they were not so open about why and where they based massive speedy deletions on, but upon drawn out discussions with all sorts of give and take it became clear they were making changes defying WP:CONSENSUS. The long drawn out debates and discussions can be seen starting at this DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people, that then moved on to this CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people, and then was followed by this DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent with all three going in my favor, and now we are at this new CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Category:American Jews by national origin that has just begun and where User:Explicit has decided to come out against...me in the middle, or shall we say fourth quarter of this long and winding process. There have been strong words traded by all sides but the net result has been positive namely a clarification of why massive changes to category names of Jews were being made by two or three editors not normally part of WP:JUDAISM, not that it matters, but it was the arbitrary and near-shady way (no better way to describe it folks) they went about making speedy changes that had to be wrung out them to find out why they were doing what they doing, see especially the illuminating exchanges at the 2nd DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Anyhow, we are in the last quarter of this, so far four part drama, and it is poor form and unhelpful to the larger debate for User Explicit to intervene one-sidedly at this critical moment when he should be standing back and taking note of the issues being debated in a vigorous and frank manner, as the diplomats refer to such exchanges. What really needs deeper exploration, clarification and explanation is what the heck (pardon my French) Users Mayumashu, Good Olfactory and Cyde (with his monster bot that can destroy years of work with the click of a button) are up to not just in the Jews' but in all the massive changes in other categories they are conducting UNDER THE RADAR. This may be a good time to open up this issue that has remained sealed for far too long! Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Those who don't agree this should be on ANI
WTF is this RFC doing on ANI?? Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, "WTF" is rude. Secondly this is not a "RFC". Thirdly the way it got to ANI was that User Explicit was raking me over the coals on my talk page, so I advised him that he was unfit to do so as an involved party, at which point he was supposed to look at ANI for an uninvolved admin (presumably to rake me over the coals) and more objectively to revue the entire situation, but unfortunately he has decided to retain his role as chief judge, jury, and executioner to depict only me in a one-sided manner only, while there are still massive CFD debates on the go. Sorta like rushing into the middle of the delivery room and telling the mothers to shut up and behave or they'll be reported and wheeled out of the hospital, or something like that. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- WTGDFF is ruder. Or more rude. Either one. HalfShadow 06:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- It would not hurt if the !votes here were less rude. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- From my research, it seems that "WTGDFF" is sacrilege, which is not "rude" but abominable. How low can you go? IZAK (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that we have a policy against sacrilege. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno. Wasn't aware limbo was going to be involved. I'm not really good at bending, but I'll give it a shot... HalfShadow 07:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- From my research, it seems that "WTGDFF" is sacrilege, which is not "rude" but abominable. How low can you go? IZAK (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- IZAK, why are you acting like a innocent victim? Cyde agreed that something should be done about your behavior, while Good Olfactory has asked an uninvolved administrator to end your continued harassment he has endured from you. Interestingly, stating that I "decided to retain his role as chief judge, jury, and executioner to depict only me in a one-sided manner only" only adds to the evidence that you continue to assume bad faith towards other users and have failed to provide proof that I've done what you described. And how exactly does this discussion or the one on your talk page negatively effect the CFD in any manner? — ξxplicit 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Explicit: Fantasy: Seems anything I say is misconstrued. If I were to burp you would call it an "atomic blast", if I were to yawn you would call it it a yawning chasm, that's the way it is when wolves smell blood. Now back to the facts and reality: I have had nothing to do with Cyde or Good Olfactory outside of the two recent DRVs once the DRVs and CfD got rolling, and in the past CfD and the present CFD to which they are direct parties, they are not babies and you are doing a magnificent job of WP:LAWYERing for them and projecting them as oh so gentle little fragile lambs, so please stop globalizing my very focused concerns which are legitimate as explained in my comments and research in the two DRV's and the CFD -- and why they lost both DRV's and the CfD and will most likely lose the present CfD as well. This is a nice tactic to distract from a string of their losses, that when you can't win on the issues you go off on tangents acting like you are "innocent victims" when they have defied consensus. We seem to be going around in circles. I have said what I have to say, and do not wish to repeat myself especially since you are intent on twisting my words. Let's see what an impartial admin or two has to say. I am not known for any type of senseless and futile edit warring, but I am known for defending my views and findings. I have cast my CFD vote and explained it. We are now awaiting further user input to the CFD and this is an enormous distraction that will accomplish nothing but create even more divisiveness. I express myself acerbically at times, at other times I am funny and at others I use different writing styles. Good Olfactory hurls insults at me about what I see and don't see, I ignore it, but you don't seem to see it, Cyde is cynical in his comments about me but that's ok to you. But hey, listen, what is this kindergarten? This is all part of normal debating and discussions and it is counter-productive to claim that Cyde is aggrieved when he has created a monster bot or that others know nothing about making massive changes to categories without consensus, but we are going around in circles again. So I am holding off for now. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am an "oh so gentle little fragile lamb". Just sayin'. I think one way you could avoid being misinterpreted is that when you make comments to others that result from some degree of frustration, avoid CAPITALISING CERTAIN WORDS, ← like that. In internet dialogue, it implies shouting and bombasticity. (Or as Cyde put it, you look like you're saying "caps-lock-is-cruise-control-for-awesome".) I've been on the receiving end of this style of writing more than once from you, including in your comments in this ANI report. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Explicit: Fantasy: Seems anything I say is misconstrued. If I were to burp you would call it an "atomic blast", if I were to yawn you would call it it a yawning chasm, that's the way it is when wolves smell blood. Now back to the facts and reality: I have had nothing to do with Cyde or Good Olfactory outside of the two recent DRVs once the DRVs and CfD got rolling, and in the past CfD and the present CFD to which they are direct parties, they are not babies and you are doing a magnificent job of WP:LAWYERing for them and projecting them as oh so gentle little fragile lambs, so please stop globalizing my very focused concerns which are legitimate as explained in my comments and research in the two DRV's and the CFD -- and why they lost both DRV's and the CfD and will most likely lose the present CfD as well. This is a nice tactic to distract from a string of their losses, that when you can't win on the issues you go off on tangents acting like you are "innocent victims" when they have defied consensus. We seem to be going around in circles. I have said what I have to say, and do not wish to repeat myself especially since you are intent on twisting my words. Let's see what an impartial admin or two has to say. I am not known for any type of senseless and futile edit warring, but I am known for defending my views and findings. I have cast my CFD vote and explained it. We are now awaiting further user input to the CFD and this is an enormous distraction that will accomplish nothing but create even more divisiveness. I express myself acerbically at times, at other times I am funny and at others I use different writing styles. Good Olfactory hurls insults at me about what I see and don't see, I ignore it, but you don't seem to see it, Cyde is cynical in his comments about me but that's ok to you. But hey, listen, what is this kindergarten? This is all part of normal debating and discussions and it is counter-productive to claim that Cyde is aggrieved when he has created a monster bot or that others know nothing about making massive changes to categories without consensus, but we are going around in circles again. So I am holding off for now. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- It would not hurt if the !votes here were less rude. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Motion to block IZAK for one month due to continued lack of good faith, incivility, GAMING, Forum Shopping, etc
Support 76.237.178.20 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion, continued
- Comment I think User ξxplicit's summary is an accurate one, and appreciate the work the user's done to put it together. User:IZAK way of interacting in the DRV and CfD has been rude, in my view, and to have insinuated stuff both untrue and far beyond the matter of renaming or not these pages. Perhaps 48 hours is too short a wait period for the speedy renamings - if User:IZAK had seen the tags and objected then a lot of this could have likely been avoided. But it does not excuse the user's behaviour. Mayumashu (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Request for outside review by admins...
Since Slimvirgin is an administrator, i'm requesting an independent review of the following situation:
I've been doing a lot of research in IPCC papers on the Indur M. Goklany article, basically trying to verify statements independently (sections Talk:Indur_M._Goklany#Representative_... and Talk:Indur_M._Goklany#What_is_the_.22Resource_Use_and_Management_Subgroup_report.22.3F)
I've just removed a claim on the article, that i cannot verify. And get reverted with this comment ("back to Short Brigade; Kim, please leave this article alone") - i raised this on SlimVirgin's talk here User_talk:SlimVirgin#Say_what.3F, and am rather bemused about the answers and the claims made.
Could someone give me a hint as to the appropriateness of SlimVirgin's comments? (and what i take as an implicit threat (perhaps i'm oversensitve :-) ) - normally this should have gone to the special enforcement board, but that seems to be defunct during Arbcom. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also have to say that i'm rather shocked about this move[24], since i was of the impression that such has no place in article talkspace. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looks as if you have been asked to stay away from BLPs and haven't. I personally think Slim's criticism is justified and to be honest, as polite as she could be. I would take her and other admins advice and steer clear of BLPs. There are 3 million+ articles on en.Wiki, I think you could find something to edit that isn't BLP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention this: I have notified Slim of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have anything to add here. Kim's problematic approach to BLPs and misunderstanding of policy is known to editors involved in the climate-change articles. Evidence will doubtless be submitted to the RfAr that's just opened. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can you explain what it was justified by? As far as i know there hasn't been any complaints filed against me, nor have i ever been sanctioned on BLP issues (i don't have exact recally - but i can't even remember that i should have been warned). Are you simply taking SlimVirgins word? Is it Ok for an admin such as SV to tell other editors to stay away from articles that he/she edits (is involved in), without filing anything? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- This comment is a dishonest representation of what happened. SV did not tell you to stay away from that and other BLPs, she asked you to stay away. SV did not claim you were sanctioned or warned to stay away, she said that many people had told you that you "misapply the policies to suit your personal opinions, and you target the BLPs of people you disagree with" which is true. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Or in other words: No, i haven't been asked to stay away from BLP's. So while it may look that way (from SV's comments) - that isn't the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- This comment too is a dishonest representation of the state of affairs. ATren and others have asked you to stop editing the BLPs of the climate skeptics for reasons similar to those described by SV. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I butt in to ask who is right with respect to the underlying content dispute? Kim appears to alledge that Indur M. Goklany was a rapporteur of the Resource Use and Management Subgroup, while Slim appears to alledge that Indur M. Goklany was the principal author. Is that an accurate summary of the dispute? The source they both appear to use is [26]. Could someone (not me) who is not involved in the Climate Change dispute tell us who is misrepresenting sources, and then ban them from the article? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The report in question can be read at [27] - I think page 243 is the page that lists Dr. Gokalny. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that this cannot be considered a "third party source independent of the subject". Author bios are normally written by the authors, or based on information they supply. I have never heard of anyone fact-checking those blurbs, not over shades of meaning anyway. So it strikes me as problematic to argue for inclusion of material only found in a blurb like that. (Note, I'm not uninvolved, and have had problems with SV in the past, including the way she has represented sources in BLPs). Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is what always happens—William Connolley and Stephan Schulz will be along shortly. Guettarda, accusing me of problematic BLP editing will gain no traction, no matter how often you try. What I find depressing is that this continues even as the ArbCom case has opened. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, and Crum always shows up to defend you. It's called a watchlist, and you're well aware of how it works. As for accusing me of problematic BLP editing will gain no traction, no matter how often you try - I don't care about "traction", I'm not here to score points. Three (iirc) other editors supported me on the issue, and you stopped re-inserting it eventually. So - I don't care if you want to consider that some sort of a "win" (I'm not playing a game to win or lose). Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Could we please resolve this without having wild accusations thrown around? I am asking for outside review - not that anyone defends me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe SV could just provide a diff of where KDP was put on a BLP restriction. I thought topic bans were usually decided by community consensus, or at the climate change probation page where they have more lattitude. This doesn't seem to be a question of this one edit, but why SV has taken the attitude that KDP may not edit BLPs. Weakopedia (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Correct assessment. I'm not under such restrictions - and haven't even gotten a warning of such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe SV could just provide a diff of where KDP was put on a BLP restriction. I thought topic bans were usually decided by community consensus, or at the climate change probation page where they have more lattitude. This doesn't seem to be a question of this one edit, but why SV has taken the attitude that KDP may not edit BLPs. Weakopedia (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Having had a look at this (but no previous involvement) it appears that Kim's version is right - in Climate change: the IPCC response strategies, the Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ISBN 9781559631037, 1991), Goklany is listed on page 204 as "U.S.A. (Rapporteur)". He identifies himself as a rapporteur in this 2005 submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The report lists its authors but does not attribute any authorship to Goklany. Really, though, this should have been sorted out on the article talk page rather than descending into unnecessary drama here. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it should have been resolved on article talk - which is why i'm nonplussed by SV's strong reactions and claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I know you're annoyed, understandably so, but I don't think anything useful can be gained by raising it here (which was your decision, not SV's). I suggest closing this thread since I don't think there's anything actionable here, and redirecting discussion to the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is one thing to clear up: SV made statements that indicate that i'm suddenly (without warning) topic-banned - and that is why i raised it here (that combined with the PA's). Content issues are for the article talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- This comment is a dishonest representation of what SV said. She never said you were topic banned. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since she's an involved editor, she can't topic-ban you or anyone else. I don't read her comments (here) as indicating that you are topic-banned. She tells you what she thinks you should do (advisory), not what you must do or not do (imperative). Likewise you could tell her that she should go take a running jump but don't expect her to get airborne any time soon, since she's not under any obligation to take your advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- While I think SV's lack of discussion is deplorable, and while she shows a lack of good faith, I don't think that she intends her comment to be interpreted like that. Take it as a request and decide whether you want to heed, contest, or ignore it. Slim, I would suggest that you clarify that you neither believe or assume that Kim is topic banned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Kim has some particular notions about BLP sourcing that I haven't seen him compromise on, and this is extremely frustrating for anyone (sometimes a consensus of us) who discuss this with him. The following puts into context Stephan Schulz' comments about SV's lack of discussion' and she shows a lack of good faith. SV and others, including me, have had epic-length discussions with Kim D. Petersen on BLP subjects. Massive amounts of time have been wasted with this editor who simply will not accept sourcing, no matter how sterling, if it provides negative information on a person sharing his POV, while at the same time his standards for including extremely negative information on at least one BLP have been so low as to include a nasty attack from a blog (see Talk:Fred Singer#Blogs?). Some links are on my ArbCom user-space workshop page accessable from the bottom of my user page. I can't recall a point in the BLP-related discussions I've participated in with Kim that he either admitted a mistake or even changed his opinion. I'm still working on how to word my evidence (it needs a lot of work), and if anyone has advice and/or links to further incidents involving Kim D. Petersen and problematic BLP edits/comments (including comments constructively showing me how I'm all wet on this), please feel free to tell me on my talk page. It would be in Kim's and Wikipedia's best interests if editors who share his overall POV get him to accept more of the community's widely shared notions about BLP sourcing. The alternative should be sanctions for WP:BLP violations or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the above, except to say that i disagree with it (obviously), and that i hope the RfAr will clear up, as John apparently is setting up to do. Since that is one appropriate venue for such complaints.. (and the response to them). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing "apparent" about it. I'm very explicitly laying out where I'm going to take this, some idea of how I expect to get there and offering you the opportunity to reconsider your actions and for others to try to help you reconsider. This should be resolved, one way or another. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to do so, it is the correct way - and do please allow the courtesy for me to disagree with your view :). I used "apparently", because i hadn't seen it before now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing "apparent" about it. I'm very explicitly laying out where I'm going to take this, some idea of how I expect to get there and offering you the opportunity to reconsider your actions and for others to try to help you reconsider. This should be resolved, one way or another. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the above, except to say that i disagree with it (obviously), and that i hope the RfAr will clear up, as John apparently is setting up to do. Since that is one appropriate venue for such complaints.. (and the response to them). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is one thing to clear up: SV made statements that indicate that i'm suddenly (without warning) topic-banned - and that is why i raised it here (that combined with the PA's). Content issues are for the article talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I know you're annoyed, understandably so, but I don't think anything useful can be gained by raising it here (which was your decision, not SV's). I suggest closing this thread since I don't think there's anything actionable here, and redirecting discussion to the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Assistance needed at WP:SHIPS
Would an admin familiar with the spam blacklist please look at WT:SHIPS#Spam: Admin help needed and render the necessary assistance? Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No Drama Festival upcoming: Notification and request (2 issues)
Admin Jayron32 has previously coordinated the Dramaout 5 day festival. That is a festival where editors try to write articles and avoid drama for 5 days. This July, Jayron32 is busy but suggested that I may coordinate it. He suggested ANI as one of the places to put a notice.
Task 1 (Easiest to do: just sign your name): Feel free to sign up to participate in the dramaout here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd It will take place for 5 days starting July 5, 2010.
Task 2:I requests volunteers to help out. Help this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd which needs a little copy editing. Many volunteers can copy edit.
Task 3: A sample template has been made but is in raw form, not on a template page. One or two volunteers can create a template, maybe like this.
This user will participate in the 2010 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, a dedicated effort to exclusively article write for five days. |
Task 4: Several volunteers to notify past participants (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/2nd) of this new dramaout. To reduce the load, I request 8 volunteers to contact 10 people each. Volunteer 1 will notify person 1-9 on the list. Volunteer 2 will notify 10-19 on the list.
Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Volunteer signup
- task 4. Will notify persons 1-9 and 10-19 and 20-29 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- task 2, will do in the next 2 days. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Administrative abuse, Legal threat, Win money, Free Sex
- This ANI thread is not gettting much participation. Maybe it should be retitled "Administrative Abuse, Free Sex, Legal threats, Win Money" to attract attention and get responses! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I get for following Jayron's instructions! p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale alleged admin abuse
This user is reverting all of my edits for absolutely no reason. He is claiming that I am a "sock puppet". How can I be a sockpuppet when I'm an anonymous IP address? Yes, I am the same person he feuded with before. I'm not claiming to be anyone I'm not. How does this make me a "sockpuppet"? Surely he is not allowed to constantly revert me for no reason? He is clearly attacking me out of petty spite. There is no place for feuding on Wikipedia. I have made nothing but constructive edits to articles, and he has reverted them simply because he can. I will not tolerate it.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- See existing AIV report on this "editor", als User:66.177.73.86, who has already been blocked numerous times for his disruptive editing (adding blatantly false content, OR, etc), edit warring, personal attacks/incivility, etc.[28][[29]] He knows exactly why he was reverted as he is not making useful contributions, only resuming his edit warring and disruptiveness. Changing IPs doesn't erase your block log nor your warnings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just because I have been blocked in the past does NOT give you the right to revert every single edit I make. Clearly you are reverting me out of spite.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are disruptive with a known history of adding false content and OR to articles, with a seeming obsession with the Lemon Angel franchise. Such editing is not helpful and undesirable and will be removed. Fnboyism, rumors, and minute trivia are appropriate on Wikia, not here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Give me a break. There was absolutely no reason for you to revert me on articles like Majokko Megu-chan. You reverted me because you're still stuck on this petty feud.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The only one calling it a "feud" is you. You were already blocked for all the mess you tried last time, and have been repeatedly been blocked for the same mess multiple times before that. I suspect the only reason you changed IPs at all was to try to pretend to be someone else, but bringing up the same stuff only made it obvious who you were. Your "edit" was to add your personal, unsourced opinion to the article[30] and was properly removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Give me a break. There was absolutely no reason for you to revert me on articles like Majokko Megu-chan. You reverted me because you're still stuck on this petty feud.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are disruptive with a known history of adding false content and OR to articles, with a seeming obsession with the Lemon Angel franchise. Such editing is not helpful and undesirable and will be removed. Fnboyism, rumors, and minute trivia are appropriate on Wikia, not here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just because I have been blocked in the past does NOT give you the right to revert every single edit I make. Clearly you are reverting me out of spite.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The information on the articles was unsourced and was correctly removed since they were potential WP:BLP violations. Find reliable sources before attempting to add the information back to the articles. Also stop trying to recreate the Lemon Angel article via other articles. —Farix (t | c) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was just about to say "I don't see any reliable, third party sources for the IP's edits." N419BH 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did not "change" anything. I am at someone else's house while we pack everything to move. Oh, and that information didn't even need to be sourced. If you're going to do that, you might as well just delete the whole Sennin Buraku article. Oh, and I have never once added "false content" to any articles.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence "that information didn't even need to be sourced" indicates a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules. One of our most important rules requires that all information be sourced. If you don't have a source, do not add the information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was already sourced. I merely expanded on it.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- you also added pov, original research, and an inexplicable typo to some of the articles. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The information and sources were ALREADY THERE. I will discuss this once I have access to a decent computer. Goodbye.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Statement from Sennin Buraku: "It is arguably the first ecchi anime, and, as such, is highly influential as an early late-night anime."
- Yes, that statement very much needs to be sourced. Who argues that it is the first ecchi anime? Who argues that it isn't? Who claimed that it is "highly influential"? —Farix (t | c) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's the one I was thinking of. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The only thing that can be backed up by an existing source on the article is that it was the first late-night anime and the manga is one of the longest running serializations. Nothing more, nothing less. However, three of the five sources are not reliable and one of the remaining just gives a credit listing by the studio that produced the series. —Farix (t | c) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's the one I was thinking of. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that statement very much needs to be sourced. Who argues that it is the first ecchi anime? Who argues that it isn't? Who claimed that it is "highly influential"? —Farix (t | c) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Statement from Sennin Buraku: "It is arguably the first ecchi anime, and, as such, is highly influential as an early late-night anime."
- The information and sources were ALREADY THERE. I will discuss this once I have access to a decent computer. Goodbye.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- you also added pov, original research, and an inexplicable typo to some of the articles. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did not "change" anything. I am at someone else's house while we pack everything to move. Oh, and that information didn't even need to be sourced. If you're going to do that, you might as well just delete the whole Sennin Buraku article. Oh, and I have never once added "false content" to any articles.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was just about to say "I don't see any reliable, third party sources for the IP's edits." N419BH 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the anonymous user's computer is only good enough to make complaints, but not quite good enough to read criticism. The question is, when she returns with another new ip address, is she welcome to contribute usefully? Or do we consider her a block-evading disruptive user, and just revert and block on sight? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1. I am not blocked. I have never evaded any blocks.
- 2. This computer is extremely hard to type on.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're digging yourself a hole. We require reliable sources, and several editors have stated that they are needed. Why don't you go find some sources instead of continuing to argue that you don't need them. N419BH 16:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, "If you are the only one advocating an issue, it is most likely that you are wrong, rather than everyone is an idiot." S.G.(GH) ping! 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to break this down some more:
- From Himitsu no Akko-chan: "Akko-chan was originally aired as part of an entire block of popular magical girl programming that included Sally the Witch and Maho no Mako-chan."
- The only source for this article, which doesn't appear to be reliable in the first place, doesn't make this claim. The only statement that the source backs up is that "Some sources state that, like Sally, Akko-chan was also inspired by Bewitched."
- From Majokko Megu-chan: "This series, along with Cutey Honey, is considered an important forerunner of the present day mahou shōjo genre"
- The bold part is what the IP added. The original statement itself isn't sourced and the only sourced information is the credits section. AnmaFinotera does have a copy of the Anime Encyclopedia, so she can be checked with to see if it established either claim.
- From Cream Lemon: "A 5-minute animation based on Cream Lemon and based on a real-life pop trio was aired on Fuji TV as Lemon Angel."
- Now this edit is interesting as the same editor originally claimed that Lemon Angel was not part of the Cream Lemon series, then it was, then it wasn't. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 45#Lemon Angel) If the IP editor who was attempting to insert the information couldn't make up his or her mind, then it definitely needs a source.
- From Lemon Angel Project: "The series revisits the popular '80s pop trio Lemon Angel, who had previously had another anime series, Lemon Angel."
- The only source even hinting at a connection between to two is this article. And it states that the connection is in name only as part of a marketing ploy.
So was AnmaFinotera correct in reverting these edits? Positivity. —Farix (t | c) 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Sven nestle legal threats (again)
User:Sven nestle who claims to be involved in legal action to appeal the Violence Against Women Act has persisted in legal terminology and with their conflict of interest at Violence_Against_Women_Act, accusing me of stalking and of being a woman (?) or possibly an 'automated deletion tool'. They have defended their legal threat to use civil court to keep material they have added to wikipedia on the site.[31]
As I have become a focal point for this editors issues (and threats - I think?) It is improper for me to block.
User:Georgewilliamherbert has been keeping an eye on this also but I'm opening this again for community input and assistance. (A thread archived yesterday can be read here for further information).
For clarity I have not reverted or otherwise edited Violence_Against_Women_Act since Sven nestle's contributions. I have not deleted anything by him to my knowledge. And I am not female, nor am I stalking this user - I like any other admin view legal threats and COI as serious issues for this project--Cailil talk 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since I made this post they have made further threats to sue wikipedia on GWH's talk page[32]--Cailil talk 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- User was indefinitely blocked by SarekOfVulcan. Netalarmtalk 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I just saw that. Unfortunately after the Block User:Sven nestle made these remarks [33]. He claims that his contributions are being automatically deleted and is claiming he was defamed and may sue. Should we protect his user page if he's using it to continue to make remarks like this?--Cailil talk 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- User was indefinitely blocked by SarekOfVulcan. Netalarmtalk 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It goes on, I have revoked talk page access. User will have to utilise email to retract threats (I think there is a page on emails when blocked, I shall try to find it). If the barrage of legal threats then just takes the email road, I guess the next step is email blocking but I've never seen that before. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Argh, why do such people always tend to misrepresent that the First Amendment and Wikipedia are about? –MuZemike 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I giggled at him saying Wikipedia used to be Bugzilla. Bugzilla is still around (part of the Mozilla Foundation) and kicking at http://www.bugzilla.org/. --Mask? 23:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Returning linkspammer
86.12.9.51 has been persistently adding linkspam to Chris Morris. A look at the edit history of Nathan Barley, where he previously did the same thing, shows that he was behind an account blocked indefinitely for being solely used for advertising.
Chris Morris history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Morris_%28satirist%29&action=history
Nathan Barley history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Barley&action=history
Talk page of ‘Cookdandbombd’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cookdandbombd
Discussion in which 86.12.9.51’s ownership of the Cookdandbombd account was acknowledged: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadowjams&oldid=354279326#Nathan_Barley
The third post down here is a message on his website concerning the edit conflict: http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,24381.30.html
Mrzoombini (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You should warn him on his talkpage by adding "{{subst:uw-spam1}} ~~~~ " for the first warning. If he continues after that issue the level two warning. You can go up to and including "{{subst:uw-spam4}} ~~~~" for a final warning. If he doesn't stop after that report him to WP:AIV. Alternatively, you can make a report to WikiProject Spam if you think the link needs to be tracked. ThemFromSpace 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help! Mrzoombini (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Quite spammy:
- cookdandbombd.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- GrahamButteredNuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- 86.12.9.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- Cookdandbombd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- 194.75.224.19 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
I have revertlisted the domain on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's now back on Chris_Morris_(satirist), re-added by 'Wiger Toods', who is claiming on Talk:Chris_Morris_(satirist) that someone with 'a grudge' must be responsible for its removal. Chips Critic (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A look at this user's edits suggests they're not here to contribute positively at all, but what particularly drew my attention was their edits to User:Qotsa37, an editor who has not edited for a few days but whose page is on my watchlist. I guess the two may know each other. Draynah has provided a real name for Qotsa37 at least twice: here and here; should these revisions be deleted? I42 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can say that Qotsa37 has made at least one HOAX article, B.O.M.B. Fest. I checked out the bands that are coming to this "Fest" via their official websites....and one isn't touring at all and one isn't touring then. Hoax. I would recommend Qotsa37 be blocked for HOAX articles. Checking out Draynah. Checkuser might be a good idea too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the festival does exist, and at least some of the lineup is kosher (Of Montreal, Lupe Fiasco) - [36]. No sign of 30 Seconds to Mars, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:Qotsa37 is pure Myspace. Considering deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Another blantant hoax by Qotsa37. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- ...and the hits just keep on coming. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Another blantant hoax by Qotsa37. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:Qotsa37 and User:Draynah pass the "same person" test to me. I recommend a checkuser to confirm, but these "two" seem to be the same person. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Umm...Bombfest 2010 appears to have already taken place. If it's a hoax, they went to a bit of effort. --Onorem♠Dil 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Check out User:Lilwhiterapper too. Seems to know Qotsa37. Will check on "Bomb Fest". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Umm...Bombfest 2010 appears to have already taken place. If it's a hoax, they went to a bit of effort. --Onorem♠Dil 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've deleted the userpage and the subpages per NOT#MYSPACE. An SPI might be worthwhile on the various accounts but they could just be IRL friends. I've removed the speedy tag from B.O.M.B Fest. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of the edits have indeed been a bit dodgy, which is why I have his userpage on my watchlist. My impression is that he's generally here to contribute, but doesn't take it too seriously, and that the two accounts probably do belong to different people who know each other. But what I wanted to raise here was the aparrent outing of Qotsa's real name, which seems to be getting overlooked. I42 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: I have moved this back out of the archive because it was not resolved. I42 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Qotsa37 is back, created by Qotsa37, but with very similar content to that put there by Draynah. I have revised my opinion that the two users are likely separate individuals - this is looking very suspicious. And given that the two users have been editing each other's pages, they wouldn't then seem to be legitimate alternate accounts. I42 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Evidence the users are the same is provided by Qotsa's edit to his homepage here: he claims credit for creating two pages which were actually created (inasmuch as they were converted from redirects) by Draynah (here and here). I42 (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
User with multiple accounts
There is a user who has created many accounts entitled "XXXX (Madden)" and has created userpages for all accounts with a fake autobiography of a player from his Madden NFL game. Here is a list of accounts generated by User:The-Pope, which was taken from WT:NFL#(Madden) accounts:
- User:Markael James (Madden)
- User:Marcus Robertson (Madden)
- User:Jervis Santana (Madden)
- User:Thomas Harris (Madden)
- User:Albert Ramos, Jr (Madden)
- User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL)
- User:Albert Ramos, Jr. (Madden NFL)
- User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL series)
I think all accounts should be blocked as sockpuppets of each other, and the userpages be deleted as a violation of WP:WEBHOST. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll take that route instead then. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, don't bother. Obvious socks are obvious. I'll delete the pages and block the users. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll take that route instead then. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Immediate issues resolved. SPI with CU looking for sleepers. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
minor edit war at Politico, possible tag-team & retaliation
I believe that these two editors are working to keep the label of "conservative" (or even "right-leaning") out of the lede. They've each made reverts without discussing it on the talkpage. When they finally do post there, it's to say that they don't like it and it's not accurately sourced. I also believe that one of them, Arzel, may be acting out of retaliation for the EAR I recently opened regarding similar behavior at FNC. The other one actually called my edit 'vandalism.' They don't seem to have any true interest in collaborating.
- This article reads like a promo piece. I tried to balance with well-sourced criticism. (From the politico.com website, in fact)
- diffs: 1 2 3 4 • edit history
The first editor Arzel and I have a history from Talk:FNC ever since I disagreed with him & he got huffy. I know that AN/I doesn't resolve content disputes but I mention the criticism because it's a part of the larger issue of Arzel (&others) fighting those of us who seek to balance these articles. I've made several attempts to discuss the lede change and work to improve it, but they simply revert and use the edit summary instead of the talkpage. I've also revised it three times in an effort to be conciliatory, although neither of them has afforded me the same courtesy. Until he learned of Politico's conservative bias from myself & another editor at a separate mediation discussion, Arzel had never touched the Politico article. He immediately removed the criticism from this article which I had mentioned to illustrate a point. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Eye Roll* PRbeacon confuses a consensus against his position with tag-teaming, as i stated before on the talkpage i am not against criticism, but Neutral Wording that does not imply some Republican conspiracy to pretend to be a news blog, This Requires an RFC at most not i fail to see the need for this ANI thread. 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- This ANI should be closed and PrBeason should be reprimanded for wasting time. This dispute is the culmination of a mediation regarding Media Matters for America. One of the sources of information which PrBeacon disagrees with is from an editor at Politico. PrBeacon believes Politico to be a conservative organ and during the mediation he has assisted in the attempt to paint Politico as being biased towards Republicans. At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias. This claim was removed by a different editor and then quickly re-added by PrBeacon. After a month of no sourcing I removed the wording as uncited. PrBeacon then quickly re-inserted the section leading up to this ANI culminating in this final version which I removed. Using a very vague wording from Politico which would imply that Politico admits that they are biased towards Republicans (a clear violation of WP:SYNTH) when in fact the source mostly repudiates the source (ironically a criticism from MMfA). PrBeacon is a POV pusher and is attempting to insert language into the Politico article to support his argument against the mediation regarding MMfA. The accusation of "tag-teaming" is laughable at best. A check of my edit history will show very little (if any) common edit history with WeaponBB7. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize if this is a waste of any admin's time. Since Arzel disputes the chronology, "At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias." A review of relevant datestamps shows that is incorrect. And further review supports my case, I believe.
- 5/06 • Politico criticism added- (by anon-IP) (this was quickly revertedby another editor)
- • my restore of the criticism- "add cite tag and give them a chance" (Based upon previous talkpage discussion)
- 5/27 • separate RfM started
- 6/14 • my comments at RfM- "so far only conservative sources.."
- 6/16 • A's question at RfM- "since when is Politico conservative?"
- • another editor's reply- "no question they're conservative"
- at 13:41 • A's reply at FNC- "discuss in adult manner?"
- at 13:48 • A's reply to E.A.R- "if you're going to attackme.., pls notify"
- at 13:50 • A's (first) revert at Politico- "No citation."
- The quick succession of these last three edits is what sparked my suspicion about retaliation. The issue of Politico's bias, in my opinion, surfaced as a minor issue in the mediation. No one else questioned it there. Arzel conflated the two when he moved from the RfM to Politico via the other two project pages. For the record, I have no problem with Arzel's most recent revisions [37] & [38] of the criticism I added to the body text [39] earlier. It's too bad that compromise didn't start before.
- Unfortunately I'm not experienced enough to argue the issue of tagteam, i've only seen the (loose) allegation at other ANI threads -- used to question if 2 editors are circumventing the 3RR rule, thereby attempting to draw another editor into violating it.
- If admins here deem either or both charges inconclusive then again i apologize. I will reserve comment about the remaining counterclaims. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize if this is a waste of any admin's time. Since Arzel disputes the chronology, "At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias." A review of relevant datestamps shows that is incorrect. And further review supports my case, I believe.
Disruptive editting and personal attacks in the Leviathan article
User:Ishmael bnei Noah Elroi came into the Leviathan article, replaced properly sourced information with improperly sourced information, ignored (and continues to ignore) requests to read WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NOR; insists that because he knows Hebrew and simply pointed to the Tanakh, he did not need to cite sources. He has engaged in a number of personal attacks (1, 2, 3 (at bottom), 4 (edit summary), ignoring all warnings. He eventually did come closer to naming an actual source besides "Tanakh", but it is a translation that is not freely available (so I believe he is violating copyright laws). He even promoted it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ho hum, I lost my tail.
Yeah it wasn't intentional, at times Yes I clicked submit (or w/e) over preview.
Yes, I get annoyed when I go <- to fix it and to find that nothing was there.
Yes, I am clinically insane according to the United States Department of Health (WA, OR, PA).
So Yes, expect a flurry of irrational crap to go on, when one is being overwhelmed about the stupidest of things.
Its not the knowing of Hebrew.
Its the stating in the article of a HEBREW source.
That source is not hebrew.
its english. Any ONE can see that.
Unless you mean by the Leningrad Codex, which well then opens up a whole new topic of crap That I'm quite frankly not willing to discuss.
But whatever, I could honestly care less.
It was a series of mistakes by a new user.
And instead of attempting to allow the other end-user work out all the kinks without rolling back like a prepubescent fop every mis-edit.
If given due consideration, I am most certaintly not the first User in this regards that has experienced issues with this particular administrator. It just depends on how well and Just of a job those want to do.
Considering this is an Open source. Obviously in most cases the least amount of 'work' is required.
And I am sure as hell no longer donating.
Got rid of auto add bot sign crap. Browser crashed AGAIN.
Ishmael bnei Noah Elroi (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There, signed!
And as for "Promoting" that apparently must be a mistake.
Amazing one cannot discern a real life NEW USER to (censored)pedia.org.
- Why dont you try cutting the snark and reading all of the policies listed in the complaint above about you? If you cant follow our editing policies, there may be other websites out there you'd feel more comfortable editing at. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Your edit history shows that you are perfectly capable of using proper English without playing the "innocent newbie foreigner" card. So please stop playing games. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- They can do that when they come back from the block I just gave them for continuing the personal attacks above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if it's not WP:TROLL, it's at least WP:COMPETENCE, but I don't believe that for one moment given the history. Indef? Rodhullandemu 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not yet, just 31 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll give you evens that this will end up as indef. Rodhullandemu 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Considering the IP added and subsequently removed drivel that was added below a minute ago, I'm inclined to agree Rod. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not taking that bet. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll give you evens that this will end up as indef. Rodhullandemu 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not yet, just 31 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if it's not WP:TROLL, it's at least WP:COMPETENCE, but I don't believe that for one moment given the history. Indef? Rodhullandemu 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- They can do that when they come back from the block I just gave them for continuing the personal attacks above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if admins could take a look at User:A Quest For Knowledge's conduct, specifically at Bad Medicine (song). I believe he has been following my contributions and is looking to create conflict. I recently removed a small section of "Lyrical interpretation" which was all unsourced and, IMO, not accurate. As far as I can tell, AQFK has never edited this article in the past (though he has referred to the song's lyrics in recent edit summaries) but he quickly reverted my change, restoring the unsourced section. He has since added a fact tag and responded to my discussion.
AQFK and I have a history of argument at List of common misconceptions on exactly this point - whether to remove challenged, unsourced material or to leave it in with tags. My reading of policy (WP:V) is that he should not be restoring info, after it has been challenged, without providing a source. He cites the essay WP:BRD as grounds here for restoring unsourced material. For months, and particularly in the last few days, we've been disagreeing at Talk:List of common misconceptions - most recently over material he's repeatedly inserted, against consensus in the discussion, and which I've proposed removing soon if no consensus is reached. See Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#A_popular_myth_regarding_human_sexuality.
He tried to have me blocked recently - see [40] and the subsequent discussion - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Hippo43, and it's clear from his comments to me at Talk:List of common misconceptions, as well as his repeated complaints at my talk page and elsewhere, that he bears considerable resentment toward me. See also User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#Hippo43, User_talk:Hippo43#Do_NOT_resume_your_disruption, User_talk:Hippo43#Warning_about_disruptive_behavior, User_talk:Hippo43#Your_edit_here_is_a_personal_attack and User_talk:Hippo43#Do_NOT_edit_war_at_Bad_Medicine_.28song.29.
I can't know for sure, but given that this is a carbon copy of an argument we've had in the past, and his recent hostility to me, it looks to me like he is shadowing my contributions to provoke disagreement, knowing I have been blocked for edit-warring in the past. This is the last thing I want. (His recent edit here also suggests he had been checking through my contributions looking for 'ammunition' in his disagreements with me.) I can live with us arguing over content, and his regular unpleasant comments, but I am concerned about him digging through my edits to create fights with me where none exist. --hippo43 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
AIV Backlog
AIV is backlogged, admins are needed, lather, rinse, repeat. Thanks. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
User: Pagemonster18
Pagemonster18 was blocked in January 2010 for "repeated addition of unsourced information" by Kurt Shaped Box. After the block expired, Pagemonster18 received two warnings for adding unsourced materials in February 2010. In June 2010, Pagemonster18 has added unsourced materials that were reverted by other editors: Justin Bieber [link], Logan Lerman [link], Liam O'Brien [link], Negima! Magister Negi Magi [link], and Spider-Man (film series) [link]. Can you please investigate? Thanks, Davtra (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I notified the user. Please remember to substitute the template {{ANI-notice}} on the talk page of those you mention here. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Past Sock IP off a 1 year ban creating issues again
User talk:83.241.234.4 has an illustrious history, and although there's been some delay since the 1 year block's expiration, I think there's new concern with the recent string of edits. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The revert cycle on Omar Amanat is epic. Shadowjams (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- There are at least 25 reversions by this IP on 2 separate articles, well over 50, not to mention everything before. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have done some reverts. This user needs an immediately block. 2 years this time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- User was blocked for 55 hours for "Disruptive editing" by User:Materialscientist. I have pointed him in the direction of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- My block was a rapid first aid. Any admin should feel free to reblock for longer if necessary. I have briefly looked through their edits and am not keen to analyze them in depth. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank god we can put a finger in this levy. This was the most persistent page blanking I've seen in a long time, and I'm amazed how long it persisted for. Regent deserves a naive badge of courage for going at it as long as he/she did. In the end it was the right thing to do. I have tremendous respect for that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- My block was a rapid first aid. Any admin should feel free to reblock for longer if necessary. I have briefly looked through their edits and am not keen to analyze them in depth. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- User was blocked for 55 hours for "Disruptive editing" by User:Materialscientist. I have pointed him in the direction of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have done some reverts. This user needs an immediately block. 2 years this time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank goodness Material blocked him, I think he should be given a longer block than 55 hours as he hasn't leart anything from his last block, and will comeback and do the same thing again--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have extended it to a year and told the IP that if they return after and start again it will be two years without any further warnings. I'm not particularly interested in telling him how to use the unblock template yadda yadda. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- This seems like a good resolution, unless someone wants to dig into the old SPIs and see if there's a new connection. The single IP seemed to be content to handle those two articles. I'm not sure the connection, but maybe someone could monitor those possible additional issues, but I don't see a lot of ongoing issues from here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Agressive message by Direktor
It would be nice if Direktor could abstain from leaving me this kind of messages. I find this user to be quite agressive in general and have no particular interest in pursuing any kind of exchange with him, except possibly during a mediation, in the presence of other parties. Now he is apparently trying to create some kind of conflict with me, possibly with the hope of reporting me here. Having no use for this, I'd like to report his problematic behaviour, which I find uselessly menacing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)