Anarchangel (talk | contribs) Alter |
Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) please don't mark your own topic resolved |
||
Line 1,344: | Line 1,344: | ||
== Archive please == |
== Archive please == |
||
{{resolved| |
{{resolved|No. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]''' ([[User talk:Rschen7754|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|C]]) 22:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)}} |
||
Someone please archive [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINT_page_moves this]. User:Una Smith is forum shopping it a number of other places,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves&diff=prev&oldid=262145415] and it really requires an RfC:user at this point. I tried to archive it yesterday, but accidentally archived the entire bottom half of the page. This does not require an admin, just anyone. Thanks. --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
Someone please archive [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINT_page_moves this]. User:Una Smith is forum shopping it a number of other places,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves&diff=prev&oldid=262145415] and it really requires an RfC:user at this point. I tried to archive it yesterday, but accidentally archived the entire bottom half of the page. This does not require an admin, just anyone. Thanks. --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:"This does not require an admin" why are you posting here then? <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— [[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]]</i></sup></font> 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
:"This does not require an admin" why are you posting here then? <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— [[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]]</i></sup></font> 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:54, 5 January 2009
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) |
|
DreamGuy. Again. (redux)
(This looks like it was inadvertently archived by the bot while unresolved. It should probably be addressed, as failing to do so will only encourage the bad behavior to continue or - heaven forbid - allow it to blossom into yet another AE complaint.)
Sorry, I did try to resolve this with the user without success. DreamGuy (talk · contribs) is again reverting edits without discussion, and using edit summaries as platforms for personal attacks. As per this edit:
- "sick of my personal stalker following me around to undo noncontroversial edits... funny thing is then he removes one of the most notable cultural refs (successful novel series) and keeps utter dreck"
This is despite the fact that DG has made a total of four edits to the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the earliest of which was on October 6th, 2008, and three of the four are reverts. I would point out that the accusation of wiki-stalking seems unfounded, as I had begun that article over six months earlier, and have made 6x more edits to it.
Were this the first instance of this behavior, I'd simply shrug it off as someone having a bad day. Unfortunately, this is something that happens (and keeps happening) in most of the articles that DG edits, as his user talk page (including those bits he likely finds a bit more embarrassing and removes) would seem to indicate. The user is currently under AE civility parole, which has been extended again and again, as the user is considered a net asset to the project. I submit that these benefits to the project are diminished by shutting down those other editors who grow weary of being exposed to DreamGuy's thick layer of hostility and rudeness. In the past, his incivility and personal attacks have chased away new editors. The current resurgence of uncivil and unfriendly behavior is of precisely the same sort that led to the user being placed under ArbCom behavioral restriction in the first place.
I did attempt to address this behavior in a civil fashion on multiple occasions recently during the Annie Chapman image discussion (1, 2) before he deleted the section as "serving no point". As well, Jack the Ripper, and his usertalk page (3), where he deleted it again with yet another PA edit summary, an action which prompted my posting here.
I am certainly not the first to have had unhappy interactions with DG, but I think I've done everything civilly possible to defuse the behavior he seems to reserve for anyone who doesn't share his exceptionally narrow worldview. He reverts and edit-wars without discussion, and it just keeps happening over and over again in any article he touches.
I would remind the noticeboard (for the three or four people unaware of his status) that DreamGuy is currently under behavioral restriction by ArbCom, reinforced by AE on a few occasions (to be more civil in his dealings with others). Looking at the edit summaries of DG's contributions over the past month, I am not sure this civility parole is being followed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the contrib history of Scarlet Pimpernel, and confirm Arcayne has previously edited the article since April of last year and DreamGuy only since August. I have therefore warned DreamGuy regarding both his edit warring and inappropriate comments regarding Arcayne and suggested withdrawing from editing the article. I have not reviewed Arcayne's other concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- ...aaaaaand this was the response. I have left a further comment, but I suppose that it will be reverted similarly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arcayne has a long history of wikistalking, so to tell me he is not is simply wrong and showing a recklessness in taking action. Furthermore it's completely inappropriate for you to just tell me not to edit the page in question. Admins don't just say that editors are not allowed to edit. Before you give lectures you need to make sure you know what's what. Inisting on putting a warning on my talk page despite knowing that I said you were misinformed isn't particularly helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne has a well-demonstrated history of personal conflict with me and also for wikilawyering to try to get his way, including misleading reports here and to ArbCom. Quite often he shows up here and gets some well-meaning but inexperienced admin to jump in and do whatever he wants because they do not take the time to examine the full facts. He knows he is banned from my talk page, per my instructions and warnings from several admins, so claiming he is trying "to resolve this with the user without success" by posting there is complete nonsense. He is not trying to resolve anything, he just blind reverts my edits on any article he happens to be on with misleading edit comments, often with statements to "see talk" when he didn't put anything on the talk page... in fact he quite regularly on Jack the Ripper says to "see talk" or "per talk" or claim no evidence was ever given for an action when he has deleted the discussion of the article talk page (calling it an archive, but doing so so often that current discussions go away). I would caution anyone seeing this to not fall for Arcayne's little tricks as others have in the past. Shows editors agreeing that Arcayne has been harassing me, that people complaining are trying to game the system, etc. and there is more evidence as well. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to withdraw after this comment - but someone who has edited an article since April 2008 cannot be "wikistalking" (isn't the term de joure "wikihounding", anyway?) an editor who started editing an article in August of the same year. Also, as far as counting back the months go, as I have been a sysop since May 2007 I am a little too long in the tooth to be termed "inexperienced". Nevermind, it doesn't seem as if you are interested in statistics where it does not suit your agenda. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be part of my "little tricks" to point out that the section DG linked to is almost year old, and he has been blocked three different times since then for the same sort of behavior which prompts this complaint? I would also point out that of the three editors thus posting to this section, only DG has been blocked - less than a year ago - for "gaming the system". Anyone who blocks him is "inexperienced"; anyone who disagrees with him is "blind-reverting". No one is saying DG is stupid - a block log as long as his suggests that he does bring something to the table here. I am pointing out that I have been accused of wikihounding in an article that - by all accounts - it could be more convincingly argued that DG began visiting the Pimpernel article less than 15 minutes after reverting an edit of mine in the Jack the Ripper article (1, 2). Do I like the user? Clearly, I don't, for reasons that are a part of the record. However, I am not being hypersensitive to the accusations of wiki-hounding, as they tend to (pardon the pun) tend to follow a user around. The disproven accusations by DreamGuy, coupled with his recurring uncivil behavior seem to communicate a need to curb the user's behavior somewhat further; the behavioral restrictions don't seem to be working as well as they would with most other folk. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some insight would be dandy here, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Allegations by DreamGuy are just that. Admins are likely to ask for proof, in the form of diffs, before imposing sanctions, or believing allegations. The first diff from Arcayne does look like a textbook assumption of bad faith, but I'm not seeing enough here, from either party, to justify sanctions. I'd really like to see both parties attempt to get along better, but that may just be my inexperience showing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some insight would be dandy here, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be part of my "little tricks" to point out that the section DG linked to is almost year old, and he has been blocked three different times since then for the same sort of behavior which prompts this complaint? I would also point out that of the three editors thus posting to this section, only DG has been blocked - less than a year ago - for "gaming the system". Anyone who blocks him is "inexperienced"; anyone who disagrees with him is "blind-reverting". No one is saying DG is stupid - a block log as long as his suggests that he does bring something to the table here. I am pointing out that I have been accused of wikihounding in an article that - by all accounts - it could be more convincingly argued that DG began visiting the Pimpernel article less than 15 minutes after reverting an edit of mine in the Jack the Ripper article (1, 2). Do I like the user? Clearly, I don't, for reasons that are a part of the record. However, I am not being hypersensitive to the accusations of wiki-hounding, as they tend to (pardon the pun) tend to follow a user around. The disproven accusations by DreamGuy, coupled with his recurring uncivil behavior seem to communicate a need to curb the user's behavior somewhat further; the behavioral restrictions don't seem to be working as well as they would with most other folk. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to withdraw after this comment - but someone who has edited an article since April 2008 cannot be "wikistalking" (isn't the term de joure "wikihounding", anyway?) an editor who started editing an article in August of the same year. Also, as far as counting back the months go, as I have been a sysop since May 2007 I am a little too long in the tooth to be termed "inexperienced". Nevermind, it doesn't seem as if you are interested in statistics where it does not suit your agenda. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit war at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
There seems to be an edit war, that has lasted several days now and counting, going on between Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) at the above article. Would someone who doesn't mind dealing with these things look to see if protection and or some user warnings are warranted? Kelly hi! 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Endemic" is the proper word. "Several days" understates how this article has been handled for several months now. Collect (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that, I just looked at the history. Yeesh. Enough. How about this:
- Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned from the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 for a mininum of three months. They may use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies. SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The debate is like the hot-stove league, debating how someone's favorite team could have won the pennant if only thus-and-so hadn't happened. Content disputes, like they can somehow change the election results if they just get the article "right". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- SirFozzie, I'd expand that to each other's talkpages, Joe the Plumber, William Timmons, and List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, based on editing intersections for the past couple of months. Send them back to their separate corners. // roux 20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- BB, you just made me cry. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Roux, We can simply make and related pages part of any topic ban to cover that, I think, but I agree that we need to keep them from interacting with each other. (and Bugs, or a more recent version, why the )!@*@+$*@_$ did Grady leave Pedro in so long! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- BB, you just made me cry. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. Endorse community topic ban with respect to pages related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election for at least 3 months. This may give them something more productive to do. Will notify the two. Sandstein 20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I also endorse the expanded community topic ban. Suggest that 'related' include any person related to the 2008 campaign, to the extent of any congressional figure NOT representing the two editors' directly, Foreign personalities commenting on the matter, State races in which either candidate was endorsed by either presidential race, any article on any interaction between any candidates, and so on... Can we just ban one to articles on insects and the other to articles on french cars, ensuring ZERO communication? ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hell yes. This has gone on way too long. McCain campaign and related articles, broadly construed, and if we have to bang heads together to make it stick then let's just do that. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- YES! It's way over due. See my comments here and here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Expanded version based on comments:
Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:
- any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
- Each other's talkpages, with the sole exception of any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads. Users are required to keep such notices brief, formal, and polite.
- They may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
- This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies.
Seem about right? // roux 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the summary. That's about right. Sandstein 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why is Bob Hope coming to mind just now? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. A topic ban as worded above by Roux seems logical and fair. To be definite, I suggest that the topic ban expire on 30 March 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- uninvolved support - three months to do something else is a good starting point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from Amwestover. Whoa! I do not think this is a fair characterization of the dispute at all. I have made numerous attempts to reach compromise on the World opinion section of this article, and I have plenty of diffs to prove this effort. This is part of the editing process, and I don't think I should be punished for it even if it has taken what some would consider a long time. In the past few weeks, every time I'd address one of csloat's concerns, however, he'd raise a new one -- this is part of the reason that this has gone on for the length of time it has. So eventually on the suggestion of another editor after I'd lost all patience with csloat, I went with the simplest version of the section possible hoping that this would finally end it all. That was wishful thinking cuz it didn't. So now the dispute is over material that was removed which I think is non-notable and is being given undue weight. Instead of giving evidence of notability and relevance, he has refused to do so. Instead, he has decided to claim that his version of the edit is the "consensus" version (he has quite a history of this...), and that past consensus is immutable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is the debate over just that paragraph about the alleged al-Qaeda "endorsement" of McCain, or is that only one of many content disputes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with all of the content in the article, except for the al-Qaeda content which I believe has no place in the article. I can't speak for csloat, though. I honestly have no idea what he's come up with, but I do know that he'll claim whatever version he supports is the "consensus" version. You could count the number of times he's done that in his edit summaries with your fingers and toes and you'd still run out. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is the debate over just that paragraph about the alleged al-Qaeda "endorsement" of McCain, or is that only one of many content disputes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Seems appropriate. — neuro(talk) 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed addition to topic ban - in addition, the two users should refrain from talking about each other anywhere on-wiki. Leave each other alone, period, is kinda the point here. // roux 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Anything that stops this sort of absolute buloney is a Good Thing! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Or... You could all try and put this into some sort of context instead of !voting. Maybe even contribute an opinion on the matter since uninvolved opinions have been needed for a while. I hope this isn't how all admin action discussed. There was an RFC like two weeks ago, and now we're blowing past all other forms of dispute resolution (if you can call this proposed action that) right to blocking? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seems pretty extreme to me for a content dispute. The only issue is with the McCain campaign article and it's the al-Qaeda paragraph; every other editor on the page has seemed ok with keeping some version of the paragraph in except Amwestover. I'm willing to compromise and I'm willing to go along with whatever version of that paragraph the consensus supports, and I'm certainly willing to not touch the page until a consensus emerges on that paragraph, whether the "wrong version" is in place or not. Hopefully some sort of voluntary solution such as that is preferable to a mutual topic ban? csloat (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Change bullet 2 to read any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads would be better. (Can't exactly run RFAR without RFC/Mediation these days.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support just wanted to note that I also support this proposal. I've seen this user Commodore Sloat edit on other articles before resulting in similar issues with disruptive edit warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. Three months topic ban for having a strong opinion about including a single paragraph on a page. And with no due process whatsoever or even an attempt to look at non-punitive means of dispute resolution. Happy new year, Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh come off it. You two have been fighting for ages. This is the clearest way to make the disruption stop. // roux 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Penwhale left a notice of an alleged topic ban on my user page and I've discussed (and may be continuing to discuss) the notice. The topic of discussion has been mainly this: where anywhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines does it state that an editing restriction can be imposed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee? I've thoroughly searched the policies to the best of my ability and haven't been able to find anything that gives authority to administrators or the uninvolved community to spontaneously impose an editing restriction on any single user without due process. So this discussion of a topic ban whose terms were suggested by SirFozzie and which were blown way out of scope by roux are nonconstructive and not appreciated.
Now, if anyone would like to offer an uninvolved third opinion on the matter, which some editors already have done and what has been needed for a long time, then you are more then welcome and encouraged to do so if you desire. Advice on further steps in resolution are appreciated too, however I'm not sure if they'll be necessary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I actually got here via the appeal on WP:AN - reviewing the edits in question, all I can say is, wow. I think an enforced break from editing in these areas and squabbling with each other is entirely warranted. Orderinchaos 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
At WP:AN, both editors contend the edit war is continuing. An examination of the talk page and article history shows this is not the case; in fact, the talk page shows numerous voices opposed to inclusion, and no new voices for it. As such, I've again removed the section. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- In other words, you joined the edit war. csloat (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all. I waited for two days, and when no less than three outside editors concurred that the material belonged out, I effected that. You got four WP:3O's for the price of one; or a new consensus of uninvolved editors examining the situation. Either way, I simply instituted a new, extant consensus regarding the material. I noted that of the four new editors I counted, one had questions, three opposed, and no one supported teh inclusion of the material. Including you and amwest, that would yield 4 for out, one for in, one questioner. If we did it by votes, you'd lose. We do it by consensus, with three new people agreeing with each other and with one side of the extant fight that the material should be out. That's it. ThuranX (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your revert was less than 24 hours after two other reverts of the same material, neither one by myself or Amwestover. And you can claim consensus, but the RfC turned out a very different consensus based on the fact that the information was well sourced and directly relevant. But that's not the issue anyway, the issue is edit warring, which continued after the block, indicating the block was purely punitive and did nothing to protect the article from edit warring. Your deletion only confirms the point. csloat (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- two days after you and Amwest's last go-round. And you'll note that since pointing to the talk page, and removing, there's been no further edits. I guess it worked out after all. Enjoy the topic ban. And given your rabid insistence on including it even after a topic ban, I wonder if the duration shouldn't be doubled? ThuranX (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your revert was less than 24 hours after two other reverts of the same material, neither one by myself or Amwestover. And you can claim consensus, but the RfC turned out a very different consensus based on the fact that the information was well sourced and directly relevant. But that's not the issue anyway, the issue is edit warring, which continued after the block, indicating the block was purely punitive and did nothing to protect the article from edit warring. Your deletion only confirms the point. csloat (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all. I waited for two days, and when no less than three outside editors concurred that the material belonged out, I effected that. You got four WP:3O's for the price of one; or a new consensus of uninvolved editors examining the situation. Either way, I simply instituted a new, extant consensus regarding the material. I noted that of the four new editors I counted, one had questions, three opposed, and no one supported teh inclusion of the material. Including you and amwest, that would yield 4 for out, one for in, one questioner. If we did it by votes, you'd lose. We do it by consensus, with three new people agreeing with each other and with one side of the extant fight that the material should be out. That's it. ThuranX (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
In lieu of any cited evidence at all presented in this case, otherwise tertiary and inconclusive evidence:
The 2:54 edit prior to Csloat's first edit (for a long time, I didn't go all the way back in the History) of 17:11 25th Oct
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008&oldid=247519680
18:30 edit prior to Amwestover's first edit, confirmed, on 22:56 20th Sept
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008&oldid=239830363
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
The article is improved since these editors began. This does not prove they contributed, but it does show that they haven't stopped the article from improving. Anarchangel (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is actually the first evidence of any sort introduced into this case at all. csloat (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Manutdglory - another issue of bad editor behavior connected with the Rick Warren article
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
--VS talk 09:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Related to the User:Teledildonix314 incident above, another editor, Manutdglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in recent days has been falsely accusing others of vandalism and making other inflammatory comments about other editors, in particular Teledildonix314, in talk here and here, and in edit summaries here and here. He has returned from a bit of a hiatus with another edit with an edit summary claiming he's fixing vandalism by other editors [1] when clearly that is not true. This will only serve to inflame the situation surrounding this article.
After a series of warnings (here and here), I've final warned Manutdglory regarding his abusive comments [2]; in response, I received this rather uncivil comment in my talk that among other things accuses me of making threats. His sole action thus far has been this message left for one administrator; he appears to be rather tone-deaf to Wikipedia culture and policy as well as the usual methods and procedures to deal with conflicts and vandalism, even after I've pointed them out to him. Given that we now have two editors on this article that seem to be feeding off this conflict, I would suggest that some admin action be taken. Perhaps both these editors, who have both continued abusive behavior after final warnings, should be blocked for some period of time. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren (he referred to him as a "thuggish slimy weasel" see here), yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. Manutdglory (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still at it, I see? Trying, and spectacularly failing, to enlist allies by spewing a great tale about dozens of rampaging pro-gay editors running rampant over an article because you haven't succeeded in sanitizing it of inconvenient facts? Still can't get it through your head that editors with plainly announced biases (and my paper trail across the net making my views quite clear is wide and more than a decade long), can, will and should edit Wikipedia articles within the boundaries of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Still not assuming good faith and spreading your bile everywhere? Why don't you hurry up and WP:PBAGDSWCBY. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I attempted to resolve the situation so that an administrator didn't have to waste his time on a completely pointless endeavor, yet Mike Doughney replied with the following insult - classy. You see what I'm dealing with?Manutdglory (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can't write clearly, and you don't seem to be able to tell the two of us apart, when you're not busy trying to play us off each other. Get lost. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- You say I'm "masquerading as a legitimate editor," implying my presence here is illegitimate. You imply that people who don't share the same religious beliefs as the subjects of articles aren't allowed to edit those articles by repeatedly making an issue of my atheism. You trot out your (alleged) master's degree to insult those who take your writings at face value. You call me insulting? Mike Doughney (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do. And your atheism would have nothing to do with it if you weren't so blatantly proud of your hatred of Warren. As an atheist, your interest in Warren's article is certainly questionable. For instance, I don't go around editing Lennin, Stalin, Mao, Darwin and other noted atheists articles, so why do you feel so compelled to edit Warren's despite your obvious bias against the man? The reason the article was protected was to defend the article from anti-Warren editors. Manutdglory (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I have absolutely no problem with you personally editing those articles if you are willing to diligently follow Wikipedia policies while you do so. I find that editing articles about people with whom I strongly disagree is a means of actively working to understand my own biases, as well as reaching a better understanding of how I know what I know. I also by various means seem to have accumulated some specialized knowledge about such figures (Warren one of many) and Wikipedia is a place where I can put such knowledge to use. In light of that, I've added an evaluation of the article's exclusion of the recent controversial commentary on Warren to the article's talk page. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The User:Teledildonix314 vindicated me by posting a lengthy apology/admission of guilt on the Rick Warren discussion page (see for yourself), this after User:Mike Doughney and other editors reported him (see above). Since User:Mike Doughney's entire original reason for reporting me was because I (accurately) identified User:Teledildonix314 as someone who repeatedly vandalized the Rick Warren article (which he labelled "name-calling"), I really am curious as to what he hopes to accomplish by all of this, other than wasting administrators time. Manutdglory (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Here's my initial take on this (seeing you both also came to my talk page for assistance). Firstly, and most importantly any further incivility, name calling or personal attack by either party and you get a block; return with more of that type of edit anywhere and the block escalates. Having said that Mike your direct personal insults are more beyond the pale than I would normally accept without a block to protect wikipedia but at this time Manutdglory is not asking for a block and for now I will abide by that request. That said neither of you are bigger than the project so, as I say on the next occasion I will block and indeed should I miss any of these types of edits I invite either of you to come directly to my talk page to inform me. That said I will look a little more closely at the Rick Warren article, place and keep it on my watchlist and respond accordingly if it becomes necessary. In the meantime please both walk away from the article, have a cup of tea and work on something else - preferably of a wide enough parameter between the two of you to keep yourselves apart.--VS talk 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your objective and fair analysis of the situation. I will certainly abide by your requests. Manutdglory (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your indication of a willingness to act, after about a day and a half of administrative silence on this noticeboard regarding this matter, is noted. However, I will point out, with respect to "protecting" the Wikipedia project, that anything I have said pales in comparison to Manutdglory's expressed insistence that certain editors are "illegitimate" based not on their editing behavior but solely on their personal beliefs, affiliations or attitudes towards the subjects of biographical articles. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your opinion and need to get in the last word against your opponent is noted Mike. That said I am glad that you understand that a block is imminent if further incivility arises. Given you have decided to go straight back to the article in question I trust you will be able to stay within the general civility covenant between editors across this project, and assuming so then I send you my best wishes.--VS talk 08:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Manutdglory wrote above: "The User:Teledildonix314 vindicated me by posting a lengthy apology/admission of guilt...."
- I did absolutely nothing of the sort, i did the exact opposite. I wrote, and i repeat: "You called me a 'vandal' repeatedly, you reverted my edits without asking anybody else for consensus, and you implied to other editors that it would be a joke to respect my literacy skills as you would have them respect yours." You have successfully poisoned the opinions of other editors when i'm barely out of the gate, and your decision to repeatedly Bite The Newbie has resulted in a situation where i no longer feel i can contribute without being treated with prejudice... despite the fact that i was beginning to show an aptitude for quickly learning about the regulations and standards around here. Now anything i do other than the most Minor of edits will automatically be received with possibly excessive skepticism and hostility which other new editors hopefully would not have to endure. And instead of apologizing for your own errors, you simply repeat your declarations about me to everybody here, reinforcing the prejudice by falsely claiming that i have apologized to you.
- Hopefully people will notice if this is your usual pattern of dealing with newbies, to prevent them from going down the same path i did, responding to you with the same level of hostility which you showed me, and then being embarassed for following your lead and failing to realize that yours is a lower standard of behavior being exhibited and taught than is supposed to be expected. I made my mistakes, i admitted them, i listened to criticism, and i withdrew from any possible situation which could have the slightest bit of controversy. I've resigned myself to contributing in no way larger than a few simple Minor edits which hopefully will not provoke trouble.
- At least if there's a next time during which some other editor comes around calling me a "vandal" and lying about my activities, i'll know theirs isn't the true standard of behavior, and i'll remember not to stoop to the same level. I had assumed that Wikipedia was edited by a bunch of jerks, given the way i was treated by the first few editors/administrators i met here, and let myself sink to that level. My mistake. After being given information instead of slaps, i smartened up in a hurry. You might have been able to help save me the trouble if you'd set a different example initially, but Oh Well-- that's my fault, for thinking yours was the standard of behavior to follow, instead of looking around here further to see that there really are editors and administrators who can be civil and give Good Faith instead of just mentioning the concepts while doing the opposite. Teledildonix314 talk 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Palin - article probation?
- Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is currently fully protected by Kylu (talk · contribs). The only admin, it seems, that is currently willing to deal with POV-pushing and other problems at the article is KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). I like Puppy, but this is not an ideal situation because she had been involved with some of the more contentious content disputes at the article in the past. I'd like to propose article probation, similar to what we have at Barack Obama.
On a related note, there are several {{editprotected}} requests at that article that haven't been dealt with for a while. Kelly hi! 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try a hand at it. (And does anyone know a good .cs hack for monobook to get rid of the gray text on dirty-pink field when editing a protected page? Not nice to the eyes!) --SB_Johnny | talk 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion it would be an over-kill and too much of a bureaucracy placing her article(s) on probation since the election is over and she's not a main focus in the media (and of most editors) anymore. I'd rather would like to see tight (admin) hands dealing with disruptive and edit warring editors and have the article semi-protected till things calm down. So if let's say 2 uninvolved admins [just so that the burden is not on one admin] would be willing to deal with it for a certain time it would be a better handling and choice to ease the "problem(s)".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Normally I would agree, but this article is controversial enough that it's been the subject of an ArbCom case. Kelly hi! 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- That case was closed in October.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Sarah Palin article has a higher admin burnout rate than most (myself included), so unless a decent amount admin support materializes, a general sanction may be needed. I haven't looked into the recent behavior myself recently, but the fact is there are still people arguing about it at all - and most of those people are by nature going to be partisans and/or very stubborn.--Tznkai (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- That case was closed in October.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- They're certainly feisty on the talk page... protection for a while is probably better IMO, so long as a couple admins keep an eye out for {{editprotected}} requests. Relatively low-stress for me after some adventures in outer wikimedia, so I'll keep an eye on the discussions for a stint. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Kudos for you. Let's see how long you can take it ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favor of probation. Maybe one way to make the probation more palatable would be to say that the probation will only last six months at most unless there's an active decision to renew it. Andjam (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't want to "convert" you but I keep on speaking my mind.
- Gosh, nothing against Palin but she had her "15 minutes of fame" and they where extended but how long will it last? So I stick to my opinion above unless she gets a live span of fame in politics. Remember, that most of us didn't know anything about her before here nomination as vice-President. I'm just sticking here to the "cruel" facts and give my opinion with those in mind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Palin probation proposal
Based on the decision at Barack Obama, I propose the following identical proposal:
Pages related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:
- Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
- Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Palin pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
- Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
- All sanctions imposed are to be logged (propose creating Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for this purpose).
Kelly hi! 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uncontroversial, I would say. Make it so. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- As one of the (and recently, the primary) admin trying to maintain some kind of civility and reasonable working environment on that page, I would very much appreciate it being on "official" probation. I was actually chastised recently for removing some very clear attack comments, which were immediately replaced via reversion by another admin, and although he later removed one phrase, the entire para was re-posted by another editor. None of the crap in question was about the article, mind you. Some stronger support for keeping that page on subject and more mature would be a step in the right direction. I support the 6 month probation. Perhaps if it were "official" I myself, and other admins trying to keep things under control, would have to deal with less Micky Mouse stuff. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would, however, be happier if there were input from more than two admins. (Hint hint) KillerChihuahua?!? 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to enter your view below. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would, however, be happier if there were input from more than two admins. (Hint hint) KillerChihuahua?!? 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good idea. Disruption on the Palin pages has been out of control for some time now. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, and also agree that it should be limited to six months. However I think the details of the proposal sound draconian. Topic bans would be more appropriate remedies rather than 1 year blocks. Also the definition of "uninvolved admin" should exclude those who've edited the article significantly. Will Beback talk 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fortunately, SBJohnny has volunteered, and has not edited the article at all, so far as I can tell. so long as we have Johnny (and hopefully others will arrive) we will have at least one unarguably uninvolved admin. My only edits have been enforcing BLP and putting brakes on edit wars, but of course Kelly's habitual hostility towards me has led to 'involvement' (and the usual 'IDCab') accusations, which while it does not make me involved, certainly has led to some ridiculous drama. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Adding, the details are left rather open. I hardly think we need worry about draconian measures. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support, and also per prior epic drama at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. One year bans are too much--utter topic bans, and clarify explicitly that "uninvolved" admins can not have been involved period in significant content changes or the usual ongoing discussions. Basically, anyone currently debating on the talk page, and debating back to and before the RFAR, and all parties in the RFAR, should be exempt from working as admins on this one. rootology (C)(T) 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alter from present form Proscribing involvement can exclude the informed. It does not guarantee unbiased editors. It can exclude unbiased editors. There appears to be an assumption here that uninvolvement is a panacea. Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
After moving this to where it was supposed to be in the first place:(prev 2 edits)
I give never moral support to punishment; only prevention, contrition, and restitution. In lieu of a system supporting those, I support one year topic bans.
There is an issue of how behaviour that occurred prior to this probation is to be treated.
I have evidence of one editor doing 40 deletions of SP talk page sections. Another doing 18 nonconsecutive edits to the main article. And a third doing 13 nonconsecutive edits to the main article on the same day that he noted that a fourth editor had done 5 edits that day, in a discussion about the blocking of the fourth editor, who has since gone elsewhere.
I assume I should deal with these in another place, but the point is, these will not be dealt with retroactively, correct? Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I need a sanity check here, and I'm clearly involved and biased. This article was recently nominated for deletion, though the nomination was just withdrawn. A list of mostly unfavorable and completely unsourced stereotypes was the main body of the article prior to some major trimming as seen here. The list was then moved to the article talk page, with the rationale that it might be useful. Do we keep random, unsourced, largely derogatory lists generated by one user on article talk pages just because they might have the potential to be useful? If I'm being reasonable by removing the list from the talk page, I'd really appreciate another administrator coming in to help. AniMatetalk 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a terrible list. And I am not sexually frustrated. LOL. Seriously, it's not sourced, it's like a random list generated from the mind of DCvoice. It's not like it's very useful. Hell, I could create a much better list, without thinking. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps WP:3RR is where this should be as User:Deeceevoice has reverted the removal or attempt to collapse the list four times now. [3] [4] [5] [6]. He's also aware of this thread. AniMatetalk 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- What bothers me about the list is that appears to be something a 10 year old would create. For example, financial stereotypes aren't even addressed, which is one stereotype that probably has 2000 years of history and is quite notable. I find it offensive, but it is easily sourced. Nappy hair? Give me a break. Deeceevoice ought to be embarrassed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The only way I'd be embarrassed is if I believed all that crap. And, yeah. I said it: nappy hair. And financial stereotypes are addressed. But if you see something I left out, feel free to add it. As I said before, the list was stream-of-conscious and meant solely to start the ball rolling for an article. That's what it's there for. And while you're at it, go back to the article talk page and read my comments there as well. You might learn something. Oh, yeah. And while you're at it, if you're really interested in writing a decent article, you might also consult some of the sources I've posted. If you guys spent more time writing the article instead of worrying about someone improperly "editing" my talk page comments, it would be a hell of a lot further along right now.deeceevoice (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Archive the discussion and if people want to discuss each individual stereotype they can create new sections for each individual one. There's no point to a "here's twenty items, let's discuss them all at once" strategy. It's repetitive but it'll keep later conversations clear. Debate the sources at each one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion has just begun and doesn't require/merit archiving. The list stands as a suggested list of what to include in the article -- as is commonly done with the framing of any article on any other subject. It's perfectly legitimate -- and useful. If I, as an African-American, can write articles on Blackface dealing with "coons," "darkies," etc., or contribute to articles treating subject matter like Nigger, Mammy, lynchings, etc., then other people ought to be able to stomach dispassionate discussion about the subject matter at hand. If not, then I suggest they simply move on to something less upsetting. deeceevoice (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editors behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Toxic"? That's funny, travb. I've merely stood my ground and justifiably objected to your repeated and unwarranted editing/hiding of my talk page contributions. I haven't done anything like, say, oh, visit your talk page and threaten you (as you did mine) -- have I? And whatever you may think of me -- I simply couldn't care less. It's not important. The fact is the article has merit. Need I remind you? This is about the project. deeceevoice (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wow, big surprise, your block log is even longer than my rich block history.
- Again, can I reopen the AfD, or create a new one? travb (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Utterly irrelevant -- and ancient history. Again, this is about the project. Try to focus, Inclusionist. deeceevoice (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Toxic"? That's funny, travb. I've merely stood my ground and justifiably objected to your repeated and unwarranted editing/hiding of my talk page contributions. I haven't done anything like, say, oh, visit your talk page and threaten you (as you did mine) -- have I? And whatever you may think of me -- I simply couldn't care less. It's not important. The fact is the article has merit. Need I remind you? This is about the project. deeceevoice (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editors behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion has just begun and doesn't require/merit archiving. The list stands as a suggested list of what to include in the article -- as is commonly done with the framing of any article on any other subject. It's perfectly legitimate -- and useful. If I, as an African-American, can write articles on Blackface dealing with "coons," "darkies," etc., or contribute to articles treating subject matter like Nigger, Mammy, lynchings, etc., then other people ought to be able to stomach dispassionate discussion about the subject matter at hand. If not, then I suggest they simply move on to something less upsetting. deeceevoice (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Archive the discussion and if people want to discuss each individual stereotype they can create new sections for each individual one. There's no point to a "here's twenty items, let's discuss them all at once" strategy. It's repetitive but it'll keep later conversations clear. Debate the sources at each one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The only way I'd be embarrassed is if I believed all that crap. And, yeah. I said it: nappy hair. And financial stereotypes are addressed. But if you see something I left out, feel free to add it. As I said before, the list was stream-of-conscious and meant solely to start the ball rolling for an article. That's what it's there for. And while you're at it, go back to the article talk page and read my comments there as well. You might learn something. Oh, yeah. And while you're at it, if you're really interested in writing a decent article, you might also consult some of the sources I've posted. If you guys spent more time writing the article instead of worrying about someone improperly "editing" my talk page comments, it would be a hell of a lot further along right now.deeceevoice (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- What bothers me about the list is that appears to be something a 10 year old would create. For example, financial stereotypes aren't even addressed, which is one stereotype that probably has 2000 years of history and is quite notable. I find it offensive, but it is easily sourced. Nappy hair? Give me a break. Deeceevoice ought to be embarrassed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps WP:3RR is where this should be as User:Deeceevoice has reverted the removal or attempt to collapse the list four times now. [3] [4] [5] [6]. He's also aware of this thread. AniMatetalk 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
[unindent] Wow, reality check on aisle four, you guys. I read this, and the whole time was thinking, "seriously?" It's not just the insane amount of drama it has stirred up- which is usually wherein the problem lays (lies? I dunno no grammar, I'm just a JAP). Here, it's the "content". A list of [negative] Jewish stereotypes is utterly unencyclopedic. Ignoring for a second all the discussion on the talk page and looking solely at that list- what possible use could that be to anyone? I'm not saying this shouldn't be discussed- but it's covered fairly well... and properly cited! over at Antisemitism. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Deecee has anything but the best of intentions and sincerely wants to help the project, good faith is not a qualification for the inclusion of material. The list is bad, consensus appears to be that the list is bad, content guidelines even say the list is bad... and Deecee needs to let it go. l'aquatique |✡| talk 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- zomg but ur jewish ur not neutral. But seriously; the list is pretty bad. Hence why my justification for voting deletion was "duh". Sceptre (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- As a young white southern Protestant American male, I find the list pretty bad. --Smashvilletalk 04:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that people are talking about "original research" and "bad" lists. I've just glanced at the list, and I saw entries such as Jewish-American princess, Shylock, Nice Jewish boy, and Jewish mother. Perhaps the people who are talking about unsourced stereotypes should expend their efforts not on edit warring over a list on a talk page but on addressing the entire articles in article space that we have on these things, and their sources. Some perspective is obviously needed. Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Textbook case of WP:OTHERCRAP. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a deletion discussion and the above is not an argument about deletion. It is, however, an suggestion to gain some perspective and focus on the articles, rather than on edit warring over a talk page. Have you not paid attention to why this section was started? This is the administrators noticeboard, and editors have come here to complain about an edit war on a talk page. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Textbook case of WP:OTHERCRAP. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Would somebody like to convince me not to just speedy delete this crap G4? I have reviewed the deleted revisions at Special:Undelete/Stereotypes_of_Jews that were deleted with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews and I am not at all convinced that this page "address[es] the reasons for which the material was deleted". --B (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- (paraphrasing my AfD comments): I can envision an academic essay easily, and an encyclopedic article without too much trouble (Shylock, South Park's Kyle, Woody Allen, Max Davidson... that's just the pop-culture crap off the top of my head) - but this article is not academic, encyclopedic, or even a useful stub. Seems to be Ms. DCV's reaction to an article on African American stereotypes - check the first edit summary, which pretty much solidifies this speculation. It wouldn't be the first time DCV has been a bit... headstrong, to put it mildly. The whole sequence of events has shades of American politics in 1984. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
If it's not already in the article, don't forget about the horns and stripes stuff. Also, are there pages for other ethnic stereotypes? For example, the joke about Italy anytime a war breaks out: "As soon as Italy heard there was a war, they surrendered!" And then there's the one about the Arab tank and the Israeli tank colliding. Tell me if you've heard that one before. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- So it was the 1967 war, and these two tanks collided, and the Arab jumped out and said, "I surrender!" and the Israeli stayed in his tank and cried, "Whiplash! Whiplash!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar...the minister ducked. --Smashvilletalk 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Jesus saves. Moses invests." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- And these are all funny how? So, we can make Jewish jokes, because of what reason? Please explain. Replace the Jewish reference with "black" or "African American", everyone would have been blocked. This is insulting. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Jesus saves. Moses invests." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar...the minister ducked. --Smashvilletalk 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- So it was the 1967 war, and these two tanks collided, and the Arab jumped out and said, "I surrender!" and the Israeli stayed in his tank and cried, "Whiplash! Whiplash!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I used to live in Alabama...my roommate introduced me to his girlfriend, his aunt and his sister...I only met one person...badumbum...I'm here all week...tip your waitresses, try the veal...--Smashvilletalk 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that the pork chops might be a better choice for this particular evening...
l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that the pork chops might be a better choice for this particular evening...
In all seriousness...here's the thing about this article...it reeks of the sort of thing that would be on ED. --Smashvilletalk 05:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- So a standup comic starts a story: "Two Jews get off a bus..." A guy in the audience objects, "Hey! Why does it always have to be two Jews? Why couldn't it be two Chinese?" The standup says, "OK, two Chinese get off a bus. One turns to the other and says, 'So, tell me, Chan, how was your son's Bar Mitzvah?'" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I prematurely closed the 2nd AfD for this article. I reopened the 2nd AfD and merged the 3rd one into it, as someone suggested on my talk page, and on the 2nd AfD talk page.
- I will be very happy when this incident is all behind me, and I can return to helping serious editors save articles. travb (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The rationale behind your closure was solid. The rationale behind turning this thread into another Baseball Bugs yukfest.... not so solid. AniMatetalk 08:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see there are many "Stereotypes of..." articles, and I suspect they all have sourcing problems. Good luck with all of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The rationale behind your closure was solid. The rationale behind turning this thread into another Baseball Bugs yukfest.... not so solid. AniMatetalk 08:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Point of order: is Deeceevoice still on probation? The motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice was never rescinded. Sceptre (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that as well, but decided against bringing it up. These articles are all hogwash in my opinion, and getting them off Wikipedia is more important in my mind than any further sanctions against Dee. Besides, after her behavior on this and other "Stereotypes of..." articles, there will be alot more eyes on her. If issues come up again, we can worry about enforcing the ArbCom case then. AniMatetalk 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Like this? Ethnic_slur This is like a directory to surf through a number of articles, and a "things to do" list for more, much of which is apparently frustrating DCVoice, and all of which should give anyone pause, regardless of the "too pointy" argument.Steveozone (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban - needs outside attention
- Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After reading the findings in the case Sceptre linked, this kind of disruption is exactly what the case was designed to prevent. I propose as a solution, in accordance with remedy #7 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, "Deeceevoice is indefinitely banned from creating or editing "Stereotypes of ..." articles, or any similarly themed article which may be created as a successor." Deeceevoice explicitly stated his/her intention to create disruption - see [7] and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites. The latter is infuriating and shows in no uncertain terms that the purpose here was to disrupt. This ban is rather light, really. Thoughts? --B (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Given the comments in the diff cited by B, it's clear Deeceevoice knew what would happen. ++Lar: t/c 07:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The irony of Deeceevoice's stated intention for the creation of this article is that it is based upon a false premise, namely that "Black folks [are] the only ones on Wikipedia with a separate article on stereotypes". We actually have a number of such articles, several of which were the result of splitting Ethnic stereotypes in American media (AfD discussion) (the subsequent deletion of which has rendered all of these articles non-GFDL-compliant, note), namely:
- Stereotypes of African Americans (AfD discussion)
- Stereotypes of Near Easterners/Arabs (AfD discussion) which is now to be found at Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims (AfD discussion)
- Stereotypes of American Indians (AfD discussion) which is now to be found at Stereotypes of Native Americans (AfD discussion)
- Stereotypes of Latinos (AfD discussion) which is now to be found at Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans (AfD discussion) (I've just re-connected the history to fix a bogus copy-and-paste "move". But it's still not properly GFDL-compliant.)
- Stereotypes of Asians (AfD discussion) which is now to be found at Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States (AfD discussion), alongside Stereotypes of South Asians (AfD discussion) which was later broken out of it and Western stereotypes of West and Central Asians (AfD discussion) which was started from scratch
- Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites (AfD discussion) which eventually, after several page moves, ended up at Stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race (AfD discussion), where it was deleted (the current redirect being created later).
Stereotypes of white people (AfD discussion) was deleted for supposedly being a re-creation of it. It was created 1 day after the prior article was deleted, but the initial content was not at all the same as the prior deleted article.
- African Americans are actually far from being the only ones with these articles. Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly support I don't think someone should be allowed to purposely upset a bunch of editors to make a WP:POINT like this. I think any and all of these types of stereotype articles should be speedily deleted if they haven't been already. Racism and bigotry should have no place here at this project. This editor seems to go out of the way to stir up drama as shown by the difs provided. I would go as far as to say an indefinite should be applied if there is any further disruption. If I remember correctly from the last ANI with this editor, s/he used their talk page for WP:Soap and ranting. I know I am very upset with all of this right now so please excuse me if I am over the top on this issue. I agree in total with the comments made by others about this and esp. with the comments made by User:Orangemarlin. He was very upset too. I was furious at the comments made when he stated he was shaking "in anger". I'm sorry but this project is more important overall then to allow this kind of hatred to be allowed anywhere. Sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orangemarlin was making an ad hominem argument about another editor's user name, and is not without fault here, as evidenced by "What the fuck ever", "Fuck me", and "What the fuck ever", and edits such as "What a waste of fucking time" and "This is about as much bullshit as one can take" made in the same period. Yes, Baseball Bugs has been spectacularly unhelpful here in this discussion, and xyr contributions to a serious discussion have been most immature. But that wasn't a particularly mature response to them. And Die4Dixie was actually in the middle of a civil and relevant discussion with another editor before Orangemarlin stepped in and de-railed it with ad hominem arguments. Orangemarlin's responses to other editors in other (some completely unrelated) discussions have not been measured either. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly support - If this editor has been enjoined from creating disruption and has done so in the guise of this article, then the editor should clearly be at least banned from creating/working on articles regarding stereotypes. I find the current article to reflect strong anti-Semitism and feel the current the article on that topic sufficient. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support a total ban, given that Deeceevoice hasn't learnt from her history of disruption, but if that doesn't give, I'll be okay with a topic ban. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support In her quest for parity, dee has forgotten one of our core policies about original research. She wrote two offensive articles based on her perceptions, and edit warred to keep her observations in the encyclopedia. I actually agree with her feelings to a large degree, but the way she's handled herself isn't conducive to collegial editing. As an aside, I'm not sure this discussion is even necessary, as the remedy states that any administrator can ban dee from articles. AniMatetalk 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support (topic ban or long-term block / warning against disruption on such pages). The editor is deliberately provocative, and continues this behavior despite a block, ongoing dispute, arbitration case, etc. In other words, they are engaging in ongoing disruption and not being reached by normal warnings or blocks. Wikidemon (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given she was nearly fully banned a year ago, and her continued disruption here, I support a site ban. If there's not consensus for that, I certainly support a topic ban, which I think has enough consensus here for an uninvolved admin to enact. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The list returns
After coming off of a 24 hour block for reinstating her list onto the talk page of Stereotypes of Jews, deeceevoice's first edit was to reinstate the list, albeit with references.[8]. Some sort of action needs to be taken here. I'm quite tempted to enact the topic ban myself, but I think another longer timeout is needed as well. I'm too involved, but something needs to be done. AniMatetalk 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yesterday's block was for 3RR, not for maintaining a list of stereotypes. DCV is trying to use the article's Talk page as a workshop to improve the article, including collecting sources, and I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- When someone repeats the same revert immediately after returning from a 3RR block, there is something wrong with that. But regardless of that, [9] and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites demonstrate in no uncertain terms that Deeceevoice's purpose is to troll. --B (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a deliberately provocative move. Not only is the list unnecessary, it's offensive. I can spout a bunch of racist bullshit and then go find sources to back it up, but that's not encyclopedic. It's offensively bad original research and she needs to cut it out. AniMatetalk 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- When someone repeats the same revert immediately after returning from a 3RR block, there is something wrong with that. But regardless of that, [9] and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites demonstrate in no uncertain terms that Deeceevoice's purpose is to troll. --B (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've deleted the list, with explanation. It's certainly provocative and only serves to continue any dispute / drama / disruption. I did not have an opinion until now, but at this point I think a loger-term block and/or topic ban is in order. Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's back. I think blocking for disruption is appropriate at this point, but I think an uninvolved admin doing so would be best. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked for a week owing to disruption. I think a longer block should also be talked about now. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Indef block for disruptive editing
I count about 20 blocks on Deeceevoice that were not overturned. Per the section immediately above, I am blocking would have blocked them indefinitely for disruptive editing. Enough is enough. If they want to edit again, they need to show that they are going to change their ways. These revolving door blocks have not worked to control the extensive pattern of disruption. Jehochman Talk 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale got there first with a one week block. I'd suggest upping it to indefinite. Jehochman Talk 07:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support an indefinite block. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support the week long block, but the indef may be overkill. There's an arbitration remedy in effect that states dee can be topic banned by any administrator. Topic ban her, and let her get back to editing productively. If she chooses to break the topic ban, an indefinite block is always an option. AniMatetalk 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That case is three years old. A lot has happened since then. Modern ArbCom rulings have sanctions that last a maximum of one year because the Committee recognizes that circumstances change. Jehochman Talk 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If the remedy isn't enforceable, I'm still not sure I support an indefinite block, though I certainly won't oppose either. I just hate to lose a committed editor, and some of her work outside this area seems good. Still, she's clearly on a crusade and has been for some time, and crusaders make terrible editors. Meh - I'll let other editors figure this one out. AniMatetalk 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That case is three years old. A lot has happened since then. Modern ArbCom rulings have sanctions that last a maximum of one year because the Committee recognizes that circumstances change. Jehochman Talk 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support the week long block, but the indef may be overkill. There's an arbitration remedy in effect that states dee can be topic banned by any administrator. Topic ban her, and let her get back to editing productively. If she chooses to break the topic ban, an indefinite block is always an option. AniMatetalk 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support an indefinite block. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deeceevoice's lifetime contributions overview, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation AC probation, and block log for those considering. No opinion from me on the pending action. rootology (C)(T) 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support the indefinite. The editor comes back from a 3rr block for this same list and immediately goes to the talk page and put it back is looking for drama and disruption. An indefinite looks like the only way to make this stop already, enough is enough. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I also support an indef. Discounting the block log and the previous arbitration case, the hoopla surrounding this article merit a long wikibreak; adding in the block log, a ban is totally appropriate. Horologium (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support the indefinite. The editor comes back from a 3rr block for this same list and immediately goes to the talk page and put it back is looking for drama and disruption. An indefinite looks like the only way to make this stop already, enough is enough. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
Sanctions levied under an Arbcom case should be discussed here. The relevant remedy is "Deeceevoice is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. All bans and blocks together with the basis for them shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_bans_or_blocks" Those considering an indefinite ban may consider the middle ground of a year long block.--Tznkai (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have closed that thread because I think it is unfair to enforce a three year old decision. We can act as a community on the basis of the evidence before us. This matter does not seem excessively prone to disagreement. I'd support a one year block instead of indefinite, though I'd hope the editor would return sooner by undertaking not to use disruption as an editing tactic. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've unblocked Deeceevoice. I think I made a mistake. In talking with her and reading comments on her talk page from uninvolved editors, I believe she has been editing in good faith and given this, while there has been some disruption, I don't think a block would be called for unless this thread were to resolve with that outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether she is blocked a day, a week, a year, a fortnight, or anything else, the topic ban ought to be implemented. I don't care about a block personally - I care about stopping the disruption. A topic ban at the very least is necessary for that. (A block might be too ... but that's not the problem I'm trying to solve.) --B (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've unblocked Deeceevoice. I think I made a mistake. In talking with her and reading comments on her talk page from uninvolved editors, I believe she has been editing in good faith and given this, while there has been some disruption, I don't think a block would be called for unless this thread were to resolve with that outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If there is disruption at a topic from a given editor, I'd rather see a topic ban for that editor than a block. That's a general principle but it applies here too. Do we have consensus that there is disruption at this topic from this editor? Is it likely to continue? If yes and yes, then I suggest we implement a ban. If you (gentle reader) think not, please elaborate why not... ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall having ever had any dealings with User:CadenS before, but I am shocked at his/her comments about me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone and User talk:CadenS. Apparently my nomination of Robert Eric Wone for deletion, due to my concerns about BLP violations, is some sort of conspiracy to censor Wikipedia because I have an agenda to make sure that all rapes of straight men by gay men not be reported. I didn't even know, and do not know as of this minute, that Wone was straight and the people the article is trying so very hard to accuse of his murder without saying so, are gay. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is also enlightening. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I originally created a Wikiquette alert about CadenS but he removed my notification of the discussion from his Talk page without comment or going to the Wikiquette alerts page to discuss it: [10]. Therefore I felt the only alternative I have is to come here. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I have had previous encounters with CadenS and unfortunately I can't say they have been a net positive experience. As a newby I thought it was due to not seeing this project as an encyclopedia but these escalating experiences show a pattern when bundled with numerous editors who have now been on the receiving end of bad faith accusations and hostility, often centered on articles with gay victims or in the case of Robert Eric Wone, the alleged perpetrators. On the second ANI report there effectively was no action although CadenS was being mentored at that time and suggestions were made to avoid LGBT articles. We work with each other so antagonism isn't helping create a constructive environment. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- This speaks for itself. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I had been under the impression that Caden was topicbanned from LGBT articles? Was I wrong? // roux 09:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that was the direction the last ANI report was going but it dragged on long enough I think a resolution never occurred before the thread was archived. I had sought help with similar issues on Jesse Dirkhising but have had to walk away from the article instead. -- Banjeboi 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. He had voluntarily topicbanned himself to forestall a ban, looks like.. and then went right back to the same old thing. Passion is good, but his is spilling over into a bad place. Having nosed through contribs, I think one of the following is necessary, in order of preference:
- De facto topicban from LGBT issues, broadly construed, with a mentor who will work with him on some subpage of his talkpage to work through article edits and article tpage comments before he makes them. Revisit in three months to see how much he's progressed.
- Actual topicban from LGBT issues, broadly construed, indefinite.
- Number 1 would require the most investment from someone else. I'd volunteer for the task but I'm not sure he'd take me, as I'm a bit light in the loafers. On the other hand, that might be good for him, help him come a bit more towards neutral in his approach. Unfortunately, number 2 is probably where we're going to end up, as my understanding from what other people have said as well as from his contribs is that his editing outside of LGBT issues is very good, and these issues are far from new. // roux 10:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. He had voluntarily topicbanned himself to forestall a ban, looks like.. and then went right back to the same old thing. Passion is good, but his is spilling over into a bad place. Having nosed through contribs, I think one of the following is necessary, in order of preference:
- I've been too involved to be terribly objective here but if edits are good outside LGBT subjects then better to keep a good editor and encourage more of the same. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- If there is no damage to an article I'd leave it at a warning.Mccready (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's been damage and disruption as well as warnings. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- If there is no damage to an article I'd leave it at a warning.Mccready (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps a user RFC might be the way to go, rather than persistent ANI threads. I agree that the comments on his talkpage and the AfD are unacceptable. Black Kite 12:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced a drudging through and airing of past transgressions will effectively do anything but be a testament of shame. It's been stated edits outside of LGBT topics are fine. I suggest progressive topic bans if they can be logged similar to blocks for any future need. I would rather have a set-length ban knowing that future ones will be exponentially longer and also that the spirit of the ban is to encourage taking a breather rather than escalating. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've been too involved to be terribly objective here but if edits are good outside LGBT subjects then better to keep a good editor and encourage more of the same. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Please provide a diff of damage to an article. Otherwise I think this sort of escalation is a waste of time.Mccready (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be unhappy about just ignoring his behaviour, some action appears necessary. dougweller (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody is suggesting ignoring. It's important to have the evidence first. Can someone provide diff of article damage.Mccready (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The main issue here is not "article damage", it's editor conduct. Incivil comments to other editors are unacceptable (i.e [11]). Although if we're talking about articles, neither is edit-warring to impose your POV on an article ([12]) especially when it had been pointed out why your edits violate WP:UNDUE. The editor's previous edits ([13], [14], [15], and this userpage [16], show that CadenS has extreme difficulty preserving his good editing practices on certain subjects. He also offered to stay away from sexuality related articles previously ([17]), but didn't, as we see now. As was pointed out in the previous ANI thread by numerous editors, it is probably best if CadenS does stay away from such topics, as he appears unable to stop his good editing practices being affected by his POV on this issue. Black Kite 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree there has been damage to mainspace. I suggest a topic ban for a limited period which can be extended if necessary.Mccready (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support a topic ban as well. His behavior at E.O. Green School shooting more than demonstrated his inability to work productively and neutrally on articles related to LGBT topics. AniMatetalk 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree there has been damage to mainspace. I suggest a topic ban for a limited period which can be extended if necessary.Mccready (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The main issue here is not "article damage", it's editor conduct. Incivil comments to other editors are unacceptable (i.e [11]). Although if we're talking about articles, neither is edit-warring to impose your POV on an article ([12]) especially when it had been pointed out why your edits violate WP:UNDUE. The editor's previous edits ([13], [14], [15], and this userpage [16], show that CadenS has extreme difficulty preserving his good editing practices on certain subjects. He also offered to stay away from sexuality related articles previously ([17]), but didn't, as we see now. As was pointed out in the previous ANI thread by numerous editors, it is probably best if CadenS does stay away from such topics, as he appears unable to stop his good editing practices being affected by his POV on this issue. Black Kite 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody is suggesting ignoring. It's important to have the evidence first. Can someone provide diff of article damage.Mccready (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This is now at least the third ANI thread on CadenS, all of them started by different people (I started one of them ages ago). This is such a shame, CadenS has a lot of potential...if only he would stay away from sexuality articles (and stop the incivility). *Shrug* — Realist2 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- User:CadenS is not an incurably problemtic editor in the usual sense he is a good and rational editor. i interacted with him sucessfuly in E.O. Green School Shootingaffair whih was succesfulin resolvin the disputes. i belive that these repeated WP:ANI cases, while made in good faith i bleieve, is serving as a chilling effect to editors with non-mainstream views inadevertently. I reoommend that we allow the WP:MENTORship program and perhaps a RfC / or even a talkpage discussion to go forward rather than coming on ehre and demanding sanctions from adminstirators without trying any main discussion bases at first Smith Jones (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that his views on sexuality might be "outside the mainstream" is irrelevant, we welcome diverse thought. However, CadenS has shown time and time again, that disputes on sexuality articles cause him stress, which results in him losing him temper quite dramatically and unexpectedly. — Realist2 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "unexpledctedly"? really? i bleiev ethat all of ous have had enough experience with this fine editor to realize his buttons and where they are. the fact that we have repeatfully failed to accomodate him and prevent him from getting angr y reflects as much on us as it does on he. WP:ANI is for major incidents thar require swift amdinistrative actions (ie blocking, banning, warnings, etc). User:CadenS mitigating circumstances below for the fact that really, his problems if they exist are longterm editorial complications. as per precedent, we usualyl resolve these in WP:RfC or, drastically, WP:DR -- where you can work through the dispute resolution processes. going to WP:ANI demonstrates the potential for the minsiterpretation of the presence of WP:ABF & is an overreaction to CadenS's admittedly minor conflicts in the issue of homosexualism. If a topic ban IS required, it can e more effectively applied if there was the presence of other attempts at resolvng CadenS before that. Smith Jones (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- So it's everybody else's fault that CadenS can't remain civil? I never even worked with him before and have had no dealings with him, so I was shocked to see his accusations made against me concerning something that never even crossed my mind. How is it my fault that he is attacking me for having an agenda and trying to censor Wikipedia to cover up crimes by "gays against innocent heterosexuals"? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "unexpledctedly"? really? i bleiev ethat all of ous have had enough experience with this fine editor to realize his buttons and where they are. the fact that we have repeatfully failed to accomodate him and prevent him from getting angr y reflects as much on us as it does on he. WP:ANI is for major incidents thar require swift amdinistrative actions (ie blocking, banning, warnings, etc). User:CadenS mitigating circumstances below for the fact that really, his problems if they exist are longterm editorial complications. as per precedent, we usualyl resolve these in WP:RfC or, drastically, WP:DR -- where you can work through the dispute resolution processes. going to WP:ANI demonstrates the potential for the minsiterpretation of the presence of WP:ABF & is an overreaction to CadenS's admittedly minor conflicts in the issue of homosexualism. If a topic ban IS required, it can e more effectively applied if there was the presence of other attempts at resolvng CadenS before that. Smith Jones (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- it is NOT your fault that cadenS si considered incivil. however, the fcontineud failure by wikipedia in generla to use processes like WP:DR & wp:rfc is what causes these disputes to spiral out of contorl. There have been multipel WP:ANI threads about this eparticular editor to no avail whatevsoer. Clearly WP:ANI is the not the suitable forum for the resolution of CAdenS problem, yet for some reason we refuse to sto p to create thes things about him. . I think that your best best if this issue is really bothering you (and i understand that it is very rude thing to conjecture about a stranger) is to open up a WP:RFC/ that way everyone who is involved with CadenS can shar ether opinions and then the community can work together with CadenS to devise a solution that will benefit the encyclopedia and everyone who edits in it. The alternative is to have a WP:ANI thread every few weeks that resolves in nothing but hard feelings and rage Smith Jones (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that his views on sexuality might be "outside the mainstream" is irrelevant, we welcome diverse thought. However, CadenS has shown time and time again, that disputes on sexuality articles cause him stress, which results in him losing him temper quite dramatically and unexpectedly. — Realist2 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- User:CadenS is not an incurably problemtic editor in the usual sense he is a good and rational editor. i interacted with him sucessfuly in E.O. Green School Shootingaffair whih was succesfulin resolvin the disputes. i belive that these repeated WP:ANI cases, while made in good faith i bleieve, is serving as a chilling effect to editors with non-mainstream views inadevertently. I reoommend that we allow the WP:MENTORship program and perhaps a RfC / or even a talkpage discussion to go forward rather than coming on ehre and demanding sanctions from adminstirators without trying any main discussion bases at first Smith Jones (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- CadenS presents the issues of a trauma victim. It is not the business of Wikipedia to accomodate nor treat his issues. Before this latest ANI concerning CadenS' behaviour I had posted an opinion that adoption should in hindsight not have occurred and I predict that the Mentorship proposed by Smith Jones would be no remedy either. That is because Mentorship looks similar to Adoption, and Mentorship would explicitly give CadenS the expectation that his mentor should act as an advocate for the protégé. (link fixed) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- CadenS clearly has some personal issues that make editing in any area even tangentially related to sexuality problematic. Clearly until he can show some civility and restraint in those areas, he shouldn't be editing in them. However, his work on American soccer, celebrities, and music seem absolutely fine. I really think a topic ban is the way to go here, as an RfC or any other steps in dispute resolution might only serve to inflame a clearly combustible editor. AniMatetalk 19:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- CadenS presents the issues of a trauma victim. It is not the business of Wikipedia to accomodate nor treat his issues. Before this latest ANI concerning CadenS' behaviour I had posted an opinion that adoption should in hindsight not have occurred and I predict that the Mentorship proposed by Smith Jones would be no remedy either. That is because Mentorship looks similar to Adoption, and Mentorship would explicitly give CadenS the expectation that his mentor should act as an advocate for the protégé. (link fixed) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note that CadenS was notified about this ANI thread here. — Becksguy (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
comment ** it is feasible to prospect that CadenS has yet to log in. Smith Jones (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Adopter here. CadenS and I entered into an adoption arrangement about half a year ago in response to a similar dispute. As his adopter, I made it clear then that I would mentor him and, if necessary, occasionally act as his advocate, but not be a "get-out-of-jail-free" card or a shield. Since then, I think there has been some slight improvement in his interactions with others. Unfortunately, though, CadenS continues to see "political correctness" and POV in other editors' actions, and is very outspoken about it. Despite my repeated advice to assume good faith, he does not heed it, or will apologize but eventually go back to the same behavior. In light of this, I am forced to conclude that my adoption has been insufficient. While this particular recent incident doesn't seem worth a topic ban by itself, Caden's history leads me to conclude that if a topic ban on sexuality-related topics is not enforced, the same sort of incident will occur over and over, and will be a drain on the project. Don't get me wrong; Caden's work in other topics has been, on the whole, good, and we appreciate him for that. But his personal history has, not through any fault of his own, been problematic in the area of sexuality. Roux's option #2 seems like the only workable solution at this point, though a combination of #1 and #2 would probably be best: actual topic ban, with Caden being able to request a trusted editor to make an edit for him. Both Banjeboi and I appear to be open to that role, but both of us would probably have a problem with many edits he suggested. -kotra (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think we need to ensure something is done this time, instead of it falling into the archive again. Is it just me or are most the people involved in this discussion not actually admins? Could more admins please read this thread. — Realist2 03:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- This ANI was not necessary. I would like to make clear that I never worked on homosexual articles as some editors above are accusing me of. I have zero interest in those topics. I did work on some sexuality type like articles and some of those did involve a crime committed by homosexuals. However, both rape and murder are not homosexual subjects and so I am surprised that several editors (Benji and Roux) could call it that. Crime has no sexual orientation and crime does not belong to just one WikiProject. Furthermore, I disagree with a topicban on sexuality related articles. My good work on the E.O. Green School page which I saved and helped become NPOV, and my edits on the Jesse Dirkhising article, which again I made NPOV show that I can work on these type of articles. I do however agree with Smith Jones and I'm open to his suggestion for a RFC. On a side-note, Kotra is a good adopter and he should not be blamed for my past uncivil behavior. Caden S (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the AfD changes, this edit from CadenS served to seriously inflame the dialogue. While he is right--it's a crime article, not a gay article--his behaviour in the AfD does not approach the issue as he characterized it. Jclemens (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Er, just to clarify.. I never said it was a homosexual article. (What would that be, anyway? Articles in the same cats getting it on? I digress...) However, you do seem to have some sort of, let's say sensitivity, when it comes to aspects of sexuality as they intersect with articles. :::::I'm not sure that an RfC is actually going to create any sort of resolution here. You have been told many, many times what the concerns with your editing are, and I haven't seen anyone in this discussion (or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that) who has, for lack of a better word, 'sided' with you when it comes to your behaviour whenever sexuality gets involved. Or to put it another way... an RfC will drag on for a month, and will without a doubt result in the same answer: you being topicbanned from any editing related to sexuality, broadly construed. 'Broadly construed' would, in my opinion, mean both obviously LGBT articles, as well as edits that involve discussing sexuality at all.
- Actually, I'm quite sure that an RFC would do nothing that can't be done here in a fraction of the time. But if you're going to go forth with one, I'd like to suggest that you topicban yourself for the duration of the RFC, pending whatever the outcome is. // roux 09:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- One way to resolve this thread is if CadenS would voluntarily agree to a topic ban for 90 days from sexality-related articles. If he is willing to do that, he should put his agreement here on the noticeboard. If he won't go that route, then this thread might discuss imposing the same ban from sexuality-related articles as a community decision. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm quite sure that an RFC would do nothing that can't be done here in a fraction of the time. But if you're going to go forth with one, I'd like to suggest that you topicban yourself for the duration of the RFC, pending whatever the outcome is. // roux 09:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Er, just to clarify.. I never said it was a homosexual article. (What would that be, anyway? Articles in the same cats getting it on? I digress...) However, you do seem to have some sort of, let's say sensitivity, when it comes to aspects of sexuality as they intersect with articles. :::::I'm not sure that an RfC is actually going to create any sort of resolution here. You have been told many, many times what the concerns with your editing are, and I haven't seen anyone in this discussion (or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that) who has, for lack of a better word, 'sided' with you when it comes to your behaviour whenever sexuality gets involved. Or to put it another way... an RfC will drag on for a month, and will without a doubt result in the same answer: you being topicbanned from any editing related to sexuality, broadly construed. 'Broadly construed' would, in my opinion, mean both obviously LGBT articles, as well as edits that involve discussing sexuality at all.
- Actually, if you look at the AfD changes, this edit from CadenS served to seriously inflame the dialogue. While he is right--it's a crime article, not a gay article--his behaviour in the AfD does not approach the issue as he characterized it. Jclemens (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- This ANI was not necessary. I would like to make clear that I never worked on homosexual articles as some editors above are accusing me of. I have zero interest in those topics. I did work on some sexuality type like articles and some of those did involve a crime committed by homosexuals. However, both rape and murder are not homosexual subjects and so I am surprised that several editors (Benji and Roux) could call it that. Crime has no sexual orientation and crime does not belong to just one WikiProject. Furthermore, I disagree with a topicban on sexuality related articles. My good work on the E.O. Green School page which I saved and helped become NPOV, and my edits on the Jesse Dirkhising article, which again I made NPOV show that I can work on these type of articles. I do however agree with Smith Jones and I'm open to his suggestion for a RFC. On a side-note, Kotra is a good adopter and he should not be blamed for my past uncivil behavior. Caden S (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well according to this post, Caden doesn't feel a topic ban is warranted. He also seems to have a different definition of "sexuality" articles. Would a topic ban be for any article involving homosexual people? Would we include sexual crimes in general? What about articles on heterosexuality? Could we have a clearer definition of where the problems are being caused? From what I have seen, the problems occur on articles that involve gay people and/or sexual crimes. It would be quite hard to make something voluntary when there is a conflicting definition of the scope. — Realist2 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Topicban proposal/discussion
- Yes, but that posting by CadenS also includes the phrase "My good work on the E.O. Green School page which I saved and helped become NPOV". Given that CadenS' "work" on that article was pretty much limited to edit-warring to remove the category "Hate Crimes", despite the fact that the defendant was charged with such, and then edit warring to include this completely unsourced BLP violation, it's unsurprising that he doesn't recognise what he's doing wrongly. I completely endorse a topic ban on all articles with LGBT-related content, because CadenS' editing is clearly not a net positive on them. Black Kite 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Black Kite, dude please be fair here. That dif you provide is wrong. User:Mrmcuker wrote that edit at 19:40 on October 1, 2008 and not me. He was reverted by Moni and I reverted her because I thought Mrmcuker had it sourced but I was wrong. I did NOT write that man. He did. Please don't imply that I wrote that BLP violation. Furthermore, I have never edited any homosexual articles from the homosexual wikiproject. Please could you stop accusing me of this. Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, you did edit-war to try and keep that section in, even though it was clearly unsourced. We are not talking about purely LGBT articles here, we are talking about articles which have a relation to LGBT (see comments below). Black Kite 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Black Kite, dude please be fair here. That dif you provide is wrong. User:Mrmcuker wrote that edit at 19:40 on October 1, 2008 and not me. He was reverted by Moni and I reverted her because I thought Mrmcuker had it sourced but I was wrong. I did NOT write that man. He did. Please don't imply that I wrote that BLP violation. Furthermore, I have never edited any homosexual articles from the homosexual wikiproject. Please could you stop accusing me of this. Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse topic ban: - to clarify on LGBT or heterosexual victim of homosexual crime articles for the sake of semantics. Caden's reappearance at ANI is disheartening. Caden did not in fact "save" E.O. Green School shooting or help it to become NPOV, unless one qualifies the pretty outrageous commentary on the talk page as helping (including his ceaselessly entertaining statement "let's all hang Caden upside down by his balls" in this thread). I added a lot of information to that article, along with several other editors. Caden did not. He has admitted having problems with sexuality articles. Wikipedia is not therapy. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Moni, you gave me credit on my talk page for initiating and helping the E.O. Green school article to achieve NPOV status. Now you're changing your tune? Regardless, I have no problems with sexuality articles. My only problem was and is the POV editors from the homosexual wikiproject who I felt were out of line and unfair with most edits. Furthermore, I never used Wikipedia as therapy. I resent you making such accusations. Please stop this.
Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also endorse, per Moni3; Wikipedia is not a place to pursue personal issues, and CadenS seems to be able to edit constructively elsewhere, which is where he should go, in my view. --Rodhullandemu 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse topic ban: - I don't think a "voluntary" topic ban, on Caden's terms, would/could work. I don't think the problems Caden has can be resolved by a mentor. This isn't an issue of age, immaturity or lack of Wiki experience. The restriction should be on topics relating to GLBT issues and all sexual crimes. He should still be allowed to edit articles on playboy and penthouse centerfolds. — Realist2 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse. Give him a ban,.let him refine his ability to work constructively with others, and once demonstrated with GAs, FAs, and the like, we can revisit the ban, in aperiod to be no less than 6 months from now. ThuranX (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse Caden shouldn't be allowed to make any edits that are even tangentially related to sexuality. He's clearly unable to do so from a neutral point of view. His wikilawyering above about the articles being about crimes rather than sexuality is ridiculous. AniMatetalk 20:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Question Is this the guy who, some months back, kept adding the point to various criminal articles about the perps being homosexual? Because that's what he appears to be doing at present. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse, and would also support some kind of civility parole. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. KillerChihuahua, you support some kind of civility parole? Look man, I admit I've lost my temper a couple of times and sometimes I was incivil to my fellow editors, but civility parole? Come on. Please don't treat me like some teenager by "grounding" me with a civility parole request. Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse topic ban for
sexualityLGBT-related articles, including crimes where the accused/perpetrator or the victim is gay. Robert Eric Wone is an example of the accused being gay, E.O. Green School shooting an example of the victim being gay. I recommend at least 3 months duration. I would encourage Caden to continue his great work in other areas of Wikipedia, and I think he will find it good to take a break from articles which surely cause him a lot of stress. Full disclosure: I am Caden's adopter. -kotra (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: changed "sexuality" to "LGBT" as per Guyonthesubway's comment below. -kotra (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC) - A topic ban might be a good idea, but we need ot set the parameters clearly defined and ensure that mentorship/adoption programs continue to funciton in the breach. For example, kotras point for a topic-ban for sexuality-related articles, including crimes is a solid idea as long as we make sure that CadenS is receiving the quality assuranace that he knows the parameters for which he will be expected to fall into compliance therein. Smith Jones (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- comment -- oh, and this bann MUST NOT be permanent. if kotra would be willing to monitor cadens progress there mighrt be a future point at which he might be ready for less supervisied communtiy restrictions therein. A permanentn topicban as oposed to one strucutred based on CadenS's behavior will not be of help and will serve to create a chilling effect and alienation. Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse complete topic ban on any article where LGBT issues are mentioned. Sexuality is a poor definition. A broader definition would remove him from articles he enjoys and where he is constructive (ie. playboy and penthouse centerfolds). Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse an indefinite topic ban covering all LGBT topics (defined broadly). I complained about an edit summary by this editor back in October that failed to assume good faith.[18] Kotra provided good mentoring but CadenS did not learn from it. I don't think it needs to be permanent - nothing on Wikipedia is. "Indefinite" is sufficient since it can be appealed like anything else. Will Beback talk 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse, with proposed wording below:
- CadenS is indefinitely topicbanned from all editing relating to LGBT sexuality issues, broadly construed. This includes but is not limited to:
- Any and all articles related to LGBT people and issues;
- Any and all edits related to the sexuality of criminals, and alleged criminals;
- Any and all edits related to the sexuality of victims of crime;
- CadenS may continue to use article talk pages to propose new edits to pages from which he is restricted, subject to the following conditions:
- He is to comment solely on content, and not on contributors;
- He is restricted to a strict sitewide civility parole for three months, with escalating blocks for infractions resetting the three-month period.
- Topicban and civility parole to be enforced by escalating blocks according to the usual progression, which will also reset the three-month timer for each remedy, according to whichever one he is blocked for. (e.g., a breach of topic without any incivility doesn't reset his civility parole. That's just not fair.) In three months, CadenS may ask for the topicban to be reviewed at WP:AN.
Yes/no? // roux 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (edited per Kotra's comments below. // roux 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
- Question a point of bclearingation -- is the restriction on "commenting on content, not on others" restritced to article talk pages on LBGT people issues/sexuality of criminals or crime victims or from ALL article talk pages? it is important to notice this so that he can realize what exactly he can and cannot do Smith Jones (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the grosser incivility issues are almost entirely restricted to LGBT-related editing. I would also move that the restrictions be permanently noted on his talkpage for the length of the topicban; it's kind of silly to believe that every admin is aware of every editor under restriction. Doesn't need to be huge and splashy, and I don't feel enormously strongly about it. // roux 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think 6 months may be overkill. 3 or 4 months ought to be sufficient. Also, just to be clear, "sexuality of criminals" should be "sexuality of criminals and alleged criminals", since this most recent incident had to do with alleged criminals being gay. Also, a question: if the topic ban is broken, what happens? If the only result is a resetting of the clock, that's not really a restriction; the topic ban could then be broken repeatedly without any consequences. -kotra (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse, if non-admins are allowed to do so. -- Banjeboi 12:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggested topic ban
I think Roux has it pretty much correct, but I think an indefinite topic-ban is a little unfair; CadenS should be given a chance to prove himself. His editing on non-problematic areas is generally OK. Also, I don't think a strictly defined civility parole is useful here; that can be dealt with via WP:NPA anyway, and it just confuses the issue.
- 1. CadenS is topic-banned for an initial period of 3 months from editing articles and projectspace pages relating to LGBT sexuality issues. This includes but is not limited to:
- 1a. Any and all articles related to LGBT people and issues;
- 1b. Edits to articles when related to the sexuality of criminals, and alleged criminals;
- 1c. Edits to articles related to the sexuality of victims of crime.
- 2. CadenS may use the article talk pages of pages from which he is restricted only to propose new edits to pages, and subject to the condition that he is to comment solely on content, and not on contributors.
- 3. CadenS is reminded to remain civil at all times in his dealings with other editors, and is warned that edits which violate WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA may lead to escalating blocks by any administrator.
- 4. If CadenS is unsure that any edit that he may make may contravene the above remedy, he is asked to first check the edit with his adopter User:kotra or any administrator.
- 5. After the 3 months topic-ban has expired, a further review by the community will take place to decide whether the sanction should be lifted or extended.
Unless anyone has any major objections to this, I propose to enact this later today. Black Kite 15:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not convinced that such detailed sexuality focussed regulation of CadenS is our best option. In a few interactions with CadenS I have found us agreeing on some sexually related content. His behavioral failures are grossly incivil outbursts against what he has seen as "biased editors who use one policy after another to mask their true motives". (a bon mot to add at WP:ABF, oui? ). He makes no secret of his own social conservatism but that is fine by me. Long ago I suggested to Kotra a list of topics that should not be discussed with CadenS. (Kotra disagreed and the list seems to have vanished from CadenS' talk page. It would be nice if it can be found again.) It would be heartwarming if CadenS agreed unreservably here and now to be held accountable to such a list. Possibly CadenS would see benefit in being given such a list to use as his justification for refusing to be drawn into these kinds of conflicts. CadenS, you must think seriously about this. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully other issues are covered by points 2 and 3 above. Black Kite 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I searched the history of User talk:CadenS and unfortunately couldn't find any list added by you. I'm sorry to say I don't actually remember it, either. This is due to my poor memory... unfortunately though this means I cannot comment on whether the list would be a good idea. -kotra (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Kotra, thank you for searching. I now remember (blushes) naming the list during our exchange on YOUR page last June. It went like this:
- Cuddlyable3 :...I think we agree that broaching with CadenS such themes as homosexuality, sexual politics, religion or the grounds for complaints about his behavior is unproductive.
- Kotra: I think those topics (other than "grounds for complaints") would be unproductive to discuss with anyone on Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a forum). I wouldn't say they should be avoided for sensitivity reasons,... Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I remember this now. Yes, I think it's general good advice to avoid discussing such topics in Wikipedia (due to WP:NOTFORUM), but I don't think it needs any specific consideration here as long as we have this topic ban. I think the topic ban should take care of things. -kotra (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse the version of the topic ban proposed by User:Black Kite just above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably notSufficient, I endorse - Personally, I've always found that the majority of his disruption occurs on the article talk page (be it, removing "pov" project tags, accusations of political bias, lack of AGF, random outbursts, blanking comments, I believe there was even edit warring over archiving discussions). I would say his disruption to the actual articles is the lesser of the two evils. The ban should extend to the talk pages and AfD's. Other than that, I support the proposal. — Realist2 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)- Added "..and projectspace pages" to point 1. Reworded point 2 to make the talkpage issues clearer. Black Kite 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the second and third main bullets address this: they say he can use talk pages only as long as he comments on content, not contributors, and he is reminded to stay civil. Assuming he follows those two conditions, there shouldn't be any problems with him commenting on article talk pages. If it turns out to not be sufficient, we can revisit this. -kotra (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think this could work now. Also, could a copy of these restrictions be placed somewhere easy to find. They aren't the easiest guidelines to follow or remember. It makes it easier for Caden to find them and saves others trolling through the ANI archives, trying to remember what he is/isn't allowed to do. Makes it easier to spot a violation etc. — Realist2 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll create a subpage in CadenS' userspace to put them. Black Kite 20:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think this could work now. Also, could a copy of these restrictions be placed somewhere easy to find. They aren't the easiest guidelines to follow or remember. It makes it easier for Caden to find them and saves others trolling through the ANI archives, trying to remember what he is/isn't allowed to do. Makes it easier to spot a violation etc. — Realist2 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the second and third main bullets address this: they say he can use talk pages only as long as he comments on content, not contributors, and he is reminded to stay civil. Assuming he follows those two conditions, there shouldn't be any problems with him commenting on article talk pages. If it turns out to not be sufficient, we can revisit this. -kotra (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse this version (Roux's updated version is good too). -kotra (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse Caden's edits, outside of LGBT issues, are civil and productive and he is otherwise a net asset to Wikipedia. I would hate to see him get discouraged as I think he can be a good editor. However, some LGBT issues are apparently hot button items for him and it might be a good idea to take a vacation from those articles for a while. Three months seems reasonable. Disclosure: Caden and I interacted mostly over the E.O. Green School shooting article. — Becksguy (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse Black Kite's version. More nuanced than mine. //roux 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have some reservations. Actually, one reservation. CadenS has been most disruptive on article talk pages. Some of his comments about victims or alleged perpetrators of crime that are LGBT show a deep prejudice that often makes the article talk pages feel toxic. I support this in general, but I'n still not sure this goes far enough. AniMatetalk 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Enacted
- CadenS notified and a copy created at User:CadenS/topicban. Black Kite 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Something simply must be done about the IP socks of User:Ragusino and User:Luigi 28 (i.e. User:PIO), which are stirring up trouble on dozens of articles for weeks now. User:Ragusino is indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, block evasion and violations of WP:HARASS [19]. User:Luigi 28, aka User:PIO, is also indeffed for edit-warring and personal attacks [20]. The IPs of User:Ragusino usually start with 191.**.**.**, pr 190.**.**.**, but also sometimes with 200.**.**.**, while those of User:Luigi 28 start with 151.**.**.**. Further information about their IP range should be readily available from their edits on the myriad articles and talkpages they've been trying to deface over the weeks. Around 15 or more articles and article talkpages have been semi-protected due to this problem, among others:
- Antonio Bajamonti
- Brno Kabudžić
- House of Pucić
- House of Bondić/Bonda
- House of Gundulić/Gondola
- House of Getaldić/Ghetaldi
- House of Sorkočević/Sorgo
- List of Ragusans
- Dalmatian Italians
- Zadar
- Bombing of Zadar in World War II
- Autonomist Party
- House of Božidarević/Bosdari
- House of Natali
(The protected talkpages are not included)
This method has been largely unsuccessful as the IPs simply move to other articles or wait until the protection expires and continue with their disruption. To top it all off, they've forced admins to semi-protect a number of article talkpages because of their new hobby: posting personal information and attacks about me all over Wikipedia (see User:Ragusino edits in article history: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25], etc.,etc...). This took place all the time on my talkpage until it was semi-protected [26], now the personal attacks appear everywhere. With many articles protected they've even resorted to personal attacks on any article or talkpage I happen to edit, no matter how unrelated (such as Talk:Croatian American [27]).
Even as we speak these users continue their disruption, and do not show signs of giving up. Apparently secure in the belief that they cannot be stopped, they've made it their daily routine to disrupt articles and harass users on Wiki. In my personal opinion, something must be done, and after weeks and months of this few options remain save a range-block. I'm sure any help would be appreciated both by me, and by the increasingly large number of editors forced to revert on a daily basis. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, these ranges look to big to rangeblock to me - it'd be at least three /16 ranges for the main culprits even without looking at the others, and that's a lot of collateral damage. The 151.48.x.x range, for example, also has a lot of recent productive edits. I think semi-ing the articles until they get bored is the best idea for the time being, unfortunately. Black Kite 15:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Damage is exactly what I'm hoping we can prevent: constant day-to-day damage on dozens of articles. Based on my previous experiences over the last few months, I dare say that these IPs simply will not get bored of their disruption (at least not in the coming months). The reason is that they're active on itWiki and "plan their moves" there. They discuss these issues and whine about how they've been banned, then they simply move on to their daily routine of trying to revert so many articles until one of them is forgotten. This has been going on for weeks and months, and even today we have Ragusino disruptions to speak of [28] [29] [30] [31]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The amount of disruption is really getting out of proportion, these guys do not stop. Is a temporary range block available as a deterrent option in cases like this? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've issued four rangeblocks (three for Ragusino IPs and one for PIO) and blocked Ragusino's other socks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks loads for your effort, a lot of users can now put this ugly matter to rest. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have a sudden urge to go to an Italian restaurant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The amount of disruption is really getting out of proportion, these guys do not stop. Is a temporary range block available as a deterrent option in cases like this? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Damage is exactly what I'm hoping we can prevent: constant day-to-day damage on dozens of articles. Based on my previous experiences over the last few months, I dare say that these IPs simply will not get bored of their disruption (at least not in the coming months). The reason is that they're active on itWiki and "plan their moves" there. They discuss these issues and whine about how they've been banned, then they simply move on to their daily routine of trying to revert so many articles until one of them is forgotten. This has been going on for weeks and months, and even today we have Ragusino disruptions to speak of [28] [29] [30] [31]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Editor creates 100,000 or more non-notable articles!
This editor, user:Carlossuarez46, appears to be methodically creating many tens of thousands of articles that contain minimal or no content. They are simply stubs for place names.
Take here for example [32] - it is one of the several hundred settlements in the Lachin region of Azerbaijan that he has recently created articles for. Click onto any of the other place names listed for Lachin to see that the vast majority are empty articles containing nothing more than a single sentence. It is the same for tens of thousands of similar articles on settlements in Azerbaijan and Armenia that he has recently created. He appears to be using country gazetteers containing lists of settlements to create articles for every place-name in existence, without any thought about whether a Wikipedia article is really required for those places - the vast majority of them are (and always will be) without any notability.
The editor mentioned is not alone in doing this, but he may be the most prolific and he appears to be going through every country in alphabetical order (he has already done all the "A"s and most of the "B"s). Is it correct that Wikipedia should become an A-Z gazetteer containing an entry for every single village or hamlet in the World? Meowy 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
If we can have entries for places like Holder, Illinois, and Bill, Wyoming, then pretty much anyplace having a structure with a roof on it is fair game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Basically, yes. While there is no accepted notability guideline for settlements, WP:AFDP#Places agrees with Bugs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bill, Wyoming: "The new development more than doubled the population to 11 people in two years". I know of single houses with more inhabitants than that, I can't get an article on 256b Acacia Avenue though. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, does this mean my garden shed is noteable!? Jtrainor (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- My south terrace can be seen in the satellite view of GoogleMaps. Does that make it notable enough for a stub? Oh. Wait. I get it, there's already an article about the city in which that terrace can be found. Meanwhile, if that terrace was here and six people lived in two dwellings on either side of it, a stub about this wouldn't be so crazy at all. Whichever way the community goes on this is ok with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Try 2 million more like. Permastubs are the future. MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Another useful link is WP:OUTCOMES, which indicates that articles about villages tend to survive AfD. Otherwise, this situation doesn't require any immediate admin intervention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm just too traditional, but for me an article should not be just a single sentence stating the blindingly obvious (settlement X is a village in country A). If that is all there is to say about a place, then there should not be an article on it! I think these hundreds of thousands (or millions) of near-empty articles makes Wikipedia a bit of a joke. Whatever, it's probably just a cunning plan by He Who Cannot Be Named to bump up the daily count of newly-created Wikipedia articles because their numbers have been going down compared to past years. And maybe also an even more cunning plan to eventually sell advertising on place-name pages. Meowy 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not to be outdone, I plan to create articles on all the possible combinations of 3 letters and numbers, or 36 to the 3rd power, figuring that every one of them is likely to be an abbreviation for something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm just too traditional, but for me an article should not be just a single sentence stating the blindingly obvious (settlement X is a village in country A). If that is all there is to say about a place, then there should not be an article on it! I think these hundreds of thousands (or millions) of near-empty articles makes Wikipedia a bit of a joke. Whatever, it's probably just a cunning plan by He Who Cannot Be Named to bump up the daily count of newly-created Wikipedia articles because their numbers have been going down compared to past years. And maybe also an even more cunning plan to eventually sell advertising on place-name pages. Meowy 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's obviously a conspiracy to bump up the figures for unpatrolled new articles, so that they can launch phase one of the masterplan. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I really hope he discussed it on the country- or region-specific wikiprojects or on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities. If the editors of a country want the criteria to include 100,000 places in that country, that's fine with me, but they should have the say-so, not one editor. There's WP:BOLD but if he did this on his own, he's going overboard. Have you discussed this with him? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know about that, but I don't think he did. Look at his talk page - he seems to be getting plenty of support, and other editors encouraging him to create even more articles. "Wow thats a highly impressive number of articles. Its almost like the bot is running as planned. How you generate them so quickly I have no idea but its faster than even I could do." comments one of them. About the Azerbaijan names, the same editor (User:Blofeld of SPECTRE) posted the disturbing "Well you know exactly how I feel about editors who try to get in your way. .... You can have my word that nobody is going to delete 4500 articles".
- The problem with the Azerbaijan names is that a good few thousand of them are in Nagorno Karabakh or in areas controlled by Nagorno Karabakh and so the place-names and province names in current use are often different from those that Azerbaijan has officially given them. So I'm sure those single sentence articles will be a cause of endless and pointless arguments for months. Meowy 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nagorno Karabakh is not a country - it doesn't sit at the UN - it is only recognized by Armenia - it's Meowy's real reason: anti-Azeri POV push. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The biggest bummer is that this is being done in a manual and more or less haphazard manner, with no community control over the information in the stubs. Had we allowed Fritpoll's bot to do its work, we would have much more useful examples of all of these same stubs. There is a lesson there, perhaps - when we as a community turn down a relatively reasonable request to simply allow good work to move forward, someone will later choose to do it anyway and without the same deference. Avruch T 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- You have recalled it wrongly. The bot was approved, on condition of the implementaiton of a whole supporting project framework, which would ensure that rich datasets were prepared to be processed by the bot, to then allow users to create 'rich stubs' full of content. You will have to dig out the deleted versions of the project pages to see why it failed. These one line articles on Azerbaijan I am pretty sure would not have passed the notability requirements of that project, although I do recall at one point that 'two references' was mooted as the bar of inclusion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The comment about permastubs being the future was aces! Anyway, I am thinking that a lot of new users might not really know how to use the tools (and increasing numbers of new users tend to be those folk somewhere on the bristly side of puberty). Working on the article for your hometown might be a pretty good way to get started. Of course, creating articles for those places without a lot of internet access kinda prevents them from developing into full-blown articles, but doesn't this partly address one of the flaws of Wikipedia - that areas non web-savvy get little coverage? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but since when does an editor need the permission of anybody, WikiProject or not, to create an article? Every inhabited place in the world needs an article, as has been clearly stated over and over again, for years now. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yet again, Wikipedia's flaws spin up something helpful. Time and again, the consensus has been that human settlements are notable. This is not that same thing as consensus for article creation by bots sucking stuff out of databases. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. The dichotomy here is between notability and usefulness. If the source database contained more than basic information, e.g. geographical coordinates, population, etc., etc., so as to give a reader something to work on, fine, but it doesn't seem to be so. And I have little hope that anyone is ever likely to flesh out this myriad bunch of articles with actual content, so in that regard we might just as well be a "list of places"; policy should militate against that, and perhaps it's about time we revisited notability of settlements. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I would also say that this crapflood of contentless microstubs is in violation of Wikipedia not being a directory. Consensus has ususally been that all places are inherently notable, but consensus can change- and if I were going to WP:POINT out how silly that opinion is I'd be perpetrating this exact same flood of terrible articles. Articles of the form "Blongoville is a village in Shpadoinkleland" are useless- anyone who knows the name of a tiny village likely already knows what country it's in and would learn nothing. They accomplish nothing except diluting our content, making maintenance a nightmare, and making the random article feature a cruel joke. Reyk YO! 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. The dichotomy here is between notability and usefulness. If the source database contained more than basic information, e.g. geographical coordinates, population, etc., etc., so as to give a reader something to work on, fine, but it doesn't seem to be so. And I have little hope that anyone is ever likely to flesh out this myriad bunch of articles with actual content, so in that regard we might just as well be a "list of places"; policy should militate against that, and perhaps it's about time we revisited notability of settlements. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- There would be nothing untowards about doing a mass AfD on them, to see what happens. However, I wouldn't think it would be untowards to let them be either, text stubs are cheap and thousands of them are likely to grow sooner or later (by which I mean, many years later). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could get rid of these somehow, but it's historically been rather difficult. I wonder, though, why we can't have a solution much as we did for schools or fictional elements which are not individually notable—a "list of places in" by administrative division. In many areas, this would be the county or its appropriate local equivalent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the stubs get minimal data from the World Gazetteer website, and another user linked the site on User_talk:Carlossuarez46 as a suggested place for that user to go. I decided to check a couple cities in China. Our Bengbu article lists a population of 3.5M, but Gazetteer gives about 600K. Our Changde lists 6M, but Gazetteer gives about 580K. Our Dongying article currently lists 1.7M, but Gazetteer gives about 310K. Our Foshan article lists 5.4M/1.1M, but Gazetteer gives about 770M. Why the consistent difference? Should we be using Gazetteer? Gimmetrow 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Off topic of this AN/I post, but in answer of above by Gimmetrow: This is probably like we're writing an article about New York City, but you're reading the population of Manhattan in the gazetteer. Many of the larger Chinese cities have a city center (Manhattan) and a number of counties (Queens). The population of the city (New York City) is huge, but the populatin of the core city (Manhattan, which many people consider to be New York City) is just a part. The populations of all of these cities is in the millions, but the core area has only a small part of that population, and may be called by the same name in English. --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not exactly off-topic. It's an example of why people shouldn't be creating these stubs without input from other people and multiple sets of data to draw from to create a page of useful info. Gimmetrow 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Putting the stubs in a project gets input from the other editors and multiple sets of datas. That's my suggestion for improving these articles and making them accurate. --KP Botany (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I dont mind Lachin region of Azerbaijan page containing a list of the villages there. But those village names should be all or mostly RED not blue links. Blue promises the user that they will find more notable information and not merely a time wasting stub.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Stubs are not a waste of time. Botany stubs provide a species name, its taxonomy, and, often, a common name, and a geographic range. This is useful information. I've worked in a garden, and this has for a long time been one of the most useful areas of Wikipedia: if there is an article, even a stub, it's a good start on the taxonomy of an organism. And there are a lot more stubs than not. --KP Botany (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I dont mind Lachin region of Azerbaijan page containing a list of the villages there. But those village names should be all or mostly RED not blue links. Blue promises the user that they will find more notable information and not merely a time wasting stub.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Putting the stubs in a project gets input from the other editors and multiple sets of datas. That's my suggestion for improving these articles and making them accurate. --KP Botany (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not exactly off-topic. It's an example of why people shouldn't be creating these stubs without input from other people and multiple sets of data to draw from to create a page of useful info. Gimmetrow 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Meowy seems to have problems with creating articles. This editor he hasn't discussed anything with me but made wide ranging arguments which are basically straw men and seeking drama here. WP is best served by having articles about notable topics than having none on the topic. If you think any of the articles are on non-notable topics, nominate them for deletion. As the critics have tried this before and failed, another attempt will be viewed as WP:POINT - as the prior attempt was - and likely earn the nominator a permablock. Why doesn't Meowy go ahead and improve the stubs s/he thinks are too stubby - not just those I have created, but the tens of thousands of others. Or is this the latest Meowy effort to push his POV in the various conflicts between Armenia and its neighbors. Does s/he want me delete the hundreds or so articles on Armenian places as well? Nominate those for deletion first if you really care to go down in flames on principle rather than as a POV pusher. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters violation of WP:OUTING
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is in violation of WP:OUTING. See [[33]] This is an abuse that cannot be tolerated. I request he be permanently blocked. Syntacticus (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, I'm confused - didn't you just deny being that person at the linked section, and essentially ask the user to Prove It? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- What? I alleged Lulu violated WP:OUTING. That's it. I did not dare anyone to do anything. Syntacticus (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Claims of outing should be taken to WP:OVERSIGHT for privacy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) Whether the claims are true or not, it is still a violation of WP:OUTING. — neuro(talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh and just noting - immediate thoughts are that an indef block is much too much. — neuro(talk) 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- We define outing as "posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". I can't see anything of this at the link provided. Sandstein 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, I didn't see the outing (I don't really understand where is is, couldn't find it on page), I was just noting that factual accuracy is irrelevant in WP:OUTING cases. Could someone point me to this outing (or non-outing), please? — neuro(talk) 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can't speak to remedy. I thought the only punishment was permanent blocking. Anyway, I just want this looked into, please. It is unacceptable conduct. Sandstein: I think the implication at [[34]] is abundantly clear. Syntacticus (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, I didn't see the outing (I don't really understand where is is, couldn't find it on page), I was just noting that factual accuracy is irrelevant in WP:OUTING cases. Could someone point me to this outing (or non-outing), please? — neuro(talk) 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- We define outing as "posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". I can't see anything of this at the link provided. Sandstein 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh and just noting - immediate thoughts are that an indef block is much too much. — neuro(talk) 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) Whether the claims are true or not, it is still a violation of WP:OUTING. — neuro(talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't look like outing to me. On a different subject, I was looking over Syntacticus' contributions, and I'm starting to wonder if there's a connection to User:WorkerBee74 and other sockpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sandstein: Here is the passage. It reads like he is accusing me of being Vadum. I already pointed out to him that the name Syntacticus appears to be in use on the web by several different people. Is he allowed to do that?
- >>>>>Despite your disingenuous ANI claims and all that, let's just stop the pretense that you are someone other than the very same "Syntacticus" who continually inserts references to articles by Matthew Vadum/CRC at Free Republic and Daily Kos... A belabored claim that you can shed your carapace and emerge as a whole different butterfly is not the meaning or WP:OUTING. Unlike you, I make not pretence of being "some other person" than the one I actually am (in particular, I give all my true biography right on my user page, and make no inventions about "gee, I must accidentally share an IP block with someone I have no connection with other than promoting his articles). LotLE×talk 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<<<<<
Syntacticus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- (outdent) Nope, not outing in my eyes. — neuro(talk) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought Fridays were for WP:DRAMA... ♪BMWΔ 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to point this out, but you're accusing another editor of OUTING. However, not only have you not asked for oversight, but you also just reprinted the offending area here at ANI (not providing a DIFF) where it would be seen by many many more editors. If this is actually OUTING, it doesn't seem like a very big deal to you at all, and it seems as if you're using it to have someone blocked who disagrees with you. Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the relevant article here is vexatious litigation. 02:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to point this out, but you're accusing another editor of OUTING. However, not only have you not asked for oversight, but you also just reprinted the offending area here at ANI (not providing a DIFF) where it would be seen by many many more editors. If this is actually OUTING, it doesn't seem like a very big deal to you at all, and it seems as if you're using it to have someone blocked who disagrees with you. Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought Fridays were for WP:DRAMA... ♪BMWΔ 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's get this straight. BTW I'm taking this from the diff you posted Syntacticus. First Syntacticus accuses LOTLE of having a conflict of interest and then reacts when their own potential COI is brought up. Syntacticus then comes here asking us to indef block LoTLE claiming that LoTLE "outed" him.
Now on the substance of the wp:outing violation: there isn't any in that diff. Why is there no "outing" there? Because LoTLE linked User:Syntacticus to another "Syntacticus" screenname - not a real name. To out some one you must publish 'personal information' and that didn't happen here--Cailil talk 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sandstein: Doesn't speculating about the identity of an anonymous editor contravene WP:OUTING? I thought it was a really big deal. Also, what is "oversight"? I went to the oversight page and I thought it told me not to leave messages there. Confusing. Syntacticus (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection question
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
// roux 11:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Matt_Smith_(British_actor)#Abuse_of_semi-protect --87.113.0.21 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Repeated violations of WP:BLP are grounds for protection. If you have something to add to the article, discuss it on the article's Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed with NurseryRhyme. I'm changing the header on this one, since there's absolutely no reason to accuse anyone of abuse in semi-protecting an article for BLP violations. Dayewalker (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't edited the article before but I wanted to.... I won't now, since obviously you regard contributors who won't submit a registration as lowest of the low. Whatever. And I looked in the history and I didn't see any messages about vandalism... --87.113.0.21 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Look deeper, it was there just before protection. I haven't the time to grab the DIFFs, but it was a good semi-pro. Feel free to register and join us! Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't edited the article before but I wanted to.... I won't now, since obviously you regard contributors who won't submit a registration as lowest of the low. Whatever. And I looked in the history and I didn't see any messages about vandalism... --87.113.0.21 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I explained the protection on the article's talk page. I think it was fully justified. VegaDark (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:POINT page moves
I have been working on plant articles on Wikipedia for a while. An small group of editors has issues with the plant article naming policy and has been edit-warring, gaming the system, and making pointed edits for a couple of months or so. One of these edit-warriors would like the article tumbleweed, which was a redirect to Salsola, a genus of plants that contain a number of plants commonly called tumbleweeds, made into the dab page, instead of the current Tumbleweed (disambiguation) page.
The editor made a number of edits today that included wikilinking common names of plants in the first sentence of the article to the article the common name was listed in.[35] I undid these edits, because it is incredibly irritating to click on a link and have it take you nowhere and provide no information. It is also not the purpose of wikilinking.[36] I repeatedly asked her to stop doing this.[37][38][39][40][41][42]
When she refused to stop doing this, particlularly while she claimed an on-going discussion on the topic that she had initiated, I made an article on tumbleweed, even though it was currently a redirect to Salsola and there was currently a discussion about making the page titled "tumbleweed" the disambiguation page without the word "disambiguation" in its titles.[43] As I state in my post, I was and remain tired of wasting time editing this editor's useless redirects.[44]
Now, she has moved the article "tumbleweed" to "Tumbleweed (diaspora)"[45] and announced, in seriousness, that since she created this article and all this extra work it was clear that it was necessary to have "tumbleweed (disambigutation)" at "tumbleweed."[46]
However, it is clear that User:Una Smith is going to game the entire process for whatever article name she wants if she is allowed to do so. She can find the talk pages, and she claims to speak English at a professional level. There was no excuse to not discuss the issue, to keep making changes that were problematic, and to then cough up and say since she's made such a large amount of work for everyone with her game playing that she's proven the need for a neologism in an article issue.
And, yes, I shouldn't have made the initial move, but she was not discussing the issue, and I got tired of making all of the corrections. She's the one who directed the articles to tumbleweed, refused to stop doing it, and it is a title she was saying she didn't want. I couldn't understand why she would wikilink articles to a title she was disputing, until she posted her smug little comment that now that she has wasted so much of other editors' time, she has proved the need for the article titles the way she wanted in the first place.[47]
I ask that her tenditiotious WP:POINT making be stopped in its tracks. Interested editors can decide what to call these articles at WP:Plant, or on the article talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- KP Botany is harassing me. --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- (Una) Do you want to provide diffs or just throw out a major accusation with nothing to back it up? To me it looks like he is reverting and discussing...which is exactly what he's supposed to do. --Smashvilletalk 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The "discussing" is increasingly ad hominem and incivil:
- (Una) Do you want to provide diffs or just throw out a major accusation with nothing to back it up? To me it looks like he is reverting and discussing...which is exactly what he's supposed to do. --Smashvilletalk 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at KP Botany's contributions for today, I see this editor being hostile toward several other contributors, not just toward me. --Una Smith (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- These diffs do show that I have been trying to work with you no matter how outrageously you've ignored that. However, at that time I really thought this was about the tumbleweeds article, not about your attempt to change Wikipedia disambiguation of primary topic pages. Taking in that light, it will be useful for other editors here to see what you've been doing to editors who've been simply thinking they were working on articles, creating an encyclopedia, while you've been forum shopping to try to change a guideline you don't like, and now you're going after editors who stand in your way.[59][60][61] A
- Just like the claims of my "harassing" you above, no diffs, except the one of you posting to my talk page in what actually looks like an attempt to harass me after this AN/I started.
- It doesn't matter, Una, none of this will mean that you can change editing guidelines without consulting the community. --KP Botany (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I responded to KP Botany's posts on my talk page; I did not see most of KP's posts on other pages until later. I do not watch every page I edit. --Una Smith (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are these the diffs that show supposed harassment, ad hominem attacks and incivility? Because there is none of that in any of them. You seem to have disagreement confused with harassment. --Smashvilletalk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I did not use the word "attack"; the diffs I provided above show KP Botany's extensive use of ad hominem remarks to me. I omitted the ones about me, but those are incivil too. This ANI too appears intended to harass. --Una Smith (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are these the diffs that show supposed harassment, ad hominem attacks and incivility? Because there is none of that in any of them. You seem to have disagreement confused with harassment. --Smashvilletalk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I responded to KP Botany's posts on my talk page; I did not see most of KP's posts on other pages until later. I do not watch every page I edit. --Una Smith (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- This happened to catch my eye as I was passing... If the name of that page was really supposed to be "Tumbleweed (diaspora)" (and "diaspore" isn't some botany term, since I'm completely unfamiliar with botany) then it seems to me that Una Smith has some explaining to do because that seems pretty clearly an act that would disrupt Wikipedia. Potentially an act backed by good faith, of course, but I do find it suspicious that Una Smith's immediate response was to accuse KP Botany of harassment without explaining what the idea was there.
- Though perhaps it's all a moot point as KP Botany appears to have retired from WP. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- diaspore is a biological term. Although the slip to "diaspora" has some amusing connotations in a discussion about page moves. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
For reference, this is not the first time that Una Smith has been involved in movement that was not universally considered helpful. Reference Weymouth, and this discussion Talk:Weymouth,_Dorset#Notability_as_a_guide in which Una argues that London should be a disambiguation page. Suffice it to say, I am not sure I agree. This matter came up because Una had made a move apparently without discussion, changed a large number of articles referencing the moved page to the new name, and then was rather resistant to going back even when there wasn't a clear consensus for the move. I may be confused but it seems somewhat similar to this case. For moves, it seems a bit of discussion first might be an approach that avoids controversy. ++Lar: t/c 06:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Previous AN/I incidents involving Una Smith:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive495#Montanabw
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive268#User:Akradecki_reverts_and_threats
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive268#User:Akradecki_again
- And an unfounded WQA, where Una Smith was also advised of her problematic editing:
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for the link to the Weymouth incident above. This is just User:Una Smith's attempt at an end run around the Wikipedia policy for primary topics being the name, and not the dab.[[62] But instead of debating the policy, Una Smith is individually going after articles, projects and editors all over Wikipedia. I believe this is called policy shopping. Unlike Una Smith, I have diffs:
- I'm in concurrance that there is a need to get Una Smith to stop doing this. Reviewing recent contribs suggests that there may well be other articles she may be doing this to... policy can be changed by doing things a new way, and then after consensus is clear, editing policy to reflect the new practices. But I'm not seeing consensus here. This may seem like just a content dispute but there is a problematic behaviour pattern here that is of concern. ++Lar: t/c 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I Lay Dying: I moved nothing. The idea to move the page is not my own, I merely facilitated by making the formal request; see Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation).
- Joshua Tree: I moved a page, someone else moved it right back again. Also not my idea to start with; see Talk:Yucca brevifolia. I got involved later, after disambiguating incoming links; see Talk:Joshua Tree (disambiguation).
- Tree peony: I moved nothing. It is a former redirect (one name) grown into a disambiguation page (several names) that developed from a requested move of another page by someone else; see Talk:Rock's Peony.
- Breeching I moved after soliciting discussion and waiting a while.
- Weymouth I moved first, without asking (my bad, in retrospect), but the move survived a request to move back and I disambiguated all the incoming links too.
--Una Smith (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You are proposing and moving to advocate your de facto change to Wikipedia guidelines in lieu of discussion. Thanks for making it clear you are doing both. I had not realized it wasn't.
- As I Lay Dying: Here you are proposing that As I Lay Dying (disambiguation) be the article on the primary topic page As I Lay Dying.[68]
- Joshua tree: Here you are, in a discussion about moving Yucca brevifolia (the scientific name) to the common name Joshua Tree, advocating that the Joshua tree (disambiguation) be moved to Joshua tree.[69]
- Here you are, after that discussion above was closed, requesting again that the move be made.[70]
- Tree and other peonies: Here you are moving nothing.[71]
- Here you are suggesting that the move she be made based upon "the vernacular name you know."[72]
- And offering google hits for the common name of a different plant.[73]
- Then suggesting that the primary title should be a disambiguation page rather than an article and stating you will create it according to your intention for primary topic disambiguation pages on Wikipedia.[74]
- But before you could do this, you had to move the nothing that you did above. So, no, you aren't moving nothing, you're doing exactly what you want: creating de facto guidelines instead of discussing changes in the guidelines.
- Breeching:Here you are proposing the move that you eventually made.[75] And preparing for it.[76]
- Here you are giving your reasoning for this move. It's easier to change links or something. Something you can argue at the talk page for the guidelines, not here, there and everywhere else.[77]
- And, after a little more than an hour of discussion, with a user who didn't seem to agree with you, you moved the page.[78]
- Weymouth: see your admission above.
Okay, so you've now provided links and articles clarifying a few of the many places you are attempting to change the guidelines without introducing a discussion of these changes. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weymouth -> Weymouth, Dorset was a particularly terrible move, and should probably be moved back. Clearly primary target, and featured article? Awful idea. Black Kite 11:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Weymouth move is but one illustration of a systemic problem with WP:RM: the page says that any potentially controversial moves should be discussed first, but the process rewards unilateral moves, as follows:
- If the move is presented for discussion, it will succeed only if there is consensus for the move.
- If the move is made unilaterally, and the redirect thus created is then edited, e.g. to turn it into a dab page or a redirect to another target (as with many of Una Smith's page moves), those who oppose the move have no recourse but to propose a move in the opposite direction. This will succeed only if there is consensus for the reverse move, not the original move.
- Thus if there no consensus in either direction, acting unilaterally will effect the move, while discussing will not. This has been discussed at WT:RM#Comments, WT:RM#Unilateral/bold moves and WT:RM#Speedy bold move revert section/proposal. Kanguole (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- That policy needs changing. The status quo ante should be the default outcome in case of no consensus, and first mover should not convey an advantage. Further, given the resistance to having the dab page be the primary, in case after case, perhaps some tightening of the appropriate guidelines is needed as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lar, I have been tracking all requested moves involving disambiguation pages and the preference is the opposite of what you say. Disambiguation pages at ambiguous titles are preferred. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Disambiguation pages. --Una Smith (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with that assertion is two fold... first, apparently you're sometimes moving things before consensus is achieved (consider Tumbleweed, everyone except you opposed the moves, so why did the move happen) and second your definition of what is "ambiguous" differs from that of most other folk. I again offer London as an example of a page that you would prefer be moved to the dab page. That's just not the common thinking at all. I think you need to let others decide what is "ambiguous" as your judgement appears to be out of step. THAT is why this is at AN/I, because you seem to not be willing to accept consensus. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, Tumbleweed was moved first by KP Botany, not by me. I proposed a page move of Tumbleweed (disambiguation) to Tumbleweed using WP:RM, and I will accept the result of the discussion on Talk:Tumbleweed (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with that assertion is two fold... first, apparently you're sometimes moving things before consensus is achieved (consider Tumbleweed, everyone except you opposed the moves, so why did the move happen) and second your definition of what is "ambiguous" differs from that of most other folk. I again offer London as an example of a page that you would prefer be moved to the dab page. That's just not the common thinking at all. I think you need to let others decide what is "ambiguous" as your judgement appears to be out of step. THAT is why this is at AN/I, because you seem to not be willing to accept consensus. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lar, I have been tracking all requested moves involving disambiguation pages and the preference is the opposite of what you say. Disambiguation pages at ambiguous titles are preferred. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Disambiguation pages. --Una Smith (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- That policy needs changing. The status quo ante should be the default outcome in case of no consensus, and first mover should not convey an advantage. Further, given the resistance to having the dab page be the primary, in case after case, perhaps some tightening of the appropriate guidelines is needed as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Weymouth move is but one illustration of a systemic problem with WP:RM: the page says that any potentially controversial moves should be discussed first, but the process rewards unilateral moves, as follows:
KP Botany seems to be confusing primary topic and "base name"; the two are not the same. Furthermore, this ANI seems, to me, to be nothing more than a trivial content dispute blown into an attempted user conduct issue. I find it highly ironic that KP Botany posted this ANI, because KP Botany is at least equally "guilty" of moving pages. See a list of 24 of KP Botany's most recent page moves, compiled by someone else here. --Una Smith (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, no one, not even Una has requested these page moves be reverted. The were moves to scientific names, which is according to current guidelines, and they're posted on the guidelines talk page as part of a discussion on the guidelines--posted by a user who suggested he post them for discussion, I concurred, he did. Thanks, again, for the link. These are, in fact, the exact opposite of what this thread is about. --KP Botany (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you bothered to read this thread? How about engaging in the discussion of your actions instead of brushing them off and accusing other editors of "harassment"? --Smashvilletalk 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This is silly. User:Una Smith has now just wikilinked the article Tumbleweed (diaspore) to Spore#Diaspores which gives an explanation of the necessity to use a microscope to see the spores, which, apparently Una Smith thinks are the same thing as diaspores.[79] At this point, now that she has established she's not reading this, she's not reading her articles, she's not monitoring what she post (as she says above), she should not continue with her editing.
This article makes no sense. It's title is a neologism, and is purely based on User:Una Smith's desire to create guidelines without debating them. She's creating pages with names she doesn't understand and linking them to information that isn't related, simply because she doesn't understand or isn't reading or doesn't care in the face of getting her way.
Tumbleweeds are NOT microscopic spores!
And, even she admits that no one thinks a tumbleweed is anything other than a tumbleweed, because the tumbleweed page she created is just a silly and pointless redirect to this ridiculous article name. Why can't user just read the tumbleweed article on the tumbleweed page, rather than being redirected to this neologism?
As User:Una Smith is too busy doing whatever she wants to bother answering the issue here, I ask that she just be blocked until she addresses the issues, and I ask that her silly, totally pointless, without any support from anything, other editors, botany, horticulture, page be deleted from Wikipedia. Not even she has put up any support for it--there is none!
She doesn't care enough about this issue to address the issue, and she had to make a redirect to her silly name from the primary name, so the article is just a game--the primary topic should not be redirect to some unused name she made up just to play games. --KP Botany (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I moved it back. There's just no point in this article name. It's silly, not even its originator understands it. Wikipedia's readers don't deserve this. And it's a monumental waste of time. I assume, at this point, it's just a prank to make a WP:POINT. --KP Botany (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I also put a speedy on the diaspore whatever it was. Una Smith offered no sources for that and seems to think a diaspore is both the macroscopic propagule and the spore, even though the propagule disperses a seed for angiosperms. It's not the least bit comprehensible. --KP Botany (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The spore article is wrong. A diaspore is a dispersal structure of a plant, microscopic or macroscopic (see this), and is already used in foxtail (diaspore). Admittedly it is not a common word, but it serves its need quite nicely. I do agree that the article is best called Tumbleweed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Curtis Clark is correct and I have fixed the problem by creating Diaspore (botany). Tumbleweed (diaspore) is an accurate descriptive title for the article. It can be argued that the page name is unnecessarily precise, except that the base name Tumbleweed accumulates incoming links needing disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The heading for this is wrong, and the description is wrong. KP Botany talks about plant article naming "policy" like the idea that he/she and a couple of other people came up with to name articles based upon obscure scientific names instead of their real-world names, per standard Wikipedia naming conventions is somehow policy. Not only is it not policy, it directly violates the actual article naming policy. As far as I am am concerned anyone who actually enforces the actual policy instead of ignoring it cannot be accused of making WP:POINT violations. The article on tumbleweeds should be at Tumbleweed per common sense and our actual policies. And, having interaction with KP Botany before, he's pretty aggressive in pushing his particular view onto articles, and he gets very grumpy when he doesn't get his way. It's not just a problem of WP:OWN issue with a single article, but a whole string of articles he and a few others have held hostage from standard policy. If he wants to change the policy, he should work on doing that (and good luck), but directly violating it and then coming here to complain about people moving articles to their actual locations is pretty bizarre. IF there are a few articles being moved that end up in the wrong place, fine, someone will fix them, but where KP Botany wants them makes no sense. DreamGuy (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, that is what I put the article at: Tumbleweed per common sense. In fact, I created the article "Tumbleweed" per common snese. Una Smith is the one who made up a name and made Tumbleweed a redirect to the made up name "Tumbleweed (diaspore)" in an attempt to change the policy about disambiguation pages for primary titles.
- Thank you for supporting my creation of the article Tumbleweed, and for supporting the common sense name I chose for it. Feel free to edit any article I create. Not only that, I actively encourage all editors to monitor my articles on Wikipedia, and correct, edit, amend, add to, or question my articles, as you will see on my talk page, and by my contributions, and comments to other editors who are creating articles.
- Again, thanks for the support. Tumbleweed is the only appropriate name for the article. --KP Botany (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Dri-i-i-ifting along with the Tumbling Tumbleweeds..." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Una asks for a copy of the deleted article at Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). --Amalthea 17:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I request that the article and talk page be restored, to restore their edit histories. I would also like KP Botany to disambiguate the incoming links to Tumbleweed. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article has not been deleted, it has simply been moved. What was deleted was the redirect created by the move. No one is searching for tumbleweeds under a neologism invented and used by a single editor on Wikipedia, so there was no need to maintain the redirect. The dabs were also taken care of, and, that, too, is findable by simply looking at what links here on the tumbleweed page. Neologisms are not part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "This page in a nutshell: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." You are the only source of information on "Tumbleweed (diaspore)". --KP Botany (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The dabs were not taken care of. At this moment they remain, there are at least 20 of them (fully half of all the incoming links), and they include:
- Cuisine of the United States (intends one of the plants listed on Tumbleweed (disambiguation)
- Lee Van Cleef (intends a movie)
- Bon Homme County, South Dakota (intends one of the species of Salsola)
- --Una Smith (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The dabs were not taken care of. At this moment they remain, there are at least 20 of them (fully half of all the incoming links), and they include:
- The article has not been deleted, it has simply been moved. What was deleted was the redirect created by the move. No one is searching for tumbleweeds under a neologism invented and used by a single editor on Wikipedia, so there was no need to maintain the redirect. The dabs were also taken care of, and, that, too, is findable by simply looking at what links here on the tumbleweed page. Neologisms are not part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "This page in a nutshell: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." You are the only source of information on "Tumbleweed (diaspore)". --KP Botany (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- But, in response to your request here is Tumbleweed and Talk:Tumbleweed. --KP Botany (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
At current count,
- Tumbleweed (diaspore) has been moved once and deleted three times (log)
- Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) has moved once been deleted twice (log)
Tumbleweed (diaspore) is a descriptive page name; it is not a neologism and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms does not apply here any more than it applies to Foxtail (diaspore). --Una Smith (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The only thing I agree with Una on in this issue is that Tumbleweed (diaspore) is not a neologism. It is, however, a very technical term that might not be best for a Wikipedia article (I was the editor who placed Foxtail (diaspore) at its current name, but only for lack of any better name that was accurate and not ambiguous.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Here, I pasted them to another forum where Una is making this request. Edit history of tumbleweed diaspore.[80] Edit history of tumbleweed diaspore talk page.[81] Moves bolded. --KP Botany (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tumbleweed (diaspore) has been moved once and deleted three times (log); Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) has moved once been deleted twice (log). The edit histories of those pages before KP Botany's move were moved with the pages; edit histories of those pages after the move were deleted. They may be insignificant, or not, but those pages are subject of this dispute, so let's restore them. KP Botany's tagging speedy delete of a page in the midst of not only a requested move but also this AN/I strikes me as disruptive editing. --Una Smith (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Tumbleweed links are still waiting for disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of relevant argument from talk page
I posted a comment on [Talk:Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis], arguing that the out-of-place mention of the Catholic viewpoint would be akin to adding a section on laws to bacon. This has been censored twice. How am I supposed to discuss the content of this disputed article when there are people butting in by deleting my argument? Spotfixer (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your 'comment' seems a little like an attack to me. — neuro(talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked Spotfixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks/incivility. He re-inserted the attack after I had given him a final warning for making personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incivility and personal attacks have continued after block, suggest extension. — neuro(talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's right, though. The Catholic thing is POV-pushing and is redundant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is AN/I the right venue for that discussion? — neuro(talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Probably not, or at least not yet. I'm also not sure what he got blocked for, i.e. his comments seem a bit peevish but don't seem like personal attacks, unless I missed something; but it's only 24 hours. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is AN/I the right venue for that discussion? — neuro(talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's right, though. The Catholic thing is POV-pushing and is redundant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incivility and personal attacks have continued after block, suggest extension. — neuro(talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked Spotfixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks/incivility. He re-inserted the attack after I had given him a final warning for making personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I struck the "resolved" from this, because this block really, really looks questionable to me. I just don't see a "personal attack" worthy of a block (or even a warning) in this editor's contributions. Spotfixer seems to be of the quite reasonable point of view that the Catholic church's position on various topics is generally of no consequence, and is adamant about it, but I don't see anything crossing the NPA threshold.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree. He wasn't particularly civil when asked about his edits, but I really don't see much deserving a block here, to be honest. And he's right about the content dispute, as well. Black Kite 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it seems it's now a bit more than that. Just view his talk page, after the block discussion, to see what I'm talking about.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- True. I usually give the receiver of bad blocks a little bit of license to vent, though.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a bad block, so he doesn't have any license to vent. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Funny, it looks like a bad block to me and two other editors that have commented in this thread. Would you care to point out the "personal attack" that you thought was worthy of a block? I've searched his contributions, and can't even see anything particularly questionable before you blocked him.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- See the user's interactions with others on User talk:Spotfixer, Talk:Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, User talk:Schrandit, User talk:Gentgeen. For example, Gentgeen (talk · contribs) warned both Spotfixer and Schrandit (talk · contribs) for edit-warring a couple of days ago. Take a look at Schrandit's response.[82] Now take a look at Spotfixer's response.[83][84][85]
- Your first point of contention when discussing this block, although irrelevant, was to point out Spotfixer's correctness. I'm not questioning his correctness in the content dispute. In fact, he makes good points and his contributions to articlespace have been pretty solid thus far. I just want him/her to discuss these topics with some civility. I hope that he/she learns from the block and makes even more positive contributions to the project. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt has, if you read his talk page, you can see that he thinks he has done nothing wrong. That doesn't exactly sound promising to me.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, he/she at least deserves another chance. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some of that I hadn't spotted, and I will grant that "bad block" is too strong. I'll still put it in the marginal category. I suspect that what's happened here is that a marginally bad editor with a point to prove has been transformed by blocking into an extremely bad editor with a crusade. Let's hope I'm wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, he/she at least deserves another chance. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt has, if you read his talk page, you can see that he thinks he has done nothing wrong. That doesn't exactly sound promising to me.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Funny, it looks like a bad block to me and two other editors that have commented in this thread. Would you care to point out the "personal attack" that you thought was worthy of a block? I've searched his contributions, and can't even see anything particularly questionable before you blocked him.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a bad block, so he doesn't have any license to vent. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- True. I usually give the receiver of bad blocks a little bit of license to vent, though.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it seems it's now a bit more than that. Just view his talk page, after the block discussion, to see what I'm talking about.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit War at Apple rumor community
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I have become engaged in an edit war with an external link promoter on Apple rumor community, and any further reverts by me would violate WP:3RR, so I am asking for assistance. The user making the edits has refused to engage in discussion over the issue, despite my having left an entry on the article's talk page and requesting discussion there in the edit summaries of my reverts. Interestingly, the user is unregistered and has used four different IP addresses in less than 48 hours, so leaving messages on user talk pages seems futile.
- Initial addition of promoting non-notable site: Diff #1
- My reversion of the addition: Diff #2
- Addition #2: Diff #3
- My talk page entry on the issue (Talk:Apple_rumor_community#Apple_Cafe ), immediately followed by reversion #2 with an edit summary pointing to the talk page: Diff #4
- Addition #3: Diff #5
- Reversion #3, again with an edit summary requesting discussion on the talk page: Diff #6
- Addition #4: Diff #7
Any help with this situation would be greatly appreciated...thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted and put up a request for semi-protection at WP:RPP. --aktsu (t / c) 11:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Great...thank you! WildCowboy (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I think an external link promoter would probably be a vandal, which invokes WP:IAR and makes WP:3RR irrelevant. DARTH PANDAduel 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Great...thank you! WildCowboy (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived due to collective failure of outside parties to actually help the situation.--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
His conduct on Talk:Stormfront (website) is becoming unacceptable, such as this, and this. I particularly take offense to being called a whitewasher and a bad-faith editor, especially seeing as I am currently trying to get articles to DYK, GA, and FA. OM has a history of assuming bad faith against editors (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, while vacated, had at least one arbitrator agree he has a not-too-sparkling history), something which he promised to cut out, but doesn't seem to have done (funnily enough, RFAR/OM FOF#2 notes he has a history of that as well). Can someone sort him out, please? Sceptre (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone's a little heated, but IMO Sceptre, its Stormfront for crying out loud, they're Neo-Nazi asswipes. That's NPOV as it gets, 'cuase it is accurate. Now, that's not phrasing I'd put in an article, but pleeeze, if you cannot handle people worrying, somewhat bluntly, about whitewashing when phrasing is toned down, perhaps it isn't the article for you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone else in that discussion is being perfectly civil, there's no reason why OM can't be. And it's not really the "whitewasher" label I'm worried about, it's the "bad faith editor" label. And yes, I know it's Stormfront. That makes NPOV even more important, because in cases like that, we have to find a neutral wording that also doesn't moralise. Hell, I'm all for saying it's Neo-Nazi, but not in the current "It is"+opinion (widely held, but it's rare that right-wing labels are facts). As Franamax said on the talk, we're trying to find a bulletproof way of saying they're Neo-Nazi. Sceptre (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Sceptre's behaviour on wikpedia has been quite disruptive recently. A series of editors, including User:Jayjg, have expressed dismay that Sceptre is questioning the fact that Stormfront has been labelled a "Neo-Nazi website". This is the second time that Sceptre has targeted Orangemarlin. He was blocked last time for 72 hours for making a personal attack on Orangemarlin. Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to put this is size 72 letters so I can get the point across:
- I am not trying to remove "Neo-Nazi" from the article.
- Jesus Christ on a bike... Sceptre (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Per the deadly puppy, Sceptre, maybe calm down a bit? Given your history it might be a better idea for you to steer clear of articles that can get heated. And putting things in 72 point really doesn't make you sympathetic. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I reduced the size for the sake of decency, but did leave it in bold... please don't do that, Sceptre, you know better. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why would Jesus Christ ride a bike? --B (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's analogous to "Jesus H. Christ". Sceptre (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The middle initial "H." implies that "Christ" is a surname, which is a common misconception. Surnames did not come into wide use until many centuries later. If you want to make a construction like the modern given name-surname convention, my understanding is that something like Yeshua ben Yusef would be the most appropriate construction. Then it would be Yeshua H. ben Yusef. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's analogous to "Jesus H. Christ". Sceptre (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying to keep calm. I'm just saying, OM's being uncivil, and "upholding NPOV" is no reason to be so. Sceptre (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, especially about the ad hominem nature of many of OrangeMarlin's remarks. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note. Una Smith is a disruptive editor on Medical articles, and has been put in her place by a number of admins and editors. Anything she says here is just a personal attack. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't Sceptre just come off an extended block for incivilty directed at OrangeMarlin? The problem here is more likely Sceptre's constant, long running harassment of OrangeMarlin at this page and elsewhere. Given that, this much is clear: It's time for Sceptre to steer clear of articles OM is editing and controversial topics. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Refactor that statement. I am not being compared to people like Amorrow for something which is little more than a minor annoyance, if that. Sceptre (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any such comparison. Sceptre, please! Someone can express concern about your hostility towards OM, which is abundantly clear, without you taking it that they are putting you in the same league as AMorrow. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- By being accused of harassment, I feel I am being compared to Amorrow. Wikipedians really need to stop throwing the term "harassment" around; it's highly defamatory and makes a mockery of the real types. That's why we renamed "wikistalking". Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Harassment is (loosely) being rude, nasty and/or (especially) accusatory to someone wherever you encounter them, which may or may not be combined with stalking, which is following them around to pages you don't normally visit. They're not analogous. And AMorrow is a real life stalker of extraordinary nastiness, not a garden-variety online harasser or stalker. There are, quite simply, grades or levels. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- By being accused of harassment, I feel I am being compared to Amorrow. Wikipedians really need to stop throwing the term "harassment" around; it's highly defamatory and makes a mockery of the real types. That's why we renamed "wikistalking". Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any such comparison. Sceptre, please! Someone can express concern about your hostility towards OM, which is abundantly clear, without you taking it that they are putting you in the same league as AMorrow. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Refactor that statement. I am not being compared to people like Amorrow for something which is little more than a minor annoyance, if that. Sceptre (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, especially about the ad hominem nature of many of OrangeMarlin's remarks. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why would Jesus Christ ride a bike? --B (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I reduced the size for the sake of decency, but did leave it in bold... please don't do that, Sceptre, you know better. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This is just a revenge ANI for calling me a Twat. He should be blocked.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, the RFAR should not have been vacated so rashly. Please stop with the calling for blocks and ad hominem attacks. Sceptre (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- OM, please do try to AGF, and cease calling for blocks. I assure you, enough admins read this page so that if a block is indeed indicated, someone will suggest it (if not simply do it outright.) A block is not indicated in this situation; blocks are preventative, and what you seemingly want to prevent is Sceptre complaining about you on ANI. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- [[86]] Removing civil ANI notices with summaries like this is disruptive, antagonistic, uncivil and show an incredible lack of good faith. Perhaps a direct word with this user is inorder. Edit summaries are not to be used in this mannerDie4Dixie (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Riiiiighhhhhtttt. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- [[86]] Removing civil ANI notices with summaries like this is disruptive, antagonistic, uncivil and show an incredible lack of good faith. Perhaps a direct word with this user is inorder. Edit summaries are not to be used in this mannerDie4Dixie (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- OM, please do try to AGF, and cease calling for blocks. I assure you, enough admins read this page so that if a block is indeed indicated, someone will suggest it (if not simply do it outright.) A block is not indicated in this situation; blocks are preventative, and what you seemingly want to prevent is Sceptre complaining about you on ANI. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who says 'we need less sources that say SF is NN' after years of requests for more cites, then says 'too many cites make it a lie', and just a couple cites will prove it's true, all in the name of making a 'bulletproof vest' style case for it, is being deceptive, disruptive, and is white-washing. In any situation where there's constant arguments about whether something is true or not, reducing citations is not the way to achieve it. And a site run by neo-Nazis, for Neo-Nazis, about Neo-nazis is a Neo Nazi website. People who self-identify as apologist,s as has happened on the SF talk page, need to be banned from editing such articles, because they are publicly disclosing a POV which prevents neutral editing. ThuranX (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To echo comments by KillerChihuahua and ThuranX, I agree that any outlook which could be described as "neo-Nazi" is so overtly sociopathic that I'd think most of us can understand how a good faith, thoughtful editor could be set off by anyone having even the slightest go at tweaking the uncontroversial and widely supported assertion: "Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website." Even if this wording isn't wholly enyclopedic, it's spot on and the murderous pith of neo-Nazism seems to trump any worries about that for most editors. Likewise OrangeMarlin's over-the-top reaction: The topic at hand is Stormfront, not Le Manège Enchanté. I re-protected the page because two editors, one of them OrangeMarlin, fell back into a straightforward back-and-forth over wording in the lead. I must say however, I think OrangeMarlin was edit warring for the talk page consensus. I only wish he had waited for someone else to make the second revert, which was bound to come. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
'Ang on for a sec then...
Well how nice, I forgot to check ANI for a few hours and it looks like my name is prominently featured in a diff at the beginning of a thread. The more fool me for having taken notice of a previous thread, looked at an article, reviewed several dozen external sources and trying to provide clarity and an outside look.
As it seems that I am a newly-identified racist Nazi-apologist whitewashing POV-pusher (traits of which I confess I was previously unaware), could I ask for a little clarification?
- OrangeMarlin, when you made an apparent deliberate copy of my post in your followup, were you intending that as a good-faith response to a good-faith post? Does your edit summary "What a waste of fucking time" accurately describe your intent? Do you have a basis to determine that I "apologize for the Neo-Nazis" or that I introduce "weasel-wording"? How about telling me to go away? How do you define the "NPOV editors"? The ones who agree with you, the rest being candidates for bullying?
- ThuranX, who said 'too many cites make it a lie'? Do you have a diff? I'd already commented that the multiplicity of sources could be due to previous requests for clarity, Gwen apparently agreed, Sceptre didn't pursue the issue, presumably because it was now made clear.
- ThuranX, when you decide there is some pretext for a 'bulletproof vest', you are paraphrasing my GFDL-licensed addition. Do you have anything specific to say about my wording? Do you have a specific objection to wording an article so that it can not be dismissed as inaccurate or slanted by people residing on all points of the political spectrum, or do you think it's better to word it in such a way that it can be easily dismissed by some groups? The wording I tried to introduce was factually correct and not open to challenge from any side (should have used "widely" instead of "often"). It was directly aimed at achieving NPOV.
- ThuranX, when you declaim "a site run by neo-Nazis, for Neo-Nazis, about Neo-nazis", do you have a direct basis, or do you opine?
- ThuranX, where you say "People who self-identify as apologist,s as has happened on the SF talk page..." - this is important, please specify - which people? Do you include myself? Sceptre? Skomorokh? Can you name one or strike your comment?
- Gwen, first of all, I echo your and other people's distaste for the site and its denizens, I'd rather use words best not put onto a public website. I do disagree though with your assertion that it's OK to not be "wholly enyclopedic". I feel that this is a case where we do have to go the whole nine yards, painful though that may be. That's the only reason I got involved, the fuckers can burn in hell for all I care. I want an article worthy of the sum of all human knowledge, and I'd also like to target a few other wordings that look a little peacocky to me ("Black's clarity of vision..." is an especial WTF for me).
- And Gwen, my specific intent was to not edit war. I stick by my edit summaries and only wanted to direct OM to article talk rather than employing blind reverts. The talk page consequences of course ended up here, but I think that's more due to OM's approach to collaborative editing than any other factor cited above. I agree that it's an emotional issue.
So yeah, am I clean on this or what? Adding up my agreements with Sceptre gets me to about minus-seventy-six, but on this one I'm not seeing a whole lot of good faith from the "other side". If I've personally done something wrong, please someone say so. I've not seen any of the labelled racist-apologists do wrong either, other than strive for encyclopedicity. Clarification is welcomed. Franamax (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- go read the talk page. YOU self Identified as an apologist "you can so easily identify us apologists for what we are". Yep, I can, your attempt at irony aside. The Bulletproof vest -"As Franamax said, we're trying to make this bulletproof." , the too much proof is a lie thing - "There is a balance. Not enough citations, it looks like original research. Too many, and it looks like you're pushing a POV by oversourcing. Sceptre", it's all there. As for the Neo=Nazi thing, did you bother to read any of the citations? the website itself? the consensus on the talk page, here, and in the real world as evidenced by the numerous citations? They're neo-nazis. that some are also 'White Supremacists', or say they're WS but not NN, is the hairsplitting of people who just dont' want to admit it to themselves. WS is NN, and there's no difference. ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, "go read the talk page" I've read several times, the one I've extensively referenced? I'll type slower, maybe then I can be more clear.
- So indeed it seems you peg me as the "self-identifier" - you can spot irony and still tag the label on me, all in the same breath? I find that hard to credit. Recall that it was OM who launched the attacks.
- Bulletproof and Sceptre's comments - could you take the simple expedient of reading my comments before you hit the Edit button? The little bit about "Sceptre didn't pursue this issue..." and the specific questions I asked you about my wording? Any chance you could address those questions?
- Neo-Nazi, did I bother to read... - only a few dozen different sources, which is quite apparent from my contributions at the talk page. How else did I arrive at this post? Are you also saying that I'm a liar?
- "WS is NN, and there's no difference" well, sez you and maybe a lot of other people here (and my warring against consensus is conspicuously absent from this encyclopedia, whereas my willingness to engage in give-and-take discussion conspicuously is) - so granted, maybe so, sources? Even reading the footnotes at Neo-Nazi, I'm not getting it. Going back to the "bulletproof" thing, it seems to me that the way to make a sound article, beyond criticism, requires a little more than the bald assertion of "is too!". Taking potshots on AN/I doesn't necessarily advance content either (though I knew in advance what a fun-fest this page often is).
- So no, sorry ThuranX, step off the box. I categorically reject your characterization of me as a self-identified neo-Nazi apologist as sadly mistaken. Your continuance of that assertion borders on a personal attack, and wther it's an attack or not, I take offence. I've tried very hard to outline above my rationales for pursuing a NPOV approach at the article. That you can't find the off switch for your attack machine is breathtaking. Study carefully my 8,000 prior edits and show us where I'm the monster you claim to see before you. Franamax (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, "go read the talk page" I've read several times, the one I've extensively referenced? I'll type slower, maybe then I can be more clear.
Persistent Soapboxer
I'm dealing with a persistent soapboxer and need some help. Admin Gogo Dodo has had some experience with this user, but hasn't been active lately, so I'm brining this here. Oconner12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a small sockfarm to his name, and has been attempting to add a few unsourced opinion paragraphs to various articles about how Pashtuns are neglected in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and thus US efforts there are doomed to failure [87] [88]. The material is not salvageable, and no attempts to discuss with him have been fruitful. In addition to named accounts, he also edits from a few DSL IPs, as well as an IP that traces back to an Apple store and a Schiphol Airport wifi connection. He's also vandalized my userpage twice [89] [90], accusing me of vandalism for removing his screed. His primary targets are War in North-West Pakistan and War in Afghanistan (2001-present), though he's hit a couple of others as well. I hate to request semi-protection, since both articles also get a number of good edits from IPs. But I've run out of ideas on how to deal with this guy. Help appreciated. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Are the user's newest socks blocked/accounts you suspect templated and reported for CU? Otherwise, its time for banning and WP:RBI if you don't want to deal with semi-protection. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Socks are tagged and named accounts are blocked. I'm mostly concerned with IP edits. And to clarify, while I don't like the idea of semi-protecting, that might be the only thing to make him give up and go away. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 12:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've very reluctantly semiprotected War in North-West Pakistan and War in Afghanistan (2001-present) for two weeks apiece; the latter especially gets quite a lot of IP editing, so hopefully two weeks will be long enough for our POV-pusher to lose interest but short enough not to do too much collateral damage. I've also indefblocked the user - I think they have been more than amply warned across multiple accounts, and we really don't need more POV-pushing in these easily-inflamed areas. Review welcome as always. EyeSerenetalk 20:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The recently blocked IP of Simulation12 is requesting an unblock because she claims it was her "sister" who threanted me and that the IP belongs to her whole family. Will he/she give it a rest already, i'm starting think that he/she is more than a typical troll, instead a psychotic nut who thinks he/she is a kindergartner and is using a santiarium computer. Besides that, what do you suggest? Gladys is on wiki-break and we all know that Sim12 is just going to do the same thing if he/she is unblocked. Elbutler (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Evil roommate, evil brother, evil sister - typical sockpuppet/troll fairy tales. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I AM SURE that we are daeling with a troll here but therei s no need to engage in blatant WP:CIVILinvility here.
- the relevent apolice here is to revert, lblock and ignore. Arguing with a user liek this only encourages them to find antoehr dynamic IP can come back harder and stronger than ever possible. simply reporting this troll here is the best policy in the future as it denies them the atetniton and horror that they crave as of blood. They should be blocked and ignored, nothing further. Smith Jones (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Palin Dispute
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Note: this section was originally titled "Please rescue me from IDCab bullcrap"
OK, a little background. Months ago, I voluntarily disengaged from complaining about IDCab behavior, and I recently sent an olive branch to one of the editors, KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).[91] I even disavowed this IDCab stuff when it came up in another context.[92][93]
However, those editors seem unwilling to let it go. On a dispute of inclusion of rape kit billing at Sarah Palin, where most current editors had expressed a desire to remove mention of the issue[94], the admin SB Johnny (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) removed the text, at least temporarily.[95] His call was overridden by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).[96] When I pointed out that she was previously involved as an editor in the content dispute,[97] I immediately started to be attacked[98], including a statement by KillerChihuahua where my question was called "a line of bullshit".[99].
Then, in an astonishing coincidence, immediately afterwards I've got purported members of the disavowed "ID Cabal" Jim62sch (talk · contribs) and Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)) showing up on my talk page, in the midst of a civil conversation with my (admittedly ideologically opposed) friends Baseball Bugs and MastCell, making uncivil comments.[100][101] Weren't those exact two individuals called out for bad behavior in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch?
I'd like to suggest a couple of things here. One, that when an olive branch is offered, the receiving party shouldn't burn it because of a civil difference of opinion. Two, that if people don't want to be called a cabal, they shouldn't act like one. I had no interaction with Jim62sch or Orangemarlin before they showed up on my talk page. Oh, and I'm hoping some truly uninvolved admins would examine the fact that KillerChihuahua overturned SB Johnny's action at Sarah Palin, and decide whether this was justified. Kelly hi! 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that the policy was enforced while she was mayor, there's no evidence that she knew about the policy and there's certainly no evidence she supported this. Other than creating an attack piece (which, I suppose, would make this bio consistent with Wikipedia's other bios of conservatives), what possible reason could there be for including it? --B (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Whine away Kelly. I removed my comments 10 nanoseconds after I dropped them in there, once I realized it was your page (I clicked on a link to it). I would never come to your page EVER, and it was accidental. So, you can apologize whenever you want. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm - how many threads about you are there on this page right now? On whose page would those comments[102] have been acceptable? Especially the muliple unsolicited uses of the f-word? Kelly hi! 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to bring this up myself; this is the third thread concerning Orangemarlin today over seperate incidents. And you're continuing to be incivil—even more so—despite these threads. But no-one's going to pay any attention to be, I'm a bad-faith wikistalking POV pusher. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Sceptre, you do seem to be popping up in a lot of threads – looks like you're WP:WIKIHOUNDing. . . dave souza, talk 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- OrangeMarlin and Jim62sch are both currently editing under ArbCom sanctions. Thus, any concerns about their behavior need to be taken to the ArbCom enforcement noticeboard, not here. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- And here comes the usual suspects. LOL. Cla68, please retract your LIE right now. Or I'll help you get blocked. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Did something change in regards to OM's "arbitration case"? As far as I know the "ruling" was vacated and OM accepted a voluntary mentorship. Also, I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMatetalk 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orange, if your period under mentorship is up, please point out where it was declared over, and I'll retract and apologize. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mentorship is voluntary and is NOT a sanction. Orangemarlin is not and never was as a result of that so-called case under a sanction. --B (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please note. --Smashvilletalk 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And that's the game! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orange volunteered for mentorship as a corrective action for behavior that ArbCom had found was in violation of our policies. As far as I know, this corrective action for Orange is ongoing unless it says somewhere that he is no longer under mentorship. If he does anything that you feel is a violation of policy, either report it to the ArbCom enforcement board, or notify his mentor. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arbcom didn't find anything. FT2 went out and did what he usually does — stir up drama. Arbcom vacated the case. Wikipedians overwhelmingly lack confidence in him. --B (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you take OrangeMarlin to the Arbitration Enforcement board, nothing will happen. Why? Because he is not under any type of Arbitration sanction. The mentorship you seem to believe is a sanction is both informal and voluntary. Get it? AniMatetalk 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "This rejection was primarily due to statements by Orangemarlin and arbitrator Jpgordon, in which it was announced that Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) had agreed to mentorship by Jpgordon (talk · contribs)." That's fairly clear that ArbCom declined to pursue the matter further after OM agreed to corrective action on his own. Now, if this corrective action isn't working, then inform his mentor or ArbCom. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where's the link to that statement? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And again...there is nothing enforceable. What part of voluntary are you failing to grasp? --Smashvilletalk 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If true, it sounds like ArbCom dropped the case conditionally. If those conditions are not being met, then presumably it should go back to ArbCom. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arbcom presented no case to drop, and by announcing the outcome of a secret trial with no consultation put themselves in a position where they had no option but to drop it. OrangeMarlin's voluntary agreement let them off the hook. dave souza, talk 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If true, it sounds like ArbCom dropped the case conditionally. If those conditions are not being met, then presumably it should go back to ArbCom. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "This rejection was primarily due to statements by Orangemarlin and arbitrator Jpgordon, in which it was announced that Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) had agreed to mentorship by Jpgordon (talk · contribs)." That's fairly clear that ArbCom declined to pursue the matter further after OM agreed to corrective action on his own. Now, if this corrective action isn't working, then inform his mentor or ArbCom. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you take OrangeMarlin to the Arbitration Enforcement board, nothing will happen. Why? Because he is not under any type of Arbitration sanction. The mentorship you seem to believe is a sanction is both informal and voluntary. Get it? AniMatetalk 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arbcom didn't find anything. FT2 went out and did what he usually does — stir up drama. Arbcom vacated the case. Wikipedians overwhelmingly lack confidence in him. --B (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orange volunteered for mentorship as a corrective action for behavior that ArbCom had found was in violation of our policies. As far as I know, this corrective action for Orange is ongoing unless it says somewhere that he is no longer under mentorship. If he does anything that you feel is a violation of policy, either report it to the ArbCom enforcement board, or notify his mentor. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And that's the game! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orange, if your period under mentorship is up, please point out where it was declared over, and I'll retract and apologize. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Did something change in regards to OM's "arbitration case"? As far as I know the "ruling" was vacated and OM accepted a voluntary mentorship. Also, I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMatetalk 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- And here comes the usual suspects. LOL. Cla68, please retract your LIE right now. Or I'll help you get blocked. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to bring this up myself; this is the third thread concerning Orangemarlin today over seperate incidents. And you're continuing to be incivil—even more so—despite these threads. But no-one's going to pay any attention to be, I'm a bad-faith wikistalking POV pusher. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm - how many threads about you are there on this page right now? On whose page would those comments[102] have been acceptable? Especially the muliple unsolicited uses of the f-word? Kelly hi! 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Question. What administrative action are you asking for here? Because Dispute resolution and WP:RFC/U are just down the corridor (turn right by the water fountain) and arbitration enforcement is two floors down by the canteen. Black Kite 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- RFC/U and WQA are cesspits of bad faith, and we don't need more of that. RFAR is too lofty. I think we need to convince OM to calm down; he is becoming a loose cannon. Three ANI threads in a single day about you does not look good. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Whoa there ... WQA is a "cess pit of bad faith"?? WTF is that about?? ♪BMWΔ 12:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- To put it succinctly, that completely depends how valid the threads are. Black Kite 00:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed the thread title to be something more polite. I don't know that anything good is going to come from this thread. Orangemarlin retracted his comment. The diff linked from Jim62sch was not incivil and I thought the joke he laughed at was funny too. If admins are going to wheel war over a protected article, that's something to deal with, but there's no evidence that anyone intends to continue reverting over the protected article. But as of now, there is nothing good that is going to come here. --B (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
So, this is about whitewashers VS. Gotcha politics? What a joke. stick the damn material in, write it neutrally, let readers decide. Isn't that the point? Argue about how to present, not whether or not. ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't even make sense. Attacks ("gotcha politics") don't belong in an article no matter how they are written. That's what WP:COATRACK is all about. --B (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, that was a reference to what each side is saying about the other (and I notice you took NO offense to the white-washers part). If you don't get that, then you really are too close to this situation, and need to walk away now. The material presented was covered nationally and internationally, was responded to by numerous women's groups, and so on. Find a neutral presentation, and include it. There are too many politically motivated people on both sides of this, and a few who just want notable material included. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's nothing to whitewash. Let's review here - there's no evidence that she knew of the policy. There's no evidence that while she was mayor the policy was implemented (meaning, a rape victim was actually charged for the kit). There's certainly no evidence she approved of the policy. All that's out there is she reviewed the budget, so SHAZAAM! she must have known about it. The media may not have standards, but we do. We don't include partisan attacks. There is no such thing as a neutral presentation. --B (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- White-wash? Nay. The gist of the material is that Palin appointrted a police chief who, after a law was passed concerning billing adult victims for sexual exams, said that he had billed insurance companies. Palin said she knew nothing of such a policy. No evidence has been found of anyone being billed, nor of Palin ever being involved in details of police department policies. This is basically a contentious issue as some editors want to imply that either she knew, and is lying, or did not know, and was incompetent. The NPOV view would be that actions of an appointee about which you know nothing should not be used as an issue against you (under the "contentious claim" rules and under the "coatrack" guidelines. This achieved a large conensus among edotors, and one admin heeded that consensus. Another admin reversed the first admin. That is, in as neutral a nutshell as possible, where things stand. Collect (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)Not as I read the talk page, OR the evidence. We have journalistic sources stating she knew, we have sources stating that it was predicated in part on the inclusion of Plan B pills, and we have a sources defending Palin. The proper thing to do is present both sides neutrally, and let readers sort this out. Unfortunately, the number of editors on that talk page who've made statements that show a personal leaning to Palin means that it is unlikely that extant consensus will be overruled soon. Regrettably, this decision makes an article on Palin a lot less credible. It's like a term paper on Harding not mentioning Teapot Dome. You cover the good and the bad, and any article we have on a VP or VP candidate should be as strong as a collegiate research paper. Eliminating the scandals and bad points in an administration would fail a paper, and should fail an article. ThuranX (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is absurd. Go look at the Barack Obama article. You won't find one word about his statement to "Joe the Plumber" that we need to redistribute the wealth, nor one word about his statement in San Farncisco about bitter small-town folk who cling to their guns and religion, nor one word about Bill Ayres or about Jeremiah Wright. Which is fine. But when a small minority of editors wants to jam something nasty into the Sarah Palin article, then all rules are off. The material now in the Palin article is what is at issue here; that material says that her town sometimes charged insurance companies for the cost of rape evidence-collection kits, and says that there's no indication she ever expressly endorsed or opposed that policy. That's what's at issue here, and the only question is whether it's adequate to cover it in a sub-article instead of the main article. Plan B pills aren't at issue, and Teapot Dome is not at issue. Tell me ThuranX, if a rape victim has an arm broken and subsequently put in a cast, would it be okay with you for Wasilla to bill the patient's insurance for that, or would doing so be another instance that Wikipedia would be obliged to describe with generous use of the words "Palin" and "rape" located as nearly to each other as possible? Maybe we could more thoroughly insinuate that Palin is somehow mean to rape victims, by putting all this in the lead, right ThuranX? In all sincerity, this matter was resolved at the Palin talk page on more than one occasion, and that consensus was overturned by a single involved admin while the article was protected.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)Not as I read the talk page, OR the evidence. We have journalistic sources stating she knew, we have sources stating that it was predicated in part on the inclusion of Plan B pills, and we have a sources defending Palin. The proper thing to do is present both sides neutrally, and let readers sort this out. Unfortunately, the number of editors on that talk page who've made statements that show a personal leaning to Palin means that it is unlikely that extant consensus will be overruled soon. Regrettably, this decision makes an article on Palin a lot less credible. It's like a term paper on Harding not mentioning Teapot Dome. You cover the good and the bad, and any article we have on a VP or VP candidate should be as strong as a collegiate research paper. Eliminating the scandals and bad points in an administration would fail a paper, and should fail an article. ThuranX (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, that was a reference to what each side is saying about the other (and I notice you took NO offense to the white-washers part). If you don't get that, then you really are too close to this situation, and need to walk away now. The material presented was covered nationally and internationally, was responded to by numerous women's groups, and so on. Find a neutral presentation, and include it. There are too many politically motivated people on both sides of this, and a few who just want notable material included. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
So far all that this thread has really brought to light is that previous personality/ideological clashes continue to exist. The rest is a content dispute. No administrative action is needed. AniMatetalk 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is the question of Kelly again labelling editors as a cabal, a practice which was previously agreed to be a personal attack. At best his rush to stir this up is disruptive. . dave souza, talk 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should we close this as a dramafest? --Smashvilletalk 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think we may need to look into OM's civility; three seperate complaints on seperate issues about civility concerns within 14 hours, regardless of validity, is indicative of a possible problem. Sceptre (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Drama. 2. Drama. 3. Drama. And with that, Elvis has left the building. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think we may need to look into OM's civility; three seperate complaints on seperate issues about civility concerns within 14 hours, regardless of validity, is indicative of a possible problem. Sceptre (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should we close this as a dramafest? --Smashvilletalk 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- As someone who has dealt with the members of the "IDCabal" and their "opposition", I would like to ask if we can give it all a rest. The term is boring. The idea is rather no longer pertinent, and it just causes unnecessary problems. If you have a problem with a user, please directly mention the problem with the user. There is no need to decorate it or do whatever else. Furthermore, I have found many of those same "IDCabal" members willing to listen to my concerns and be willing to agree with various clean ups of issues. Some kindness and a neutral approach really goes a long way. I think the unfair characterizations on either side should really stop. There is too much tension, and tension causes unnecessary problems. I don't want to pass judgment on either side of the dispute, because I feel that it is better solved by getting rid of all of the judgment passing. Come on, we are editors and many of us are really good contributors. Why don't we try to get back to that instead of wasting time characterizing each other in a negative manner? Kelly, if you need someone to talk to, I am always available, and I would recommend you talking to people instead of possibly wording something in a manner that could provoke more problems simply because you wrote it while upset. And to get back to the issue - I supported Sarah Palin. I think the controversy about rape kits was silly and blown out of proportion. However, we don't need to blow it out of proportion too. So lets just work together, take straw polls, try to find neutral wording, and the rest. We don't need to gear up for a fight. Consensus involves everyone working together. Not one side trying to beat another. (Note to make it clear what my background is in this - I like KillerChihuahua. I have been on the opposite side of issues from OrangeMarlin in the past. I have worked with Dave before on a BLP issue and talked a few issues with him. I work closely with SB Johnny on another project. I have had many run ins with Kelly in a neutral manner. Hell, I know most of the people involved in this discussion). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we worked on some article that nothing to do with politics recently. You actually cracked me up. I don't remember what. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Who on earth of the "IDCabal"? Name some names please as it seems just like a label that an editor is applying to deny that consensus is occuring on an article. Shot info (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read this for some info from the last time Kelly didn't get hsi way and decided to complain about the IDCab. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- O, so it's an atypical cry of "tag-team" by a minority to paint the majority as irrelevant because they are members of a so-called tag-team (ie/ a "Cabal") in order to override consensus. Thought so. Shot info (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Kelly does have a habit of claiming "involvement" and/or "IDCabal" for administrators who oppose Kelly, either in reality or in Kelly's perception.[103][104] Weirdly enough, there is no consensus, but the majority of editors are agreeing with Kelly. The page is fully protected, so edits must be done by an admin. Kelly requested an edit; SBJohnny made the edit, although as a newcomer to the article he was unaware of the history of disagreements about that section. In my opinion, the edit was premature as consensus was lacking, especially as a straw poll, started by Kelly, had a timeframe which had not yet expired. An editor protested strenuously on the talk page that discussion was ongoing and consensus had not been reached. I reverted to allow further discussion, noting so clearly in my edit summary. Ever since, Kelly has been smearing me all over Wikipedia. BLP noticeboard, SBJohnny's talk page, Sarah Palin talk page, and here. I think that's the tally so far. The really silly part is that had Kelly spent this amount of effort on the article talk page, he might have gotten somewhere. Instead, he's continuing his habit of attacking those with whom he disagrees - I think this is the third or fourth instance of Kelly campaigning some version of "KC is involved and oh yeah, is a member of the IDCab" since summer. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what a party I missed yesterday :-). If it makes things any clearer, I asked KC to keep an eye on me, since she's got more experience with explosive BLPs, and she's given me solid advice in the past on another issue. I don't quite agree with her reading of the policies (namely, whether or not the bit of content in question is a "BLP" issue or whether that even matters), but the editors involved can try to reach consensus on it whether or not it's on the page. As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to whether something controversial should be kept in the article until there's an agreement, or whether it should be kept out of the article until an agreement is reached. My impression (possibly mistaken) was that it should be kept out. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, you're precisely correct. Its a protected article, though, so I am extremely conservative about making edits. They must be virtually unopposed for me to make them, or of course if they are violations of BLP I'll do it. That content has been in the article for months, however, its not a new addition - which I realize reads like I believe age confers validity, which I do not - but there have been many, many discussions on this subject with strong arguments for inclusion, as well as exclusion, and I was weighting the CON aspect, as this particular section has been the subject of some serious debates. Also, there is no RS issue, its been fully covered, and its not a BLP issue. There are other factors. But as a general rule you are completely correct. But the "party" aspect of all this is that kelly has derailed the entire discussion into an attack on me. Which is going to get the article, and the disputed section, precisely nowhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the trick then is to ignore the "party" aspects. The BLP policy is pretty clear that if something's a matter of major dispute, it should be taken out until a consensus can be reached. I thought about it a bit yesterday on the tractor-seat, and I just don't agree with where you've drawn the line for what is or is not a "BLP issue". I didn't mean say it was an RS issue, but rather that it could be treated in a similar manner (with relevant/irrelevant an analog of verifiable/unverified). It looks like the sources read that she didn't know about it, so the controversy is about relevance to the BLP, and thus is a "BLP issue" :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like administrator intervention here to try and get Quality Check to move away from the area he currently edits in. My first interaction with him was after he tagged one of my pages as a 'stub', something I didn't have a problem with (it was a stub) but after looking through his talkpage and contributions I found a long history of drive-by tagging. While advising that he might be better off with referencing 2-line articles than tagging them for someone else to do I noticed a string of previous warnings, first from User:Beeswaxcandle and User:TerriersFan about improperly tagging articles with prod tags and then from User:Velela about giving people a chance to edit their articles before plastering tags on them. User:KP Botany then followed me with a warning, again about improperly tagging articles and allowing people a chance to edit their articles before going quote 'tag-crazy'.
In light of these repeated warnings and Quality Check's failure to do anything about them I gave him an all-encompassing warning and a pointer that, should he keep creating messes for other wikipedians to clear up and fail to correct himself in the future I would take it to AN/I. KP Botany followed up with a warning of their own, and followed up with a long discussion (and several reverts of Quality Check's wrong tagging) in which it became apparent he was not going to budge on the Matter. User:Nick gave him a warning in the spirit of my own (advising that he correct the problem instead of just leaving it for someone else) [105] here but Quality Check still seems to be failing to understand the problem
Quality Check's response to these warnings has been a mixture of denying that there is a problem, claiming that he will be more careful in future and that he is correct the majority of the time and that that justifies his mistakes (despite the fact that he is only right around one in 20 times.
A discussion between me and KP Botany two days ago ended with us agreeing that we would assume more good faith despite the massive ladles of it already being used before taking it near AN/I; after all, the user is saying at least that he will correct himself in future. Two things changed this; User:Nick's warning and the rather blase response and this, which shows that even if Quality Check is improving with his tagging he is not doing so fast enough to stop creating masses of work for other people. I would like the administrators to step in and get him to stop with his tagging; while I have no problem with him learning how to do it properly and coming back to it in the future he is at the moment damaging more than he fixes, and I cannot see any evidence of this changing. Let him learn how to do it, fine; but let him learn the theory before he moves on to the practical. A phrase I often use comes to mind; one independent user complaining about your edits is a complaint. two independent users complaining about your edits is a dispute. three independent users complaining about your edits is time to question whether you might be in the wrong. When six independent, unrelated users, two of them administrators, complain about different edits and you still refuse to see that there is any kind of problem then it is time for further action to be taken. Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think , and generally Ironholds has agreed, that this editor could be worked with, if he could see that he needs to change some of his editing styles. However, he's not really listening right now, and he is creating a lot of work for other editors to clean up after him.
- It would be useful if an administrator who has some time could help this user out, as I think he's trying to do useful work,and, more important, would be quite capable of it, as a few of his edits show, but he won't address problems with his work. If there is still a mentor program on Wikipedia, that might be a great way to go. However, he also just needs to back down on some of his problematic tagging. --KP Botany (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I may be erred by adding some irrelevent tags,and that i already promised to be careful about. Please look at my contributions after some user complained about inappropriate tags, to check that my editing style gets corrected or not after that?
All tags are very much useful becuase they instantly alert other editors about deficiency in that page. Otherwise all editors (who check that page) have to scan full page to find shortcomings in that page. No backlog is created at all, otherwise if they are not pointed out by anybody, the article may remain without ref/cat. Also, adding a tag automatically put that page into specialized category of articles with same deficiency. And editors, which have special interest/liking in adding cat/ref can work on them in their free time, without first finding uncat/unref pages. Its not like creating backlog/work for others(as im poinintg out deficiency in that page only) and Im helping to built a good article in my own way. Adding a tag is just a first step in improving the page. Quality check 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)- It is creating a backlog and work for others; literally in fact, because we have massive backlogs in those areas. Tags have their place, but when an article is two lines long leaving a 'this page is unreferenced/uncategorised' message is useless, firstly because everyone can see that already and secondly because you normally do it incorrectly. Yesterday I had to remove a 'stub' template you'd added to an three paragraphs long. Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quality check, could you please request a different username at WP:RFCU? Your username is probably not allowable under Wikipedia:Username because it could give users an impression of undue authority. Jehochman Talk 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Iain Lee
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I know you are all far to busy to bother with RFPP, but could someone please do something about Iain Lee? DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Patience, young Padawan. Someone protected it just before you posted here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Just out of morbid curiosity, what prompted all that nonsense? Kuru talk 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly something on his radio show; it has happened before. Sceptre (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit war at Pacific Coastal Airlines
Is there any way to block user 70.71.243.53 from editing this page? He has made at least a half-dozen deletions of an item on the page, even though I keep reverting his edit. Thanks. Greg Salter (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Try WP:AIV if he is vandalizing. He seems to be removing information, so warn him a few times. If he goes over the limit, report him to WP:AIV. Just a note though; this diff just doesn't put you in a good light...DARTH PANDAduel 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right. But he'd done the same thing at least 6 times before that, and I was getting frustrated. Point taken. Greg Salter (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that anyone's actually engaged the IP in any way. It would be a good idea to actually discuss the issue with the IP before we do anything to remove its opportunity to edit the article. Looks to be relatively static, so take your concerns to the IP's talk page, perhaps? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since your message, I've done that, and he's now gone and done another removal (which I've undone just now). Looks like it's time for WP:AIV. Greg Salter (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- To assist I have semi-protected this article for 1 week. That should give you enough time (if possible) to discuss edits with the anon IP.--VS talk 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the IP editor appears to be correct in this point. The material being removed is a non-encyclopedic incident (fails WP:AIRCRASH and its sole source is a web forum, which is not a reliable source. I've commented on the article's talk page to this effect, and I support the removal of the material. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, neither of the two citations given look like something wikipedia would normally accept as a valid source. One is a blog, the other is a plain-text document that anyone could have posted. That item should go until or if a better source is provided. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hold on thar, Baba Looey. I was looking at the earlier sourcing. There is a new source that looks more like a valid source for that November 2007 incident. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, neither of the two citations given look like something wikipedia would normally accept as a valid source. One is a blog, the other is a plain-text document that anyone could have posted. That item should go until or if a better source is provided. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since your message, I've done that, and he's now gone and done another removal (which I've undone just now). Looks like it's time for WP:AIV. Greg Salter (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, ironic isn't it? If the IP had only left an edit summary, it might not have gone so far... DARTH PANDAduel 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Issue re: legal threat
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The following was originally posted to WT:WPSPAM#John Nance threatens lawsuit, over legitimate dicussion on his page. I'm moving it here, as this is a more appropriate venue for this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
John Nance threatens to sue.
The Spam page is the article about John J. Nance, at this URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Nance
It appears that the article was started after a previous one was eliminated, because it amounted to plagiarism as it just copied John Nance's mini-bio from another website.
My suspicion is that the current article then was started to get around that previous violation of Wiki rules, by someone very friendly to Nance. At any rate, the current article progressed only by expanding positive information about Nance, his books, his movies, his media appearances, and such. Then links to his official website, and other websites, were attached.
When I first saw this article, I decided that it could become a legitimate Wiki article about this living person, only if there was some discussion about his controversial view----that Airline Safety had been affected adversely by the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act (ADA).
So, I added a section about that controversial thesis, in his book of Blind Trust.
Nance then responded vehemently, in a style of writing that violated several of the Wiki rules, for posting. I reverted that back, because of those violations of the 5 pillars of Wiki. In response, Nance has now removed all my comments on both the article page and on the talk page and says he will file a lawsuit if anyone dares to put it back.
Please look at these pages, which will show how this Nance article has progressed to a Spam page, and then to a legitimate discussion page and then back to a pure spam page, with nothing but accolades about John J. Nance.
[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=233229796 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=233229796]
[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=259891508 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=259891508]
[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=259891508 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=259891508]
This one above, was obviously written by John Nance himself, and it contains the kind of unacceptable style of writing that violates so many Wiki rules.
I then reverted it back at this link:
[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260408163 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260408163]
Then, Nance removed the section about his controversial theory:
[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260483001 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260483001]
Then, Nance removes all reference to that controversial thesis of his book, and continues to add accolades to himself.
[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261535529 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261535529]
Then, I added the Spam warning:
[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261547806 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261547806]
Then, the pertinent history of the Talk Page, for the Nance Article:
My reasons for reverting Nance's response to the Controversial Thesis section:
[index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=prev&oldid=261536334 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=prev&oldid=261536334]
And then, Nance cleaned out the Talk Page and threatened a SLAPP suit, if anyone puts back the comments about his controversial thesis.
[index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261157261 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261157261]
I am amazed at such arrogance. Mr. Nance is apparently insisting that the article about him, be allowed to contain only accolades about him, his books, TV and radio appearances and such. He will permit no comments that make reference to his controversial book and/or why the facts of history appear to prove that thesis incorrect.
Nance is apparently is willing to trample all over the First Amendment to the US Constitution, to enforce his demands, even to the extent that he is threatening a SLAPP lawsuit to silence Wiki. I hope Wiki Administrators will not cave to this kind of terrible intimidation. EditorASC (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like a clear legal threat, and some rather nice WP:COI issues as well. Anyone else agree? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blatant legal threat; he says that re-posting the info will result in legal action. If not retracted he should be blocked per WP:NLT. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like it to me. Also reverting the talk page comments. It's the talk page, we discuss the changes to articles...there is absolutely no reason to remove them. He can pursue all he wants, but he has no right to remove legitimate talk page comments. --Smashvilletalk 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blatant legal threat; he says that re-posting the info will result in legal action. If not retracted he should be blocked per WP:NLT. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- First Amendment? There is no first Amendment issue here. – ukexpat (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- He just did it again, with another legal threat in the edit summary. Dayewalker (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Considering he's not retracting, but is still making blatant threats on the talk page and blanking it, it's time to enact an NLT block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: In addition to the threats at Talk:John J. Nance, see also WP:BLPN#Repeated posting of Defamatory Material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)Yes please. It's textbook WP:LEGAL. Will an admin step in, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Note that he's extended his threat to all users reverting him. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)Yes please. It's textbook WP:LEGAL. Will an admin step in, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: In addition to the threats at Talk:John J. Nance, see also WP:BLPN#Repeated posting of Defamatory Material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Considering he's not retracting, but is still making blatant threats on the talk page and blanking it, it's time to enact an NLT block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- He just did it again, with another legal threat in the edit summary. Dayewalker (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that he has now also acknowleged a WP:COI with this edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked indef for legal threats. -MBK004 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like contributions may be related to this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ya think? Oh, and he posted his editorial again, 3 minutes after the "last warning". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see how far this user would get if he did actually sue Wikipedia (assuming the user is so adamant on filing a lawsuit). But then again, there's Stella Liebeck, Mike Nifong, and Roy Pearson, so who knows? MuZemike (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- This could be the flipside of the "penalty" someone discussed below, and it would last about that long in court. The judge would say that it's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", so there is no legal accountability to content. Seeya. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If this guy can't take criticism, why'd he become an author in the first place? He's obviously new to wiki, out of his depth and trying to regain control the only way he knows how; through legal action. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Threaten to retaliate by tearing the tag off his mattress. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
An unprotected image is displayed on the main page
File:Rev Dr Alexander Scott.jpg is currently displayed on the main page, and is not locally uploaded or protected at the Wikimedia Commons. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading the file locally (which cannot be effectuated by non-admins due to a conflict with the filename at the commons and cascading protection for the main page) or protecting the image at the commons. Thanks. John254 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that a great huge quantity of articles on my watchlist recently received addition of navigation boxes which I started to remove, then felt a second opinion would be appropriate so I made a query at Canada notice board and CA education task force talk page. I think I am on the right train of thought that a navbox should rather reflect the content of articles within the nav box, and not be posted on any page sort of related to the nav box but don't know if there is a standard protocol in this regards. Instead of a reduction of clutter there is an increase in clutter, as some articles have their original two navboxes in which they were listed, and then sometimes up to 3 more navboxes have been added which are kind of sort of related to the article in question. Education in Saskatchewan belongs to the Education in Canada navbox. Perhaps readers may be interested that math is a subject, but I don't think the article about the evolution and development of education in a geographic area such as Saskatchewan needs a navbox about education subjects generally speaking, which don't come back around to SK. If I am on the right track, is there a robot that can do the reverts, as the original contributing editor of navboxes was very thorough and very extensive with additions. The contributing user has also blanked their talk page multitudinous times, so I haven't tried to diplomatically talk of my view point. Another editor has asked them to stop edits in a different regards but they blank the talk page several times and keep going. Can you read this query, and decide on the protocol in this case? Please contact me if you need specific diffs, as there are many many. SriMesh | talk 05:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is the best platform for this, but I use navboxes extensively and my rule of thumb is if it is not in the navbox, then the navbox is not on the article (however there are a few reasonable exceptions). Coincidentally, someone else has this problem, too, see Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Use of Navbox in articles not in the Navbox, unfortunately that resolved nada. My advice, regarding the navbox issue, is to migrate over to Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates, start a new thread and slap a {{RFCstyle}} on it to garner interest from a larger audience. I must refrain from comment on User:Victoriaedwards since I am not an admin, but an admin might want to chime in on that. Rgrds.--Tombstone (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
User:NurseryRhyme disruptive editing at T:TDYK
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Despite the fact that WP:DYKs are not endorsed or opposed, just qualified or not qualified, User:NurseryRhyme has been editwarring to reinsert a criticism of a hook I submitted:
- Initial Hook, disclosing that the article is at AfD
- First T:TDYK oppose
- My explanation at his talk page
- My Strikethrough
- His reversion of my strikethrough
- My templating him
- My deleting it entirely
- His subsequent reversion
I would request that an uninvolved admin revert the WP:POINT change to T:TDYK, and counsel User:NurseryRhyme that the edits are inappropriate. (Full disclosure: User:NurseryRhyme nominated for deletion the article, Robert Eric Wone, to which the hook applies, and I am the major contributor to that article) Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
1-I'm not allowed to comment at DYK? That seems pretty wrong. 2-Jclemens, as the person making the nomination, has a vested interest in the article and should not be the one removing my comments. 3-Whatever it is that I might be doing, it cannot be by any stretch of the imagination, vandalism, as he templated me with on my Talk page. If anybody other than Jclemens or other people with a vested interest in that mess of an article had removed or struck out my comments, I would not have liked it, but I wouldn't have reverted, but Jclemens has no business doing it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Whatever the resolution of this is, I will not revert again. I don't want to give anybody the satisfaction of getting blocked. But it takes two to edit war. Still and all, I originally came here to have fun, and it's lately becoming less and less fun. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay let me see if I can assist here. Firstly it is quite correct to say that DYK is not a vote situation. Secondly I am confident that the DYK admins will have noticed the to and fro on this possible inclusion and will consider those comments and the AfD before their final decision. Thirdly, NurseryRhyme is kind enough to give us a final solution here - which is for someone else to strikethrough the comment at DYK. I am about to do that now and I hope that will end this matter. Please add your thoughts below and I will close off as resolved if the two parties are in agreement.--VS talk 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with the solution, however, User:NurseryRhyme continues to be disruptive and incivil on this topic, accusing other editors of accusing people of murder and then removing relevant warnings from his talk page with incivil edit summaries. I propose that User:NurseryRhyme agree to voluntary a one-week article ban, or be blocked for this consistent incivility. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not too put to fine a point on it - I can see the inappropriateness bordering on blockable incivility in the edits you refer to but that area of incivility appears to be outside of the heading of this thread. Can I suggest we close this thread in terms of the DYK situation and either a new thread for incivility is started on the available evidence or you await another case of incivility and come straight to my talk page - whereupon (as my admin history will clearly show) I will block if appropriate?--VS talk 07:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, in light of NurseryRhyme's announced retirement I believe this matter to be moot, and will follow up directly with you should future problems arise. Thank you for your time and offer of mediation services. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's quite rare that a large organization decides that adding disinformation to Wikipedia is part of its mission. Perhaps a block of 129.174.0.0/16 would be in order? -- The Anome (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- What?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- this link may be relevant. Explains the hoax and backstory. Not sure what 129.x.x.x has to do with it. // roux 12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd assume it's the George Mason University range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of boldly renaming the article as Edward Owens (hoax) as suggested by User:DGG in the AfD. Ryan should note this media involvement in Signpost. BusterD (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was helpful, BusterD. Meanwhile this brings to mind the course title How to vandalize Wikipedia for fun and publicity 101. Would they get extra credit for slipping disinfo into Joe the Plumber? Would it build up a CV for someone hoping for a job at MSNBC or BBC? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The possibility of prolonged, organized and supported hoaxing is one serious ongoing threat to the pedia. I have no difficulty with a teacher using this platform for instruction, and hoaxing is a way of experiencing in a somewhat safe environment the arguable joys of creating misinformation, a powerful tool in a media-driven society. I've taken a position on this in the new AfD, but The Anome raises an important issue: should a user or an institution face some penalty for flouting elements of wikipedia policies? The pedia is clearly NOT intended to be an extension of one user's classroom. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Penalty"? Like what, having them arrested? For adding stuff to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Like that case would last 5 minutes in a courtroom, I'm sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Anome had suggested an institutional ip range block as less harsh penalty. Identified offenders get blocked for lots less. BusterD (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And if that doesn't work, try ringing their doorbell and running away. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Season passes to "Celine Dion in Las Vegas" might be sufficient as well. ♪BMWΔ 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And if that doesn't work, try ringing their doorbell and running away. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Anome had suggested an institutional ip range block as less harsh penalty. Identified offenders get blocked for lots less. BusterD (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Penalty"? Like what, having them arrested? For adding stuff to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Like that case would last 5 minutes in a courtroom, I'm sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion seems to have drawn out at least one sock pyrate. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The possibility of prolonged, organized and supported hoaxing is one serious ongoing threat to the pedia. I have no difficulty with a teacher using this platform for instruction, and hoaxing is a way of experiencing in a somewhat safe environment the arguable joys of creating misinformation, a powerful tool in a media-driven society. I've taken a position on this in the new AfD, but The Anome raises an important issue: should a user or an institution face some penalty for flouting elements of wikipedia policies? The pedia is clearly NOT intended to be an extension of one user's classroom. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was helpful, BusterD. Meanwhile this brings to mind the course title How to vandalize Wikipedia for fun and publicity 101. Would they get extra credit for slipping disinfo into Joe the Plumber? Would it build up a CV for someone hoping for a job at MSNBC or BBC? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of boldly renaming the article as Edward Owens (hoax) as suggested by User:DGG in the AfD. Ryan should note this media involvement in Signpost. BusterD (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd assume it's the George Mason University range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- this link may be relevant. Explains the hoax and backstory. Not sure what 129.x.x.x has to do with it. // roux 12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Suspected sock puppet
I suspect that Theplaystation3dude is the same user as John-joe123. This user's only edits have been in the nomination and support of John-joe123 as an Administrator. At the time of writing, Theplaystation3dude's only contributions have been on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John-joe123 and User talk:John-joe123. I find the nomination highly unusual as the user being nominated (John-joe123) has made relatively few edits, has only been active for a short time and in that time has been involved in a number of disputes with established editors and Administrators. He also appears to have little knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. I also believe it's unlikely that a brand new user such as Theplaystation3dude would have any knowledge of adminship procedures and a new user's first and only action after registering would be to nominate someone. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quack. // roux 12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quack? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:DUCK. // roux 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) WP:Duck#The duck test. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note Informed suspected user In question using a variation of the SSP template. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quack? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Roux Substituting his signature against advice
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
See User_talk:Roux#Your_signature_is_not_working_in_some_templates. Per WP:SIG#NT substituting a translcusion for you signature is specifically not permitted. The most recent discussion on the talk page seems to indicate no change in this. Roux is doing this, (see User:Roux/sig) despite my asking him not to [106] [107] [108] citing WP:IAR [109]. Okay so this isn't exactly a disaster but one assumes the reason Brion insisted that sigs were not transcluded [110] are still the same, and I trust the dev's know what they're talking about. Or, we change the guideline at WP:SIG. Either way Roux is refusing to respond to my polite request and I'd appreciate other input. Pedro : Chat 14:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Must be a slow day on Wikipedia... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 14:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is so unbelievably trivial. Here's the fun thing.. I signed the last response on my page using tildes. And this one. But hey, whatever floats your boat, Pedro. // roux 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)While I can see your concern, and am confused as to why Roux would refuse to accede to your reasonable request, this seems like a relatively minor issue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you'd just done what I'd asked and changed it when I asked - per the guideline then neither of us would be wasting our time would we? Pedro : Chat 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- One would also ask why someone who thinks they can be an effective admin can't follow the guidelines or respond to a polite request. Pedro : Chat 14:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- When what I'm doing--when what any user is doing--causes zero harm to the project, then banging on about it is kind of pointless. Especially when you yourself said it's not worth arguing over. Also, guidelines aren't policy. Also this is the biggest mountain from the smallest molehill that I have ever seen. And in response to your question... User:Garden/s. It's solely a guideline, it's not policy, I'm causing no harm. // roux 14:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- One would also ask why someone who thinks they can be an effective admin can't follow the guidelines or respond to a polite request. Pedro : Chat 14:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you'd just done what I'd asked and changed it when I asked - per the guideline then neither of us would be wasting our time would we? Pedro : Chat 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Transcluding a signature template on a page like this one is particularly relevant, because this is one of the pages which is regularly archived by MiszaBot. IAR doesn't apply to this situation, as ignoring behavioral guidelines to have a cool signature doesn't do anything to improve the encyclopedia, which is what IAR is all about. Horologium (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note that my sig doesn't break MiszaBot (or ClueBot, for that matter, which archives my talkpage). Tempest. Teacup. // roux 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused. Where exactly is the harm in substituting your signature? The link to Brion's talk page is about using templates instead of signatures, but not about substituting templates, as far as I can see. And the last point of Wikipedia:SIG#NoTemplates doesn't make too much sense to me, either. --Conti|✉ 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Guidelines aren't binding (Fuck, even policies aren't binding). No administrative action is needed. The correct response is probably to fix the guideline, though. WilyD 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- As you well know Roux I have already asked Garden [111]. The point you seem to be missing is that I have made a perfectly reasonable request, several times, and most editors would be happy to say "oh, wow - thanks for the heads up!". WP:SIG is a guideline but WP:SIG#NT is more policy - one from the developers for goodness sake. It's no wonder you RFA is bombing when you can't even respond positively to a polite request. Pedro : Chat 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The reason we don't subst: sigs is that it serves no benefit whatsoever, makes a vandal target, and that it can be used to circumvent the 255 character limit. But the point is this - it may well be that th reasons are outdated. If so lets fix WP:SIG. Until then Roux needs to learn not to be so beligerent when met with polite requests. Pedro : Chat 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Being a vandal target sounds like a good reason not to subst your signature, that's true. But I suppose that's roux's risk, not ours (and it will definitely reflect badly on him when he one day signs a post with a giant picture of, er, some beans). I don't think we should forbid substitution because the 255 character limit can be circumvented, tho, we should rather forbid the use of substitution to circumvent the 255 character limit. Generally, I agree that people should not substitute their signatures, but if they really, really want to for some reason, let them. There are more important things to do around here. :) --Conti|✉ 14:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Requests aren't polite when you get dragged over the coals for not following them. The only reason not to substitute signatures is to prevent one from getting around the 255 character limit. That's not a big deal, in the scheme of things. WilyD 14:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since it's likely to be about the limit, I've just posted a suggestion to Roux' talk page that he can, by using slightly different colors than his current sig uses, subtract 6 characters from his sig and scrape in under the limit. Hopefully this can make all parties happy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The reason we don't subst: sigs is that it serves no benefit whatsoever, makes a vandal target, and that it can be used to circumvent the 255 character limit. But the point is this - it may well be that th reasons are outdated. If so lets fix WP:SIG. Until then Roux needs to learn not to be so beligerent when met with polite requests. Pedro : Chat 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- As you well know Roux I have already asked Garden [111]. The point you seem to be missing is that I have made a perfectly reasonable request, several times, and most editors would be happy to say "oh, wow - thanks for the heads up!". WP:SIG is a guideline but WP:SIG#NT is more policy - one from the developers for goodness sake. It's no wonder you RFA is bombing when you can't even respond positively to a polite request. Pedro : Chat 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That something does no harm is absolutely not an excuse to do it. We're not doctors. As a general rule, only things that benefit the encyclopedia should be done. Since signatures are never ever supposed to appear in articles, I can't see how this is something that benefits the encyclopedia. I was originally going to take this example to the extreme by saying "I could have 50 tiny tiny free images on my user talk page if I wanted to, that'd do no harm but it'd be pointless", but then I looked at Roux's talk page and found out he actually does have a sizable amount of free images on his talk page that do nothing other than look pretty. Maybe that furthers my point. Consider the signatures of the members of ArbCom for instance. They're almost all just plain text. Infact I'd go so far as to say that my simple signature is more complicated than most of theirs. There's really no point to having a signature template, so why does Roux? People are moaning at Pedro for this but honestly, if Roux had followed the guideline in the first place (or just changed his signature when asked), this discussion wouldn't have been necessary. Stuff like this makes me think we should disable signature customisation entirely. They're really not worth all this trouble. --Deskana (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- A longer-than-255 sig is kind of like going 65mph in a 55mph zone; you shouldn't get a ticket for it, but you also shouldn't ignore a request to slow down. If someone does something slightly wrong and refuses to change, it's often best not to worry about it, but instead file it for future use in your mental list of irrationally stubborn people, and move on.
I have to ask, though, because I'm really missing something here; how is it easier to write "{{subst:user:example/sig}}" than it is to write "~~~~"? Seems to me like the only conceivable reason to do this is to get around the 255 character limit; is there some other minor benefit I'm missing?--barneca (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC) that was a moronic question, even for me. Thank you, \ /, for not making fun of me. --barneca (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hamas userbox?
Firstly,
- I'm an admin on Persian wikipedia. There's only 6 admins in total. 110000 users. We're overwhelmed.
- This is a userbox on Persian wikipedia. It says: "this user praises Hamas and all its innocent epic creators". It's being used by several users.
- Our policies are a direct copy of English wp. I translated some myself.
Question: would you, as an admin, sanction such userboxes? yes, no, why? Would u delete them citing this? I wanna hear your input before making my move.
You dont know how much your input means to me :-) Thanks again.--زرشک (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- It kind of depends on what "innocent epic creators" means (I have a feeling it didn't translate so well). Is the userbox divisive? If not, I see no problem with it, but I am unsure whether it is from your translation, sorry. — neuro(talk) 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe "The creators of epic events who are innocent"? The word "epic" there could mean many things: war, battle, or something that will always be remembered. We have Jewish users who have objected to this userbox, citing it as a vehicle for terrorists on wp. How do I respond to all this?--زرشک (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that perhaps the userbox could be more carefully worded, but for others to cite it as a "vehicle for terrorists" sounds a little over the top. — neuro(talk) 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- On the flip side of that, I don't see how it could help in the building of an encyclopedia. It seems to be a soapbox type Userbox - a political statement, which might be divisive by its very nature. We do allow those on en.wikipedia, but opinion is divided about them. So in essence I'd say the userbox is useless and potentially divisive - but probably allowable. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Perhaps foregoing its usage on the grounds that is not very neutral; whereas there are userboxes that express personal preference, not that many are stating an advocacy of behavior deemed as "naughty" by the rest of the world. Userboxes are meant to serve as a sort of "howdy" to fellow editors; this one seems designed to advocate a political stance that regularly and unilaterally practices violence as part of its agenda. As well, the argument could be made that, because our userspace isn't really ours, using such could be interpreted as an advocacy of such by the wiki itself. Your mileage may vary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that perhaps the userbox could be more carefully worded, but for others to cite it as a "vehicle for terrorists" sounds a little over the top. — neuro(talk) 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe "The creators of epic events who are innocent"? The word "epic" there could mean many things: war, battle, or something that will always be remembered. We have Jewish users who have objected to this userbox, citing it as a vehicle for terrorists on wp. How do I respond to all this?--زرشک (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how that particular text could be anything but divisive. I guess it is possible to neutrally state support for Hamas, but that is not what it would look like. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but it seems to me if you're going to allow as a matter of policy userboxes praising any political movement or cause, then you should probably allow this one. Put another way, as i understand policy, a userbox that said "i support/oppose hamas" would probably be allowed on english wikipedia. I do agree with others that "epic" doesn't translate well here... while simple support of hamas might be acceptable here, a userbox that said something like "I support Hamas shooting rockets at Israel" would probably not fly because it, at least, would attract so much attention/anger and cause a great deal of disruption.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how that particular text could be anything but divisive. I guess it is possible to neutrally state support for Hamas, but that is not what it would look like. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "this one seems designed to advocate a political stance that regularly and unilaterally practices violence as part of its agenda." The 500 men, women and children killed in the last few days might argue over your use of the word "unilateral". To the OP: It's a userbox proclaiming support of (as far as I understand it) a legally constituted political body that won an election. I might not agree with their aims or methods, but then I don't agree with the aims or methods of the U.S. Republican Party either - and supporters of that are allowed userboxes. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- What a thorny issue! To make sense of the question one has to assume that: (1) Hamas as an organization is problematic in some manner (whereas the Republican Party, for example, is not), and (2) something about the userbox is provocative and goes beyond a neutral statement of affiliation or support. You could argue otherwise, but such arguments are not easily settled on AN/I. If either of the foregoing assumptions is untrue, in my opinion, the userbox is perfectly legitimate and there is no policy question to consider. As a policy matter, does Wikipedia permit userboxes that support problematic organizations in a divisive way? Perhaps not on the English Wikipedia. The Persian Wikipedia has to decide for itself. Although it's free to defer to the English Wikipedia, it is free to decide otherwise. Copying policies verbatim does not have to mean copying the cultural and editing norms that go along with them, or the evolving interpretation of those policies that results. My inclination is to think that although the userbox does not help build the encyclopedia directly, affording editors some safe ground for self-identification humanizes the process here, and the editing process requires tolerance, understanding, and mutual support all the way around, including acceptance of any good contributions from editors with real-world political positions one vehemently disagrees. The userbox adversises a likely bias on articles having to do with the subject matter, but announcing one's biases is not necessarily a bad thing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- On en.wp, the applicable rules are WP:UP, which prohibits "polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" on an user page, and also WP:NOT, which prohibits the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy more generally (as also enunciated in several ArbCom decisions). On that basis, in my opinion, most non-humorous userboxes stating support for or opposition to real-world political groups, but certainly any organization engaged in armed conflicts (as here), are not allowed. In practice, however, such userboxes appear to be tolerated except in egregious cases.
- I did forcibly remove a Middle East userbox once (also about Hamas, I think), which gave rise to some discussion here (it's in the ANI archives somewhere), but as far as I remember there was no consensus that I acted wrong in doing so. Sandstein 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't read much of the above (prob. should have, but tl;dr), but we have had similar issues with nationalistic userboxes. I believe the general idea on the last discussion I recall (it was a rather jingoistic FYROM userbox) was that user boxes should a) Have something to do with the project, or contain information people might want to know if they're looking for someone in a particular field AND b) Not piss people off. If a userbox was missing either, particularly the latter, it was at risk of being removed. If it was missing both, it should have been removed yesterday. In this case, it's a borderline for a) (useful) and definitely violates b) (offensive). If I recall correctly, Hamas was considered by the world press to be the more radical group in their last election, and their party has been found to be at least partially responsible for some of the constant fighting in that region (trying to stick to what I know are facts here, don't fully understand the situation nor do I care to). To call them "innocent" is probably wrong and certainly provocative towards those on the other side of the fence, and possibly even some in the middle. I agree with the comments above that this being a vehicle for terrorism is over the top; it's not advocating violence directly. That said, I'd ask the user to reword it to something along the lines of "This user praises Hamas" (and leave it at that), and if they refused, remove it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If you decide to keep the userbox, consider moving it to a user subpage. That way you avoid giving the impression that the userbox is officially endorsed by wikipedia. Rami R 18:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Confirmation needed
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I just extended the block of this IP, 194.176.105.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), to six months due to repeated legal threats. Too long?--Jac16888 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Noting that the editor is disruptive outside of simply making legal threats. — neuro(talk) 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Probably, but it's no use retracting your length now. This is a static IP, so the length might be at least somewhat justified. The legal threat is obvious BS, but the editor is clearly here solely to disrupt the project... Tan | 39 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Re-set to two weeks and hardblocked by Checkuser User:Sam Korn. Black Kite 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX: "drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk"
(ported over from where it was initially - and inaccurately - posted at AN)
While John took the time to open a discussion at WQA in regards to this matter, I am growing concerned that ThuranX might be of the inexact opinion that suggesting a fellow editor "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk" is anywhere near acceptable behavior. This was part of an article discussion wherein the John (talk · contribs) acted with exceptional reserve in the face of behavior that would have sent anyone else packing. ThuranX' behavior there, and elsewhere with increasing frequency seems to be be growing problematic of late. While this advisory is of one situation occurring in one article discussion, ThruanX seems to be unwilling/unable to render his opinions and dictums in a socially acceptable way. JNW has been here almost as long as ThuranX, and yet he has nary a single block, whereas ThuranX has been blocked repeatedly for precisely the same behavior he is displaying yet again. I think some sort of intervention might be called for.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have pretty much given up interacting with the user, as he has been unremittingly unpleasant for the two-plus years I have been here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- So, being a dick (and I am not necessarily agreeing with your assessment, btw) is an open door for an experienced editor to act the same? Please. That's a a theory widely disproven by jumping off a cliff just because the neighbor kid did, too. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If the person drops dead, then the issue of keeping away would become moot, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I am guessing that John might not wish to accede to ThuranX' wish for the person to shuffle off the mortal coil. Tangential quip aside, is this the sort of behavior we condone from experienced editors? Were this the first time, or some sort of Mastodon issue, I'd say chalk it up to low blood sugar. However, this keeps happening with a largely unrepentant editor. You seriously cannot be advocating this sort of nonsense, can you? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- If that question was directed toward moi, the answer's no. I think it is possible to both condemn and make light of such episodes. Spare the rod and spoil the child, I say. No need to investigate any circumstances here. It's unacceptable. Block.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless of course they attach themselves to the other person using a set of titanium-alloy handcuffs, and then drop dead. ♪BMWΔ 17:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I am guessing that John might not wish to accede to ThuranX' wish for the person to shuffle off the mortal coil. Tangential quip aside, is this the sort of behavior we condone from experienced editors? Were this the first time, or some sort of Mastodon issue, I'd say chalk it up to low blood sugar. However, this keeps happening with a largely unrepentant editor. You seriously cannot be advocating this sort of nonsense, can you? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's good to have fans, isn't it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's also good to note that SirFozzie informed (and suggested a wikibreak) to ThuranX after the WP:AN filing, and I have advised ThuranX of this ANI.
- As a comment, being exessively provoked does not excuse behaviour, but explains it. In a situation involving provocation, it's important to hear the reply after being called on the behaviour. Just last week I was the victim of my very own ANI after excessive provocation - I was -> <- this close to saying something similar to the other editor after all the wikipoodling I had been a victim of. ♪BMWΔ 17:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- While notifying the principles in the matter, I I realized that I accidentally identified JNW (talk · contribs) as the recipient of ThuranX' replies, I've altered the initial post to identify the correct user John (talk · contribs). Both have now been notified. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And BMW, I understand that ThuranX might have felt provoked, but this seems to keep happening with him with many more editors than just this one here. Each time, folk suggest a wikibreak, a spot of tea (or an entire pot); unfortunately, this particular kettle seems to remain on the boil, no matter how many breaks are suggested. While I applaud SirFozzie's note to ThuranX, esp. after the latter took a bite out of him, we don't provide for this. As Ferrylodge suggested, a block might be a method by which we can protect other users for a bit (and thereby the encyclopedia). The carrot has proven rather unsuccessful; perhaps a bit of the stick is called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Considering John told him twice to seek a new hobby...a little aggressive with the response, but I agree...definitely provoked.--Smashvilletalk 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right, once in article discussion and once in ThuranX' usertalk page, and - it bears repeating - after being provoked by Thuran's barbed responses. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- So now your saying that provokation does excuse behaviour? 198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Provocation does not excuse behaviour. — neuro(talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ecx2) Clearly, I am not. but I think a suggestion to calm down, be nice or find another pastime is a tad low on the scale of incivility - especially when we consider the response, before, after and with other editors. I think there is an assumption of dickish behavior on the part of John that is both unsubstantiated as well as immaterial to the actual problem. Or, are you of the opinion that, were the same sort of attention showered upon you, that you (anon) would not feel unfairly attacked?
- And no, provocation does not excuse the depth and breadth of the behavior through the wiki. While this complaint addresses one incident, is there is misapprehension that its the only one where ThuranX has - all by his/her lonesome - denigrated an argument to name-calling and insults?- Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I was a part of this case? Why have I been excluded?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that you were connected to the incident, aside from offering a succession of unhelpful remarks at the wrong noticeboard. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I live in a wilder and woollier world than wikipedias civility standards... such as they are. So no, I would not feel unfairly attacked. I sympathize with ThuranX in that I feel he was the victim of a unsolicited collaboration request which turned out to be a my way or the highway volentolding. Which of the two editors was more 'uncivil' is a matter of dispute. Surely ThuranX used language that others felt was unnacceptable, but I can name at least three people on this board that felt that Johns very civil words hid a passive-agressive style dickishness. Isn't that just as bad direct namecalling?198.161.173.180 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, is not as bad. Gerardw (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as you can imagine, WP is not the world. We have standards here that are more or less adhered to so that the community at large doesn't devolve into some webforum of hypersensitive trash-talking, or folk trying to prove that they are smarter/righter/better than everyone else. No one is the smartest person in the room here at Wikipedia, and that means that everyone gets to be treated via the Golden Rule until they abrogate that right. Now, either every single one of the dozen or so people that have been subjected to ThuranX's colorful remarks should be blocked as trolls, or the problem resides with ThuranX' behavior. Yes, (s)he contributes a lot and is seemingly a net addition to the community, but usefulness doesn't - and shouldn't - excuse sort of allowances we are making for him/her. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so they got a little feisty and now probably despise each other. Why can't we let it slide? Why are you people so bent on punishing a few minor transgressions?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mainly, MS, the point is that this isn't an isolated incident, its just the most recent flare-up by ThuranX. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so they got a little feisty and now probably despise each other. Why can't we let it slide? Why are you people so bent on punishing a few minor transgressions?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Provocation does not excuse behaviour. — neuro(talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- So now your saying that provokation does excuse behaviour? 198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Considering John told him twice to seek a new hobby...a little aggressive with the response, but I agree...definitely provoked.--Smashvilletalk 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And BMW, I understand that ThuranX might have felt provoked, but this seems to keep happening with him with many more editors than just this one here. Each time, folk suggest a wikibreak, a spot of tea (or an entire pot); unfortunately, this particular kettle seems to remain on the boil, no matter how many breaks are suggested. While I applaud SirFozzie's note to ThuranX, esp. after the latter took a bite out of him, we don't provide for this. As Ferrylodge suggested, a block might be a method by which we can protect other users for a bit (and thereby the encyclopedia). The carrot has proven rather unsuccessful; perhaps a bit of the stick is called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"Feel free to seek another hobby"
When I pointed out that ThuranX was free to find another hobby here, I was not intentionally being uncivil but alluding to our founder's much-quoted saying, that people who are unable or unwilling to follow our policies are free to go off and do something else, something which applies to everyone here, including me. If I ever find myself getting overheated or over-focussed on something on Wikipedia, I usually just go off for a day or so and do something else. I do not think this qualifies as incivility or dickishness, just simple fact. Whether I could have handled that interaction better (yes, I probably could, though not much better) or not, it was certainly not my intention or expectation to provoke comments like "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk". I think there is something wrong with the level of abuse coming back from this user. What needs to be done to correct their behavior I will leave up to others; however I am pretty clear that I don't want to work on a project where behavior like this is tolerated. --John (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to work on a project where behavior like this is tolerated. Yes you do, you know it's as hard for you to leave Wikipedia as the rest of us Wikiholics :) In the long run, a simple case of incivility is something that disappears, but you are correct, a history of incivility is significantly different ... but you also know, that many on Wikipedia will excuse the occasional outburst if the editor is generally a "net positive" ♪BMWΔ 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (Wikiholics - lol) This is generally true, BMW, but when discussion - which has always been considered that which makes the wiki actually Not Suck - is stifled for fear of being pimp-slapped by an experienced user, a lot of folk simply withdraw instead of continuing. The Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those who shout down the others disagreeing with him/her. I am not saying we should indef block the guy/gal, but rather that some recalcitrance from ThuranX would be nice to see. As we can be fairly sure that won't be coming, we can extrapolate that he/she doesn't feel such behavior is actually a problem. And that, my friend, is the problem. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- No I don't. I do not want to work on a project where someone can be abusive and it is excused because they did something good in the past. If this is indeed a pattern of behavior from this user then I really do think this is a problem which needs to be addressed. WP:CIVIL is not just for when you feel like it, it is an essential component of an online project like this. Without it, I don't think we have a chance of completing what we are trying to do. If I were to come to believe that, I really don't think I would see the point in continuing my work here. --John (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with John here, I dont know many people who want to work on a project with people who act like that and are excused. As a matter of fact, I know many good users who left because some, "popular," users was a straight asshole and the community just turned their back on the abuse. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, let's punish him then. Should we block him for one week for foul language?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, please focus on the actual complaint and ongoing problem; it isn't about being a potty-mouth, its about treating everyone around him like crap (pardon the comparative pun). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, let's punish him then. Should we block him for one week for foul language?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked him for 12 hours for the gross incivility. If you look he has a pretty lengthy block log for previous incivil behavior. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would also not be opposed to lengthening the block due to his long history of gross incivility and other interactions on this project. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And since several people have agreed that John was provoking ThuranX, I assume you will be blocking him too? Or is this block simply to punish one 'side'?198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- John explained his comments above. All I saw was his attempts at being civil and cool in a heated situation. This is a difficult task to handle, and for those who handle it without making grossly incivil outbursts and statements should in no way receive a block. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and this is also not about, "sides." This is about an editor who has repeatedly shown extreme disrepsect and contempt to his fellow editors through the use of abusive, incivil and derrogatory comments on many occasaions (many of which he was blocked for as well). Take a look at his block log. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see two editors acting in an uncivil manner to each other. I see several editors stating such, and I see you blocking ONE of them. For something that isn't about sides, you sure seem to have taken one.198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see one of the editors who explained his comments and what he truly meant by them as well as admitting he could have handled it a bit better as well as having no history of gross incivility, and I see one user who has a long history of gross incivility to fellow editors and no explanations to his incredibly offesinve comments. It is not about sides, it is about actions. Should the other editor wish to explain how is comments were meant in the nicest of terms and were only mis-interpreted and agree to never act that way again or be blocked again I would agree that the block is probably unjustified. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing blocking ThuranX, by all means punish him. I'm talking about whats good for the goose being good for the gander. You see an editor explainin his comments? I see a textbook example of politeness hiding incivility. Its simple really. First, be a dick... but a polite one. Then when your target calls you on it, claim innocence behind your politeness while pointing out the incivility you have created. For good measure, make sure you sprinkle in a note about how you plan to quit if this isn't dealt with (extra points if you can vaguely point out someone who already has). Then an admin can come by and swing the banhammer at the obvious problem whilst you run off to start it again with a clean block log.198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes, you need to be able to get a firm message across. The question is, can you do it nicley? That is not being incivil, it is stating the truth in a manner considered appropriate by civilized adults. In this case, John's comment was telling thuran that if he did not like the way things were done around here, he might want to look elsewhere for a hobby instead of endure the stress (he said it in a bit rougher terms) but was appropriate about it. As he cites above, this is based off of a philosophy from Jimmy Wales. Now not condining the behavior, there is a big different between what John, and what Thuran did. You can argue that John was being a tactful dick and maybye that is what it was, but how much different is that from constructive criticism or other forms of appropriate conflict? Not all conflict is innapropriate but when you respond the way Thuran did, there is NO way that can be classified as an appropriate response. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- For example, would you consider this reponse to an editor whose article I deleted being a dick? I did a google search and found little information on there band. I need to get a negative message across (that there band is most likley not notable and will not have an article here until it becomes notable). I got the message across in a nice, but firm way (no cursing or degrading comments. For example I did not call him a bloody fucking idiot or something like that), but still got my negative message across. There is a MASSIVE difference in the way John and Thuran handled things. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see one of the editors who explained his comments and what he truly meant by them as well as admitting he could have handled it a bit better as well as having no history of gross incivility, and I see one user who has a long history of gross incivility to fellow editors and no explanations to his incredibly offesinve comments. It is not about sides, it is about actions. Should the other editor wish to explain how is comments were meant in the nicest of terms and were only mis-interpreted and agree to never act that way again or be blocked again I would agree that the block is probably unjustified. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- And the message here is 'I get to point out things you have to change cus I don't feel like it, and you better do it cus im polite'. I get it. That does clear things up for me and I'm glad you feel that way.198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to stop arguing with you about this. It is not about what was said, it is about how it was said. WP:CIVIL is mostly about how you interact with people, not what you say. If Thuran had said, "I disagree with your assertion that I should find another hobby and honestly I am a bit offended by it," I have NO doubt that John would have clarified his intent and this would never have happened. Instead thuran said, "drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." which cannot in any way be excused. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see two editors acting in an uncivil manner to each other. I see several editors stating such, and I see you blocking ONE of them. For something that isn't about sides, you sure seem to have taken one.198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello! I noticed this edit from an editor previously blocked for incivility. In addition the above cited diff, such edit summaries as this or swearing in posts do not help much either. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and this is also not about, "sides." This is about an editor who has repeatedly shown extreme disrepsect and contempt to his fellow editors through the use of abusive, incivil and derrogatory comments on many occasaions (many of which he was blocked for as well). Take a look at his block log. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Anon, the matter seems done, so maybe we can stop arguing about it. I can see where you are coming from here, but ThuranX' response wasn't commensurate with what he was receiving. I don't see the dickish stuff from John, though you should feel free to post on my talkpage where you think it was. Chris pretty much summed up the idea that disagreeing while remaining polite is a lot better than getting aggressive. Manners separates WP from some web forum. It also renders unto you to post anonymously and still be given the assumption of good faith. This is pretty much my last post on this as well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (e/cx2) Don't worry, I'm done too. I care little and can change less. John's alleged misconduct was already pointed out by me and Thuran already, so if you and Chris see fit to forgive it then that is your right and there is no need for more rehash. I, however, maintain my opposite opinion. I politely put down the stick and back away slowly from the horse. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would also not be opposed to lengthening the block due to his long history of gross incivility and other interactions on this project. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (Wikiholics - lol) This is generally true, BMW, but when discussion - which has always been considered that which makes the wiki actually Not Suck - is stifled for fear of being pimp-slapped by an experienced user, a lot of folk simply withdraw instead of continuing. The Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those who shout down the others disagreeing with him/her. I am not saying we should indef block the guy/gal, but rather that some recalcitrance from ThuranX would be nice to see. As we can be fairly sure that won't be coming, we can extrapolate that he/she doesn't feel such behavior is actually a problem. And that, my friend, is the problem. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note - unblock has been requested. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also to the admin who review the unblock request, read through the thread in question before making a decision. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, I have read it, and while I understand ThuranX's frustration, the comment was clearly way over the top. Having said that, my concern about the actual block is that a block nearly 7 hours after ThuranX's last edit looks punitive rather than preventative. Black Kite 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also to the admin who review the unblock request, read through the thread in question before making a decision. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said above, I would have based the length of the block on ThuranX's level of ... "apologeticness" once his comment were brought on board. Maybe then it was either 1 day (for real grovelling) or 3 days for disruption if he'd acted unremorseful... but hey, I'm no admin ♪BMWΔ 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
MZMcBride's admin bot
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
It seems that MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is running an unsupervised admin bot on his account, and has been doing so for awhile now. I generally have no problem with admins running bots on their accounts to do mass deletions and other mundane tasks, but unless MZMcBride has been sitting at his computer nonstop for days on end, he is doing so without reviewing any of the work the bot is doing. Also note he was recently blocked for such behavior.[112]. Cheers, 74.226.9.42 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I do think it's time once and for all to decide whether what he is doing is appropriate. I'm not bothered whether he is using a bot or not, it's whether it's right or wrong to be deleting those pages. Majorly talk 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c)I don't see any non-stop contributions, or anything to make me think that they are running a bot on their account. Am I looking in the wrong direction? — neuro(talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The deletions seem to be fine, per a few discussions at WT:UP (which lead to WP:OLDIP) and Wikipedia talk:CSD#Deletion of old IP talk pages. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c x2)Ah, right, deletions. I've seen other admins (well, to be honest, I've only seen MZM and east) doing this though, so I can only assume that there is some policy I am missing. — neuro(talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) That's very likely a script but I don't see anything too worrisome about the deletions. One does like to see an IP's talk page history but after a year, any hints it may give have likely gone way stale. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Without getting off onto a tangent, whether it is a fully automated script or a bot is mere semantics. MZMcBride has been deleting thousands of pages for several days straight now, without the slightest bit of supervision (I stopped looking at the 48 hours/several thousand mark within his logs). That, IMHO, is the problem. I also don't see any benefit to deleting these pages, and I like (yes, like) being able to see the talk history of the IPs I use. 74.226.9.42 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion about whether deleting them is right or wrong doesn't belong here, and I've already linked (above) two discussions that have resulted in the understanding that there is no real need to retain these pages. As for the "script" versus "bot" and whether or not it is "unsupervised" - we can only speculate at this point. Not seeing an issue here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose it's the fact that WP:BOT#Bots with administrative rights is rather specific on this issue. Could you point me to the WP:BRFA where this task was approved? Thanks in advance, 74.226.9.42 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, but I can point you to WP:BURO, and more important in your case, WP:SPA. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- SPA? Honey, if you don't like unregistered users, you best find another project. My IP changes on a daily basis, and sometimes several times in one day. Yesterday I was 65.4.33.178 (talk · contribs) and 68.17.180.54 (talk · contribs). Prior to that, I edited briefly as 68.159.168.71 (talk · contribs). So, with all due respect, I suggest you either contribute to this discussion productively or not at all. And as far as BURO, we have an admin running a bot on his account, who has deleted over 5000 pages within the last day alone, with no real approval or consensus for him to do it. Asking where the task was approved is not bureaucratic bullshit. 74.226.9.42 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, but I can point you to WP:BURO, and more important in your case, WP:SPA. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose it's the fact that WP:BOT#Bots with administrative rights is rather specific on this issue. Could you point me to the WP:BRFA where this task was approved? Thanks in advance, 74.226.9.42 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion about whether deleting them is right or wrong doesn't belong here, and I've already linked (above) two discussions that have resulted in the understanding that there is no real need to retain these pages. As for the "script" versus "bot" and whether or not it is "unsupervised" - we can only speculate at this point. Not seeing an issue here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Without getting off onto a tangent, whether it is a fully automated script or a bot is mere semantics. MZMcBride has been deleting thousands of pages for several days straight now, without the slightest bit of supervision (I stopped looking at the 48 hours/several thousand mark within his logs). That, IMHO, is the problem. I also don't see any benefit to deleting these pages, and I like (yes, like) being able to see the talk history of the IPs I use. 74.226.9.42 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Notified MZMcBride about this thread. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, if a "bot" is acting up, we disable and ask the owner, correct? If this is not a "bot", it's harder to disable. The owner has been asked to comment, and we await such. Deletions can be rescinded (or is that "bee" rescinded, after all the honey talk, or did I just bumble my way into that?) ♪BMWΔ 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If I didn't know any better, I would think this IP were my sockpuppet... Down to the same way of saying 'admin bot'. Needless to say I agree with the IP, if (and I don't believe this to be the case) MZM is running a bot, and not a script. The difference being that bots are unsupervised, and take action on their own accord, whereas scripts simply go through a list and stop at the end. Prodego talk 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a real wonder that people hate this board when nobody bothers going to my talk page first.... This has been discussed in three (maybe four?) forums (fora, if you prefer) already. I have no idea what more you want me to say here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe that is a sign that things more constructive than padding your delete count should be done... John Reaves 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
None of the deletions were wrong so I don't see any action that we need to take.--Pattont/c 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Attack on Slim Virgin
83.78.45.8 (talk · contribs) has added very serious attacks against Slim Virgin to the articles Right of asylum and Attacks on humanitarian workers three days ago. Please delete it from the history. Aecis·(away) talk 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OVERSIGHT is the right place for this in the future. — neuro(talk) 17:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually as I recently found out admins can remove diffs by deleting the page and then restoring it -1 diff. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know that, but Oversight can remove it even from the sight of admins. You were right about Oversight, Neurolysis, I should have raised it there. Aecis·(away) talk 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ironholds, we can do that, but it takes some time, is a much larger drain on server resources, and doesn't completely hide it from everyone as Aecis mentioned. There's also the possibility of it being accidentally restored later on. The Oversight team usually works very quickly anyway, so for cases like this it's better to give them a call. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know that, but Oversight can remove it even from the sight of admins. You were right about Oversight, Neurolysis, I should have raised it there. Aecis·(away) talk 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually as I recently found out admins can remove diffs by deleting the page and then restoring it -1 diff. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c)Deleting selected versions (or even oversight of selected edits) gets ugly, tho, if there are intervening edits. In at least one case above, 2 users added material to the version while this inanity was in the article. You'd have to delete those two version too, then I suppose re-add their material with some kind of attribution, or invite them to re-add the material themsleves, or blow off their edits, or.... I'm not sure I see the point. It's not in the article, no one with an IQ greater than 3 is going to believe (or even understand) this babble, and much worse gets left in the history of most articles every day. I'd just blow it off, if it were me. --barneca (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why were these particular attacks oversighted when most other attacks on editors are just removed and not even deleted...?--Pattont/c 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- These edits haven't been deleted or oversighted (yet?). Aecis·(away) talk 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Be Unlimited and 02 proxying again through single IP
As a FYI it appears Be Unlimited and 02 are proxying again as a result of WP:IWF. See: User talk:89.167.221.131 and here. Not sure whether another one of our pages has been blocked by the IWF.... but Be Unlimited and O2 are going through one IP it appears... D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- What makes you think this proxying is IWF related? — neuro(talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be enough activity coming from that IP for all that traffic to be being proxied through the one IP. I suspect it's possible that the IP is just saying that to try and then claim that "it wasn't me" when they're blocked for vandalism (which they have just been)...GbT/c 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Phoning Be now. — neuro(talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) A lot of edits from the past few hours, some good faith not good not, hence I think that multiple users are being proxied..... D.M.N. (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can confirm that I'm coming through this proxy, a different one from the one I was coming through before as well. Brilliantine (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Proxying confirmed (they didn't say yes, they didn't say no, but from what I have heard from them and various people both on and off Wikipedia it is occurring), requested IWF comment on affiliation or lack thereof, apparently they will get back to me in office hours. — neuro(talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pass the salt, then, my hat's just coming to the boil. GbT/c 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Contacted 5 people I know to be using Be, all on that IP. Definite. — neuro(talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Talk Talk doesn't appear to be proxying at the moment (I've just checked) - don't know if it's a technical error with Be/O2 or whether a specific URL hasn't propagated to other ISPs systems. Nick (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okey. Has anyone from the impacted ISPs checked virgin killer? Assumeing they are sticking with their no blocks widely disributed material locateing the targeted image could be tricky.Geni 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Talk Talk doesn't appear to be proxying at the moment (I've just checked) - don't know if it's a technical error with Be/O2 or whether a specific URL hasn't propagated to other ISPs systems. Nick (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Contacted 5 people I know to be using Be, all on that IP. Definite. — neuro(talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pass the salt, then, my hat's just coming to the boil. GbT/c 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Proxying confirmed (they didn't say yes, they didn't say no, but from what I have heard from them and various people both on and off Wikipedia it is occurring), requested IWF comment on affiliation or lack thereof, apparently they will get back to me in office hours. — neuro(talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can confirm that I'm coming through this proxy, a different one from the one I was coming through before as well. Brilliantine (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be enough activity coming from that IP for all that traffic to be being proxied through the one IP. I suspect it's possible that the IP is just saying that to try and then claim that "it wasn't me" when they're blocked for vandalism (which they have just been)...GbT/c 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- appears virgin killer is visible. So this could be a problem.Geni 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Virgin Killer is indeed visible, both on Be, O2, and from what I can tell, nothing is wrong with me on BT. — neuro(talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- IP is still proxied on commons for Be customers. — neuro(talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the third comment in a row, but is appears that the proxying is active on most if not all WMF sites, but only WMF sites. — neuro(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Four in a row -_-, secure servers are non-proxied. — neuro(talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just chipping in to save Neuro from setting a world record in talking to himself, and also to confirm that BT isn't being proxied. Black Kite 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- There have been no contributions as far as I can see from any of the other proxy IP addresses previously used. Brilliantine (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just chipping in to save Neuro from setting a world record in talking to himself, and also to confirm that BT isn't being proxied. Black Kite 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Four in a row -_-, secure servers are non-proxied. — neuro(talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the third comment in a row, but is appears that the proxying is active on most if not all WMF sites, but only WMF sites. — neuro(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- IP is still proxied on commons for Be customers. — neuro(talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Virgin Killer is indeed visible, both on Be, O2, and from what I can tell, nothing is wrong with me on BT. — neuro(talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm on a Virgin Media connection, from within the UK. I just checkusered myself and I am not editing through a proxy; I've had the same IP since 5th December. For the record, the secure server was always a method of circumventing the IWF block, so it doesn't surprise me that it continues to be one now. --Deskana (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you didn't checkuser yourself in public ;) ♪BMWΔ 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Not much we can do until we get more info. Only one ISP so could be a technical glitch but we shall see.Geni 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- From what I recall those two use the same cleenfeed derived system and servers. Other ISPs use different servers.Geni 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Be is owned by o2 Telefonica. Brilliantine (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The blocked IP hasn't edited it's own talk since 18:10, which suggests to be that the proxying was temporary, and may have stopped? Can someone check? D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Maxwell33 (talk page) has written a paper for high school and keeps overwriting the Frank Sander Residence article with unsourced information, some of which may also create WP:BLP issues. This is a borderline non-notable structure (I really can't find any information on it) and he's including information on a private residence I haven't seen in other architectural articles. The tone is also off and he's shown bias against the topic on the talk page, so I'm not quite sure what's up. I've made a number of detailed explanations of how to adapt his original research for inclusion in Wikipedia without success. He removed initial attempts to communicate with him from his talk page. He's since overwritten cited information with uncited information nine times. The edits are disruptive and I'm forced to play a heavy hand in reverting because of BLP and privacy issues given the negative tone, the lack of sourcing, and my inability to find any information about this structure online. Can I get the minimal block necessary to encourage him to read policy? Assistance on his talk page from other editors would also help. Savewright (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support Tan's block based on this comment alone. But some advice to Savewright: Next time, please ask for help before getting caught up in an edit war. Being right is generally not an exception to WP:3RR. — Satori Son 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Assemblies of Yahweh AFDs
Could some outsiders look into the Assemblies of Yahweh articles? We have numerous AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalet School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Name Broadcaster, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Narrow Way (Newsletter)) that are getting very heated. Also, can someone else talk to User:In Citer about his comments at Dalet school and edits to the ANI archives (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive503 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504)? He looks like he isn't going to listen to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could someone revert his edits to this section in the archives? I would like to respond but I don't want edit warring over in the archives. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- While I have not enjoyed my interactions with the aptly named In Citer so far (and expect i'll be here again addressing this issue) I think his editing in the archives was a good-faith error out of inexperience as he sought attention for his concerns. Like Ricky, I welcome and encourage fresh, outside eyes on these related articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the edits from the archives and left a note with the editor in question. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- To Bali, I agree that it was probably good-faith inexperience. However, it seems that any reverts by me would be taken negatively, so I wanted someone else to take care of it to minimize drama. Thanks Sheffield. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the edits from the archives and left a note with the editor in question. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Archive please
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Someone please archive this. User:Una Smith is forum shopping it a number of other places,[113] and it really requires an RfC:user at this point. I tried to archive it yesterday, but accidentally archived the entire bottom half of the page. This does not require an admin, just anyone. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "This does not require an admin" why are you posting here then? — neuro(talk) 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since that section is on ANI, it is actually up to the whims of the administrators to decide when to close out a discussion. If you didn't want it posted, you should have used restraint before posting it on such a public place as this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the issue. It's not going anywhere on AN/I, and User:Una Smith is posting all over the place, and has plenty of other forums, but is not addressing issues raised in this thread, so its purpose here is no longer served. And, when items stop serving a purpose, editors can archive them. Archiving pointless conversations on Wikipedia is not reserved for administrators.
- Make it even more public if you want. However, now that the underlying issue of the move is done with, and the user is not responding to issues raised, it's time to take it RFC. And, I'll be sure to post a link to the RFC here, in public. --KP Botany (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- However, what the heck, don't archive it! Let it roll larger and larger. I'm fine with that. --KP Botany (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since that section is on ANI, it is actually up to the whims of the administrators to decide when to close out a discussion. If you didn't want it posted, you should have used restraint before posting it on such a public place as this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)