→Request review of User:JzG's block of User:Timjowers: correct header |
Raymond arritt (talk | contribs) →Request review of User:JzG's block of User:Timjowers: enough of this... |
||
Line 1,074: | Line 1,074: | ||
:::No one told you to answer for me, and no one was asking you to judge my answer. Your interjection was extremely rude. DGG can evaluate my answer himself, and I can elaborate when requested. —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
:::No one told you to answer for me, and no one was asking you to judge my answer. Your interjection was extremely rude. DGG can evaluate my answer himself, and I can elaborate when requested. —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::And I can comment whenever, and wherever, and for whatever purposes I would like, without your permission. DGG can also evaluate ''my'' answer himself, and I'm free to elaborate on your nonresponse if I wish to do so. And there was nothing "rude" in my initial response to DGG. I simply pointed out that you had not answered his question, which you yourself admitted. [[User:MrWhich|Mr Which]][[User_talk:MrWhich|<small>???</small>]] 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
::::And I can comment whenever, and wherever, and for whatever purposes I would like, without your permission. DGG can also evaluate ''my'' answer himself, and I'm free to elaborate on your nonresponse if I wish to do so. And there was nothing "rude" in my initial response to DGG. I simply pointed out that you had not answered his question, which you yourself admitted. [[User:MrWhich|Mr Which]][[User_talk:MrWhich|<small>???</small>]] 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::Take it outdoors, lads. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== User:Weasel123 == |
== User:Weasel123 == |
Revision as of 02:25, 20 December 2007
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) |
|
Levine2112
Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is refactored from above (which is a separate issue):
- While we are at it, the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom may be topical right now:
- ScienceApologist is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
- Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry [1] [2] [3], harassment [4] [5], edit warring [6] [7] [8] [9], and assumptions of bad faith [10] [11] [12] [13]. We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled. Can something be done as he/she is making Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Those are all outlandish characterizations of my actions: fairly close to a tendentious personal attack. I think Levine is fast learning how to become a disruptive editor. He already fulfills the definitional criteria outlined. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree on the whole with Levine's assessment of ScienceApologist. SA has also accused me of tendentious editting (and I him). Interestingly, and I think relevantly, Levine and I are on opposite sides of the article-subject-matter fence; Levine seeks to protect a postive representation of alternative medicine, and I seek to protect a postive representation of science (these preferences are not necessarily mutually exclusive). However, we agree about editorial philosophy, at least on working towards consensus. By pitting himself against "both sides" (by refusing any compromise whatsoever, on principle), SA has made himself difficult. (Again, as per above in the other ANI made by SA, re Peter Morrell, I consider myself a disputant, not an objective outsider, now.) Pete St.John (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I retract "SA has also accused me of tendentious editting". I overgeneralized, on account of my sense of his aggregrate comments, but in consideration of what might be considered the terms of his parole, I concede that he did not use those words (directly about me specifically). Pete St.John (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree on the whole with Levine's assessment of ScienceApologist. SA has also accused me of tendentious editting (and I him). Interestingly, and I think relevantly, Levine and I are on opposite sides of the article-subject-matter fence; Levine seeks to protect a postive representation of alternative medicine, and I seek to protect a postive representation of science (these preferences are not necessarily mutually exclusive). However, we agree about editorial philosophy, at least on working towards consensus. By pitting himself against "both sides" (by refusing any compromise whatsoever, on principle), SA has made himself difficult. (Again, as per above in the other ANI made by SA, re Peter Morrell, I consider myself a disputant, not an objective outsider, now.) Pete St.John (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here are those criteria and the appropriate links:
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
- Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors
- Levine is notorious pro-alt med POV-pusher. I won't even bother adding links because his entire contribution history lives up to this.
- evidently not his entire history. In the few days (since Dec 11?) I've been involved with the debate at Quackwatch, I've found him responsive and responsible. So perhaps recent specific examples would be in order anyway; and as I've mentioned before, if they are omnipresent it should be easy to find specific examples. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
- Currently we are engaged in a dispute at Talk:Quackwatch where Levine along with another contingent of editors are consistently misrepresenting a source claiming that it is criticizing Quackwatch for not using peer-review when in fact it is offering a recommendation that Quackwatch implement more an "academic counterpoint" to augment their resource of which the author gives a positive review. While there are others involved, Levine tends to act as the main instigator and ring-leader with many of the other alt-med POV-pushers simply parroting his responses back. I became extremely suspicious of this earlier as it looked to me like a case of meatpuppetry on a scale I have not witnessed before at Wikipedia.
- Specificaly false. SA seems to interpret "a review says that QW would be improved by instituting peer-review" as an attack on QW. Be that as it may, he misquoted the context of the citation to reverse the meaning; I refuted that by quoting the exact wording (see link below, or the talk:quackwatch). My theory is that he is blind to this, from fixating on the idea of "an attack on QW" instead of the simple "recommendation made by a reviewer". Anyway that thread is extracted, with some rebuttal from SA, at my page where I pasted together some of the pieces. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
- This edit is particularly telling. Levine is upset that he is not getting his way, and now wants to reject community compromise as a punitive action.
- What? Have you read that diff yourself, SA? Maybe you pointed to the wrong item by mistake? And btw, that's another place where you didn't answer a specific question (read up to the grey above the green). You make sweeping generalities, specific questions are asked, and you ignore them. Pete St.John (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition, such editors may:
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
- If that's not what the above is, I don't know what it's supposed to be.
I submit, therefore, that Levine is a disruptive editor and ask that he be banned from the pages devoted to alternative medicine. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's not exactly the only editor at that page who meets the criteria of a disruptive editor. A broader restriction on a number of the usual suspects involved in the nonsense at Quackwatch, Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, et. al. might not be a bad thing to consider. There are editors on both sides of the dispute that are doing more harm than good to the project as a whole.--Isotope23 talk 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- As in the Peter Morrell item above, also introduced by SA, please consider me a disputant as well. SA has been persistently using wiki-legalism and veiled rhetoric while spamming the consensus building process with digressions, minutiae, reverts, additions, accustations, etc. (at Quackwatch) Hope for concilliation seems, to me, dashed by this pair of ANI. Pete St.John (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Um, actually, I brought that up. Don't tell me there's still problems at Quackwatch. Want me to go in and yell at people? Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist has asked me to come here to defend myself against his accusations: [14]. I don't think that is necessary when clearly this is just another example of ScienceApologist's uncivil behavior, harassment, and assumption of bad faith in others. I urge Admins to consider the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Response to Levine's accusations
Levine made a nice little list of problems he had with me. Unfortunately, these "problems" more-or-less do not correspond to the labels he has associated with them:
Sockpuppetry allegations
Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry [15] [16] [17],
I really do believe that MaxPont and TheDoctorIsIn may be sockpuppets of each other. I asked them politely on their talkpages if they were and expressed my concerns on the relevant talkpage of the article that they were reverting in tandem. It was documented that TheDoctorIsIn was keeping track of his reverts and as soon as he reached the threshhold MaxPont came in and reverted back to TheDoctorIsIn's version. More than this, both MaxPont and TheDoctorIsIn have referred to I DONT LIKE IT as criticisms of people with whom they disagree. Now this similarity could be due to the fact that they both edit in similar places and both picked up on this (actually incorrect because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a reference to a deletion debate protocol) argument by reading the same comments at some point, but I don't think I was out-of-bounds to supsect untoward behavior. I made my suspicions known as civilly as possible. I am very much aware that they may turn out to be incorrect. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've done a quick comparison of their contributions and conclude that they overlap closely enough that "a suspicion of possible sockpuppetry is not unreasonable." It would take a little more digging to say anything more specific one way or the other, or to provide basis for a checkuser request. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. I have an edit history going back to Aug2006 with 100s of edits. Why would TheDoctorsin nurture another persona for all that time in order to make three sockpuppet edits? Since July I have visitied a few WP pages on and off. Sometimes I made short comments in ongoing discussions. But I am appalled by the disruptive and uncivil editing environment created by editors such as ScienceApologist and a few other editors and don't really enjoy the consant bullying and harassment. Take a look at how ScienceApologist welcomed me entering the discussion with two comments on the Talk pages and one edit. [18] He obviously assumed bad faith immediately. I am not surprised that there is an ArbCom ruling against him. MaxPont (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- If MaxPont and DoctorIsIn are socks of each other, then I would say "MPDII" is a true genius. "MPDII" would have the apparent ability to be in two much different geographical places at once, with very much different personalities to me. Also "MPDII" would have to have feigned not only being a newbie, but then feigned being a po'd newbie as DoctorIsIn getting pulped by a skilled, sock troll known to me (who disappeared again when I surfaced myself) almost a year ago, whereas MaxPont previously had already acquired the experience and skills to avoid such an unpleasant baiting and beating. I see no basis for SA's sock allegations on MP and DII.--I'clast (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Harassment
harassment [19]
In this diff: "I would appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)" How is this possibly harassment? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In this diff, I warned MaxPont about what I perceived to be some very shoddy explanations for his revert and what I considered to be borderline disruptive editing. I do not consider this harassment, but I do consider this to be a warning that the behavior associated with fly-by-night reverts associated with seeming POV-pushing is not tolerated at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit waring
edit warring [21] [22] [23] [24]
Here we have examples of me removing a problematic passage which I explained on talk. When that was reverted, I tried to compromise and I rewrote the passage to conform to Wikipedia standards. When that was reverted without a rather nasty edit summary by User:TheDoctorIsIn, I reverted back asking him to assume good faith. When later that was reverted by TheDoctorIsIn again without so much as a comment on the talkpage while I had created an entire section to discuss the rationale for including at least an expanded version of the summary of the review, I reverted back. Maybe the last revert was not the best thing to do (there was, in fact, another round of reverts between other users over this passage), but I hardly see this as cut-and-dry as Levine seems to think. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- You guys are way too fast for me. I've begun putting together notes explicating my complaints concerning ScienceApologist at Quackwatch. QW Talk is huge, with many subsections on the same topics (mainly because sections get too large to edit conveniently). In particular, my own main single complaint against ScienceApologist is that he misquoted the context of a citation, to reverse the meaning of the quote iteself. Since he was accusing others of misconstruing the context, I considered this particularly egregious, exacerbated by his not having acknowleged (much less rebutted) the error since. My notes so far are at this section in my user space. It's a gloss of a very very spammy debate at Talk:quackwatch. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have responded directly at that location. It looks to me like this is a misunderstanding that I hope we can work out elsewhere. I wasn't aware of misquoting (in fact, I wasn't quoting, but rather paraphrasing) and I made what I believe to be a good justification for this characterization of the source. While you may disagree with this characterization, I hope you will understand that I wasn't intending to lie or certainly not "reverse the meaning of the quote". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, your intentions were good. But, you must understand that a full explanation of every source is too lengthy to put into an article. Encyclopedic content must be concise and easy to understand. The original material was more suited to the article than your revision. You further compounded the problem by removing his/her contribution. Remember this: It is always better to add to an article than to subtract from it. Jerome709 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to disagree here. Of course, there are kilobytes of text on Talk:Quackwatch, but basically the issue is that this review that is being sourced is a positive review and the recommendations being made by the author are not properly contextualized by the cherry-picked quote. I mentioned this on the talkpage and was ignored to the point of insisting a different consensus existed (which clearly did not -- see below). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Assumptions of bad faith
and assumptions of bad faith [25] This is simply me asking to add Anthon01 to the list of problematic editors that have been at different articles causing problems. How is this assuming bad faith exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[26] This is the same as above except for User:TheDoctorIsIn. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your attacks against me were unfounded. . . warnings, insults and false accusations. . . how much more bad faith can one assume in another?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I presented the evidence above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[27] This is me asking PeterStJohn where he heard about the Quackwatch controversy. How is this an assumption of bad faith? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[28] This is me commenting on my suspicions of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, in particular I'm explaining why I have the suspicions. How is this an assumption of bad faith? I had evidence for why I had my suspicions. I was not assuming bad faith because I had evidence to the contrary. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Really? Because you present no evidence here. . . just an assumption of bad faith. . . and you have yet to present me with anything the shape of evidence. . . all I got was a warning and antagonistic message from you.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I presented the evidence above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus conclusion
We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled.
I don't think that we were close to a "consensus" at all. In fact, most of the people who aren't active alt-med POV-pushers hadn't commented at the time that Levine declared consensus to exist. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think ScienceApologist's characterization of the consensus claim is accurate here. Certainly, less than a day is not enough time to claim consensus if disputants haven't weighed in yet. Antelan talk 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- How can one speak of civility but then go on to blindly brand editors as "alt-med POV-pushers"? Also please note that Levine said we were close to a consensus which. . . thanks to editors like Levine. . . we were. He did not "declare" it as ScienceApologist is characterizing. . . to my knowledge Levine was the one the most helpful and instrumental editors in trying to acheive consenus. . . and where ScienceApologist was the most detrimental. I don't know but I have had a bad taste in my mouth for ScienceApologist ever since this guy editting my userpage and labeled me "a true believer in chiropractic". I don't like him. . . I think he is trouble. . . and I now I find out that he is calling me a sockpuppet. . . This is simply not true. . . Where does this guy get off?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipeda is unpleasant
Can something be done as he/she is making Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish that Wikipedia could be an enjoyable place: but I don't like to see people with obvious agendas push their fringe beliefs into articles in order to advance a POV. That is contrary to what I believe to be one of the major aims of Wikipedia. I believe we are here to write an encyclopedia. Is it possible that sometimes people who have other agendas may find that aim unpleasant? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the specific example familiar to me, citing a (evidently qualified) reviewer stating (in an evidently reputable professional journal) that he believed (at that time, 8 years ago) that QW would be improved by insitituting peer-review for it's own publication, does not constitute pushing a fringe belief. In fact, I consider the utility of peer-review to be conventional science; QW also advocates peer-review. It may not be applicable to QW's web site itself, but it's a legitimate critique which by no means implies that QW is itself unscientific or fraudulent. Witness that QW openly answers questions about it. I'm sure some of us have fringe beliefs; for example, the belief that Science is Holy and Above Criticism would be a fringe (but not unheard of) belief. For all I know, Levine did terrible editting on many pages. But in the 3 days (or so) since the RFC (on the 11th), he has been cooperative about seeking a compromise, and you, ScienceApologist, have not been (as per here, in progress). So in terms of my responding to an RFC, this ANI is premature and, IMO, disruptive to the consensus building process. Pete St.John (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am getting a little uncomfortable with some of the characterizations that you are making which seem to be bordering closer and closer on personal attacks of myself. You are certainly entitled to your opinions on the matter, but I don't think that your advocacy is exactly helping in this situation, especially considering that this incident report isn't about you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I posted this "An Idea" yesterday. Antelan posted this "Crohnie you've got a great point." Then deleted the section. I think IMHO that this section is not notable nor necessary in the article. I seem though to be getting a lot of comments about my idea. I am one of the regular editors who left this article do to arguements like this. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pete, the major problem here is one of context. Levine and his friends have been trying since forever to insert "QW is not peer reviewed" in order to undermine its credibility. This is just the latest salvo in a long-running battle. A comment that it might be improved by peer-review is a comment that applies to just about every activist website that exists; I am on the editorial board of a website that has a process of informal peer review and even there we feel that more rigour would be helpful. It's not really a valid criticism of QW as QW, it's a criticism of most if not all activist websites. The fact remains that QW is widely cited and considered at least reasonably reliable by as lot of people. Levine and his friends don't like that, because very often it's their pet topics that QW debunks. We can't really fix the fact that they like fringe subjects and QW doesn't, nor should we allow the views of True Believers to distort what we say about those who debunk fringe and pseudo science. It is also likely that these editors are deliberately trying to wind ScienceApologist up in the hope of getting him into trouble. They are very inclined to spit in his soup. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I find this remark from Guy to be extremely hostile and untrue. It violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA and I don't think it is befitting behavior of an admin. For the record, I am NOT trying to undermine Quackwatch's credibility, but rather get the article right by including information which is completely verified by reliable sources. It seems rock-solid for inclusion, but, as in the past, the more solid the ground for inclusions stands upon becomes, the more the arguments against inclusion shift into the form of personal attack and assumptions of bad faith. Essentially, it plays out like this: 1) I want to include some material. 2) Someone tells me I can't because it isn't sourced. 3) I find a source. 4) Someone tells me that the source isn't reliable. 5) I find a reliable source. 6) Someone tells me that I am misrepresenting what the source says. 7) I offer to quote the source word-for-word. 8) Someone tells me that I have a pro-Quackery agenda and that I am being disruptive. 9) I deny it and say that isn't a valid reason to exclude the reliably sourced information. 10) And here we are. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Levine, you are exhausting any good faith assumption. As someone who has been occasionally involved in these articles, Guy's above comment seems completely accurate. Frankly, I think you are close to exhausting community patience. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please follow my 1-10 assessment, tell me if it is an unfair depiction of what is going on currently at Quackwatch and then let's see whose patience should be exhausted. Again, I feel like the "other side" on this issue have realized that inclusion is imminent due to the quality of sources I have provided and now that they can no longer argue policy for the content, they have regrettable chosen to attack me personally. Yet, my patience is unwavering. Now you have joined in here JoshuaZ and JzG and I give you this challenge. Spend some time and go through my past months of edits and comments. Show me where I have tried to undermine QW's credibility, where I have acted uncivilly or without good faith. Really take you time and look at it. Honestly. Show me how it is justified for two admins to come here and misrepresent me as a True Believer of the fringe. I take great offense to these personal attacks and if you think they are justified then you are going to have show me the justification or else I am considering a gross abuse of admin privilege and a demonstration of egregious incivility. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this comment is an excellent example of exactly how tendentious Levine2112 is. He is disrupting Wikipedia as much as other editors I have seen banned from Wikipedia for similar cloak-and-dagger fringe science advocacy. (See User:Iantresman -- the parallels between the two users' style of "unwavering" patience are unmistakable.) There already are a large number of people who "sit-out" discussions that Levine2112 involves himself in for the reasons we outline here. How much more does this user have to do before he completely exhausts community patience? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thoroughly agree with Guy's assessment above. The WP:SOUP observation seems spot-on to me and I also second the comments by JoshuaZ and ScienceApologist.
- Levine2112's step #5 often fails WP:CONSENSUS and he leaves out important arguments based on e.g. WP:WEIGHT. Points regarding POV-pushing and disruptive editing have also been made, but not as an end-run around persuasive policy-based arguments as suggested by Levine2112.
- Like Crohnie, I left the QW article due to Levine's behavior. Avb 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this comment is an excellent example of exactly how tendentious Levine2112 is. He is disrupting Wikipedia as much as other editors I have seen banned from Wikipedia for similar cloak-and-dagger fringe science advocacy. (See User:Iantresman -- the parallels between the two users' style of "unwavering" patience are unmistakable.) There already are a large number of people who "sit-out" discussions that Levine2112 involves himself in for the reasons we outline here. How much more does this user have to do before he completely exhausts community patience? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please follow my 1-10 assessment, tell me if it is an unfair depiction of what is going on currently at Quackwatch and then let's see whose patience should be exhausted. Again, I feel like the "other side" on this issue have realized that inclusion is imminent due to the quality of sources I have provided and now that they can no longer argue policy for the content, they have regrettable chosen to attack me personally. Yet, my patience is unwavering. Now you have joined in here JoshuaZ and JzG and I give you this challenge. Spend some time and go through my past months of edits and comments. Show me where I have tried to undermine QW's credibility, where I have acted uncivilly or without good faith. Really take you time and look at it. Honestly. Show me how it is justified for two admins to come here and misrepresent me as a True Believer of the fringe. I take great offense to these personal attacks and if you think they are justified then you are going to have show me the justification or else I am considering a gross abuse of admin privilege and a demonstration of egregious incivility. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Levine, you are exhausting any good faith assumption. As someone who has been occasionally involved in these articles, Guy's above comment seems completely accurate. Frankly, I think you are close to exhausting community patience. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I find this remark from Guy to be extremely hostile and untrue. It violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA and I don't think it is befitting behavior of an admin. For the record, I am NOT trying to undermine Quackwatch's credibility, but rather get the article right by including information which is completely verified by reliable sources. It seems rock-solid for inclusion, but, as in the past, the more solid the ground for inclusions stands upon becomes, the more the arguments against inclusion shift into the form of personal attack and assumptions of bad faith. Essentially, it plays out like this: 1) I want to include some material. 2) Someone tells me I can't because it isn't sourced. 3) I find a source. 4) Someone tells me that the source isn't reliable. 5) I find a reliable source. 6) Someone tells me that I am misrepresenting what the source says. 7) I offer to quote the source word-for-word. 8) Someone tells me that I have a pro-Quackery agenda and that I am being disruptive. 9) I deny it and say that isn't a valid reason to exclude the reliably sourced information. 10) And here we are. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pete, the major problem here is one of context. Levine and his friends have been trying since forever to insert "QW is not peer reviewed" in order to undermine its credibility. This is just the latest salvo in a long-running battle. A comment that it might be improved by peer-review is a comment that applies to just about every activist website that exists; I am on the editorial board of a website that has a process of informal peer review and even there we feel that more rigour would be helpful. It's not really a valid criticism of QW as QW, it's a criticism of most if not all activist websites. The fact remains that QW is widely cited and considered at least reasonably reliable by as lot of people. Levine and his friends don't like that, because very often it's their pet topics that QW debunks. We can't really fix the fact that they like fringe subjects and QW doesn't, nor should we allow the views of True Believers to distort what we say about those who debunk fringe and pseudo science. It is also likely that these editors are deliberately trying to wind ScienceApologist up in the hope of getting him into trouble. They are very inclined to spit in his soup. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- QW is, of course, a magnet for controversy. Levine's point is that the article grossly favors QW - without significant provision on independent, credible descriptions or criticisms (e.g. tenured academic and scientific researchers in relevant fields at mainstream or name brand universities) that QW has significant weaknesses in technical accuracy, reliability, fairness. The article has gone from a stable article with criticism in Sept-Oct 2006 from diverse editors to a virtual QW monoculture with pretty much only promotional statements again. (In most of 2006, earlier, the article had not-subtle-links for subscriptions and donation QW webpages until diverse editors agreed on a stabilized for about 4-5 months with criticism setting the stage for the past year's controversy). The current summary sentence on Hufford's review of QW(and SB) is totally inaccurate, where the academic, Hufford, has a V RS paper and he directly quotes Kauffman when stating that QW site is an outstanding example of systematic bias, but that aspect of Hufford's paper is totally suppressed now. The problem is the promotional monoculture here around QW that admits that *no* legitimate criticisms even exist. The article is quite promotional POV in the face of academic papers that do present multiple examples of highly flawed QW articles where the " "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kauffman) and severe...systematic biases (Hufford) can be verified independently, sometimes even from highly rated research med school sites. I think this article is getting close to exhausting WP's credibility.--I'clast (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I'm just wondering, can't we tell him/her to go to Un if he/she's just going to make Wikipedia unpleasant? —BoL @ 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112 motivations
Levine2112 claims Stephen Barrett is a crook! Personally I find Bolen's site much more reliable than anything a crook such as Barrett has ever put out there.
False allegations by Levine2112. - make no mistake about it - he is also a paid attack-dog.
More false allegations. Talk about a scam.
Libel and personal attack by Levine2112. Very interesting. The more you dig, the dirtier Barrett gets.
What are the motivations of Levine2112 who is a chiropractor. I too have noted an excessive use of links to Barrett's sites all around Wikipedia. I would like to see this minimized too.
Levine2112 has admitted his motivations for his editong behaviour on various Quackwatch related articles. Is a ban the next step? Mr.Guru talk 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- QuackGuru, thanks for pointing to my writings from over a year and half ago. In addition to these being ancient, you will also note that much of the time when you are claiming that I am making allegations (false or not - that's all POV), I am merely quoting or paraphrasing a critical source. For instance, in the King Bio case, it was the judge (not me) who thought it was deceptive that Barrett was paying himself from his nonprofit organization's fund to act as his own expert witness. I am not alleging this. I am just stating what a judge stated and saying that I agree that it is fishy. I find it interesting that you assert that I am chiropractor. I am not. I have said this many times. I do not work in or for the health profession in any way, shape or form. I am not a supporter all alternative medicine or of allopathic medicine. I am merely a scientific skeptic in the most true sense of the words. I demand rational scientific proof to meet my satisfaction. I am also a Wikipedian. And as a Wikipedian, I demand that we get the article right. Often times this means arguing to include material which a few demand to leave out but otherwise is completely in line with Wikipedia policy. Other times this means arguing to exclude material which a few demand to include but specifically are problematic with a number of policies or guidelines. I think I am fair, but tough. I am quick to admit when I am wrong and despite being the object of much ridicule and baiting, I think that I remain calm and civil and try my best to assume good faith in others. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Levine2112 assumes bad faith in others. For example, after a warning he accused QuackGuru of being a troll. Review his talk page history for more details. It speaks volumes. He has recently added gross BLP violations[29][30] to the Stephen Barrett article which led to protection. The same type of POV editing blockworthy disruption is happening at the Quackwatch article. I recommend an indef-block in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Mr.Guru talk 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please look at the evidence and note that when he/she says I am adding BLP violations, I am actually adding the opinions of critics and a judge and providing citations to reliable sources. When will these personal attacks and false accusations end? -- Levine2112 discuss 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Levine2112 assumes bad faith in others. For example, after a warning he accused QuackGuru of being a troll. Review his talk page history for more details. It speaks volumes. He has recently added gross BLP violations[29][30] to the Stephen Barrett article which led to protection. The same type of POV editing blockworthy disruption is happening at the Quackwatch article. I recommend an indef-block in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Mr.Guru talk 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem in my view is that poor Levine, is being mobbed by the Quackwatch faithful, including some vociferous QW advertisers, site linkers and some editors who may have pushed/used their various industry connections in apparent COI, who have to various degrees attacked, diluted or erased any and all meaningful criticism, no matter how V RS or scientifically founded. Almost WP editors attempting to note the QW problems have been repeatedly harrassed or ad hominem attacked, almost all departed. Some of the pro-QW editors' administratively unchecked behavior against Levine and others, continues to amaze me, in a clear analog to Workplace bullying or Mobbing.
- With Quackwatch, the old dilemma, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? remains a pregnant question, e.g. Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch; any credible V RS information/paper (e.g. Hufford) mentioning or possibly even implying this is
blythely ignoredstudiously suppressed at QW WP.
- With Quackwatch, the old dilemma, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? remains a pregnant question, e.g. Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch; any credible V RS information/paper (e.g. Hufford) mentioning or possibly even implying this is
- Here's my simple suggestion: Allow even a *little* intellectual integrity to leak into the QW article on the V RS problems with Quackwatch's bias and errors, starting with the academically based Hufford (UPenn/Penn State Med School bioethics prof), reference directly quoting Kauffman (medicinal chemist, prof emeritus USP). a proposed example Maybe everyone could go home and have nice holiday dinners this year.--I'clast (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Analysis
Let me offer my analysis of the situation:
- Levine2112 has been editing alt-med articles for some time and seems to take particular pride in keeping certain characterizations in those articles in line with his own opinions.
- WP:NPOV clearly delineates how we must treat alt-med articles: giving the proper weight to the scientific community's opinions on most of these matters. There are a number of editors whose goal is to achieve this level of neutrality. Levine2112 often clashes with these editors over their attempts to contextualize and characterize the alt-med-related topics appropriately.
- Quackwatch has been so contentious an article that over the last few months it has usually been under protection. Levine is often in the edit history of this page and he or those in his party have made frequent reverts with somewhat questionable edit summaries.
- Levine2112 wears his civility as a badge and as a shield. His comments seem to indicate that he thinks that superficial civility is all that is needed.
- I listed my concerns with Levine2112 above as his actions seem to me to correspond precisely with disruptive editing as defined by Wikipedia.
- Instead of responding to these concerns, Levine2112 decides to level an attack against me which I felt compelled to analyze point-by-point above. He seems to think that my involvement in totally unrelated arbcomm cases invalidates my presentation of the problem here at AN/I. He seems to be trying to confuse the situation and scare off administrators who don't want to act hastily.
- Now Levine2112 has decided to attack two different administrators who expressed concerns with his activities.
What seems to be developing here is a pattern where Levine2112 has issues raised about him and his response it to attack the messenger. He has a very high opinion of himself and seems to think that his activity at, say, Talk:Quackwatch is beyond reproach when in fact we've documented cases where he has basically declared consensus where it didn't exist, Wikilawyered his way into reinterpreting and synthesizing sources to get his opinions inserted in the article. If we were a company and I was presenting this matter before the board, I would recommend terminating Levine2112's employment as an editor at the encyclopedia. I just don't think he has made any useful contributions to our encyclopedia.
ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can sanctions be taken for an editor devising such a completely false depiction of another editor? Surely, this is the level of bad faith and incivility which ScienceApologist's ArbCom decision warned him/her about. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- This response again seems to indicate that Levine2112 intends to continue in this pattern. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- SA frequently "skeptically" denounces, dismisses and harrasses editors on altmed edits that he doesn't agree with pretty readily, whether they might have more subject specific chemical & biological background or not. I consider SA's ANI here gratuitous, wasteful and provocative again, he's been plenty rude and threatening, to me too. I urge everyone to re-consider the merits of my suggestion above[31] and allow the Quackwatch article to finally begin to re-stabilize with some slight element of NPOV, instead of endless stonewalling and POV denials on academically credible criticism of QW.--I'clast (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like this is the tactic of choice right now from alt-med POV-pushers. Instead of dealing with the actual complaints, change the subject or attack the messenger. Really, this kind of environment is caustic and I don't see that these kind of aggressive single-purpose-accounts help the project. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, ScienceApologist, please consider that labeling others as "alt-med POV-pushers" and "aggressive single-purpose-accounts" is uncivil and unhelpful to this process. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Judicious application of WP:SPADE is what is needed here. If we cannot properly characterize the kind of advocacy that is going on here, there is no chance that we will be able to figure out whether disruptive editing is indeed occurring. (See below for evidence I think proves this point -- thanks Durova). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I have no ideological axe to grind here. Here's a breakdown of Levine2112's contributions:[32]
- Most edited mainspace article: 365 edits to Stephen Barrett.
- Of the editor's top 15 most edited articles, number that relate directly to chiropractic or pseudoscience: 14.
- Most edited talk pge: 1198 edits to Talk:Stephen Barrett.
- Of the editor's top 15 most edited talk pages, number that relate directly to chiropractic or pseudoscience: 14.
- Most edited Wikipedia space page: 82 edits to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence.
- Most edited Wikipedia space talk page: 63 edits to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Proposed decision.
Among this editor's contributions outside the topic of alternative medicine, his/her most edited article is Tom Swifty. For comparison, this is the historic version of the article from immediately before this editor's first contribution to it. Having reviewed the person's last 1500 edits manually I found occasional vandalism reversion and welcome templates to new users. Other editors may draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate. DurovaCharge! 18:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Durova's analysis above looks to me to paint a clear picture of an SPA and other issues make clear that this is a POV pushing SPA. SPAs that are pushing negative views about a specific BLP should be taken particularly seriously. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's your interpretation. I would say that I tend to edit articles which I am interested in. However, given that I have close to 1000 vandalism reversions, have made over close to 1000 new or anonymous users feel welcome, and have corrected several hundred spelling mistakes, I would say that I am far from an SPA. I see no evidence presented that I am a "POV pusher" other than several non-neutral editors' opinions. I thank Durova for looking over the last 1500 edits in my edit history manually. I did the same and found that over 100 of these edits (dating back to less that two months ago) were reversions of vandalism, over 100 were warning templates on vandal's or potential vandal's talk pages, 12 were reports to "Administrator intervention against vandalism" which resulted in the blockage of several repeat vandals, about 350 were welcoming new or anonymous users (much of the time I am encouraging anonymous users to create an account), and about 30 were good faith reversions on a wide variety of articles. So that accounts for well over a third of my last 1500 edits. JoshuaZ, do you still think it is fair to characterize me as a "POV pushing SPA"? -- Levine2112 discuss 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Durova's analysis above looks to me to paint a clear picture of an SPA and other issues make clear that this is a POV pushing SPA. SPAs that are pushing negative views about a specific BLP should be taken particularly seriously. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sock harassment
This sockmaster has moved from edit warring on pages (now protected) to pasting his edit into the talk page and demanding people place it in the article. Make them go away. Kluokli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See the vast list of socks on the user page. This sockmaster apparently made dozens of socks months ago specifically to avoid semi-pp. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Go to WP:ARBCOM right now. Go! --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- ArbCom is not the right suggestion to deal with sockpuppet issues, Gp75. I see there are tags, was an official WP:SSP case filed? There is a checkuser link, but it does not go to the correct case, it only goes to the main checkuser page. If a checkuser was done, it would be best to link the tag to the subpage. The editor is blocked, so it is just a matter of identifying any additional socks, tagging and blocking. ArbCom is not for dealing with sockpuppet vandals. Ariel♥Gold 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee would probably laugh if someone filed a case for this... Daniel 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- ArbCom is used primarily as a last resort for disputes, and they make a decision that all parties must abide by. Sockpuppetry is handled differently; the accounts are all blocked, including the sockmaster. There are two places socking is handled: WP:SSP, where administrators compare editing patterns and attempt to establish a connection, and WP:RFCU, where checkusers check the IP of a suspected sockpuppet for tough cases. It checks every account that has logged into the IP, as well as every IP the account has logged into, in the last six months (I believe that's the amount of time). If the socking is persistent enough, the user is banned. Maser (Talk!) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee would probably laugh if someone filed a case for this... Daniel 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- ArbCom is not the right suggestion to deal with sockpuppet issues, Gp75. I see there are tags, was an official WP:SSP case filed? There is a checkuser link, but it does not go to the correct case, it only goes to the main checkuser page. If a checkuser was done, it would be best to link the tag to the subpage. The editor is blocked, so it is just a matter of identifying any additional socks, tagging and blocking. ArbCom is not for dealing with sockpuppet vandals. Ariel♥Gold 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Original thread re-located to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Larry Lurkington. Further comment is welcome at that page.
Subsequent confusion over the relocation archived below.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, that's one way of hindering a debate you don't want to have! It would be helpful to have more clear edit summaries in future for such moves (eg. indicating the section title of the moved material). DuncanHill (talk)
- It was a compromise between clogging up ANI with a thread that had moved towards "Yes it is/no it isn't" territory, and merely archiving it. You are of course free to continue the conversation on the subpage if you beleive it would be constructive. BLACKKITE
- There should not be a compromise between something and "merely archiving it", because archiving an active discussion should not even be under consideration. -Amarkov moo!
User:Muntuwandi and the Origin of Religion
Main issue solved; no need to turn this into Yet Another Drama MagnetTM. —Kurykh 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Possible spam by Timjowers
I have to head out right now, so I can't take any action/investigate this further, but could some admins take a look at Timjowers (talk · contribs)? His last edits are all adding a link into about 2 dozen articles. Thanks, Metros (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- No-one asked this user about his edits. No-one told him about WP:SPAM. No-one told him about this discussion. No-one warned him. All his previous edits show good faith, don't have anything to do with the supposed "spam" links, or any other external links. Both of the links he added appear to be to ad-free non-profit pages with information appropriate to the articles in question, and quite within the ambit of WP:EL. While posting the same link to several articles may be spam, there's no evidence it was in this case. JzG: please explain why you did not warn this user, or ask him about the links? Please explain why a block was necessary despite the user being inactive for several hours? Please explain why you blocked an account with other, quite acceptable, edits indefinately? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- External links to votesmart.org are in my opinion reasonably appropriate. It might be a good non-partisan source for data on candidates. guono.com also just might be a useful non-partisan external source with a matrix of public perceptions of positions for the presidential candidates, though it isnt a scientific survey. JzG has been removing both, but I am not sure that is justified. and a block in the situation seem wholly inappropriate. With any additional support, I am willing to unblock & they should be discussed first before further action is taken DGG (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please unblock him. The vote-smart link is a valid link. I haven't looked at the other one, but a warning should have been issued first. Horologium (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Although the user hasn't requested an unblock—he may, of course, having been bitten (although the account was registered several months ago, the user had just fifteen edits before today, each, notably, constructive and plainly made in good faith), departed—I, too, would support unblocking. Even were the votesmart.org link not almost certainly appropriate per EL, a block in the absence of a prior polite warning/explanation of EL/SPAM seems altogether unwarranted. Joe 03:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please unblock him. The vote-smart link is a valid link. I haven't looked at the other one, but a warning should have been issued first. Horologium (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I said here and on the user's talk page, I have no problem with him being unblocked once he comes back and starts dialogue, but users whose principal contributions are numerous external links to the same website have a long history, in my experience, of being unrepentant spammers, so I did not want to set a block that would simply expire without some kind of admin interaction to ensure the problem is fixed at source. This is not a failure of good faith, it's ensuring that an apparent problem is averted. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- None of his previous edits were spam links; in fact, outside of his user page (to which he added three external links), the only external link he had added prior to yesterday was a reference to the IRS for one of his edits. This is not a linkspammer. Horologium (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The sites that he linked too may be useful, but is it necessary for every candidate page? Can they just go to the more general election article? I don't see a reason for this redundancy of having the same links on every candidate's page like this. That's what set off my radar was that he was posting this to dozens of candidate articles. Metros (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a classic case of shoot first and ask questions later, but without ever asking any questions. I found the Project Vote Smart website several months ago and have found it to be an invaluable source of information about candidates and current office holders. The Wikipedia article for the organization states that "Barry Goldwater, John McCain, former US Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, founded PVS. PVS does not accept financial contributions from lobbyists, governmental organizations, corporations, labor unions or other special interests." One would be rather hardpressed to manufacture a complaint that actually refers to links to Project Vote Smart as "spam", regardless of how many articles have been updated by any individual. I, myself, have added the website as a link and source to nearly all 120 General Assembly and State Senate members in New Jersey (take Upendra J. Chivukula as an entirely arbitrary example). When can I expect my permanent block to start? It disturbs me that there are admins like JzG (including Metros comments above) who will allow their "radar" or "Spidey senses" to allow them to determine that edits are in bad faith without any further investigation or information from the user involved, and that the only answer to the supposed problem is a permanent block. This isn't spam, this is administrative abuse. There is a problem here, and its not with Timjowers. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't really see evidence of a bad block in that particular exchange. In fact, Mr. Jowers response here concerns me somewhat. — Satori Son 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the sites are appropriate or useful, it doesn't confer a license to spam Wikipedia even when it's true. We are going to see alot of these type of Political positions sites added over the next year, this trend has already begun, for example Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#WhereIstand.com. Spamming is about promoting a site or a site you love (Ie. adding alot of similar or related links), which does not always mean they need to be "commercial" or "spam sites" to be spam. "Relative and informative" sites get spammed excessively on the project all the time. good link/bad link + mass addition = spamming. FWIW. --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, sure, adding useful links from a given site to a wide variety of articles is, indeed, spamming, but it's not the sort of spamming for which we would ever block, since, well, it's constructive. Under your formulation, an editor who adds links to the respective IMDB pages of a large group of films would be engaged in pernicious spamming, notwithstanding that the links would be entirely consistent with EL; a block, then, would devolve simply because a user elected to add in rapid succession links to the gradual adding of which no one would object. In any case, though, even was the user here engaged in spamming, it is clear that he acted in good faith, and it is, frankly, ridiculous that he was blocked with no warning at all; had issues been raised at his talk page, he might well (AGF and all) have stopped adding links until such time as a consensus for their inclusion developed or until the EL/SPAM issues were clarified, and so any putative disruption might have been prevented with much less collateral damage. Joe 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stop making so much sense. What you say is very true, though. Adding links to candidate positions isn't inherently "spam", which has a negative connotation. And it's certainly not blockable, especially when it's combined with the set of contribs I linked above. This was a bad block, it's as simple as that. Mr Which??? 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have a great idea: why not just ask Alansohn about everything, he'll always tell you I am wrong, and then we can all go away happy. I blocked the guy to stop what looked to me like repeated addition of links to a site which I don't see is authoritative or objective; I googled beforehand and saw several incidents of Tim Jowers promoting the site. I said then and here that I have no objection to anyone unblocking if they think the risk of further spamming of this site is over, I don't think it is based on his response to me, but I don't like political zealots (which his response to me suggests he is). People seem to be making an awfully big deal of this. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have a better idea. How about not getting snarky, checking Timjowers contribs, and unblocking him yourself. The fact that someone whom you claim opposes "everything" you do "on principle" opposes your block in this case, does not mean that your block was, in fact, good. The evidence doesn't support a block of any length, his angry reaction (that you classified as "right wing zealotry") notwithstanding. Any new user (heck, even old users) would get pissed if they were blocked for no good reason, and without warning to boot. Mr Which??? 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- And furthermore, blocking someone is a big deal, even if you think it's not, as you apparently do from your last line above. That's an awfully cavalier attitude toward one of the most sensitive buttons an admin has at his fingertips. That's one of the more disturbing comments I've seen from an admin lately. Mr Which??? 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What only makes this whole Timjower "spamming" incident all the more disturbing is that a set of three links to Project Vote Smart -- for biography, voting record, and interest group ratings -- are included on the Wikipedia articles of every single member of Congress, as far as I can tell. How did they get there, pray tell? It's included on the Template:CongLinks, which builds these links and links to a whole set of other links, including for-profit company websites with (heaven forbid) ads, such as that of The Washington Post. I'm not sure why we allow any administrator the ability to decide arbitrarily what constitutes spam, but this seems to be one of the worst determinations ever. Be warned, that there are over 1,600 links to vote-smart.org, if anyone is really determined to remove this offensive site from Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- From what I can see of it, "guono.com" is not a neutral, reliable site. Their explanation of the issues, [34], is not mainstream. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Legistorm spammer
As an example of the supposed abuse of "spam" that we'll be sseing more of, check out Special:Contributions/Lyoshka, who has had the unmitigated gall to add links to legistorm.com, a site that provides information about salaries paid to congressional staffers. This person seems to have added 505 links to this site so far. Will this user be blocked, as well? Please do so quickly, as there seem to be 30 more congressional articles left to be updated and lots of work to needlessly revert all of these changes. Timjowers seems to have been hit by one of the greatest presumptions of bad faith I've ever seen. Blocking a user should only be done as the last resirt in the most extreme of cases where the block will stop abuse that is currently taking place; that's the principle I seek to uphold. I don't oppose anyone's actions on principle; it's the lack of principles that I object to. Alansohn (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Plus, an anon who was reverting removal, soft blocked for a while and rolled back. 130+ links remain, if anyone feels motivated Special:Linksearch/*.legistorm.com. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief! What's the problem with adding links to salaries of congressmen?!? Were they to a commercial site? A blog? What was the problem with the links?!? Mr Which??? 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is the problem Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Storming_Media_LLC_Spamming. 5 WP:SOCK spam accounts and an IP registered to the owner of the site.--Hu12 (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief! What's the problem with adding links to salaries of congressmen?!? Were they to a commercial site? A blog? What was the problem with the links?!? Mr Which??? 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Plus, an anon who was reverting removal, soft blocked for a while and rolled back. 130+ links remain, if anyone feels motivated Special:Linksearch/*.legistorm.com. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- So, let me see if I understand your reasoning here. If I, as a user that is not an "SPA" were to have added these 505 links (all to neutral, objective, and informative information), it would have been fine. But because a new user who does only this does it, it's spam? That doesn't make any sense at all. And it makes less sense, if it's also spam if I did it, as there is absolutely nothing wrong with any information at those links. Mr Which??? 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This user has for the last few months waged a constant edit war on at least two pages (Dissection (band) and Amon Amarth). He has been warned many times before about this. I reported him before but no action was taken as this was the first time he was reported. However, User:Scarian had a conversation with him telling everyone if they continued to edit war they would get reported and blocked. Well, Twsx refused to listen, obviously, because he's right back at edit warring. I ask for a block. As you can see from these history pages: 1 and 2, the user has waged a long running war and has an agenda that no one wants (users such as myself and other keep having to revert him). Thank you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Notified editor of this thread. Pastordavid (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- That page Twsx would have you look at is ridiculous and biased against me. It also brings up many old issues and edits that I have done in the past. For one it brings up that I have been blocked twice for edit warring on two different pages. I agreed to stop a long time ago and I would like to point out that Twsx is now doing the same thing I was blocked for and that is not acceptable. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have warned this user a couple of times about his(/her?) POV pushing and warring behavior, without any success. I have tried to stop the POV pushing through discussion on a larger scale here. As users couldn't agree with each other I proposed a truce (here). Since the truce has been in place all edit wars and POV pushing have stopped.. except for the ones Twsx was involved in, despite numerous comments on Twsx' talk page. Kameejl (Talk) 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161
- Magnonimous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 24.36.201.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Article
- Coral calcium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own [39], so I'm assuming these are the same person. He's a WP:SPA that's been edit-warring in Coral calcium from his earliest edits. While his edits probably qualify for WP:AN/3RR, I thought it would be better to report here since the situation is complicated and involves WP:OWN and WP:FRINGE issues.
- I'm an involved editor here. Once it became clear Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 was going to edit-war no matter what I said on the talk page, I've tried to restrict my edits to the talk page other than to tag problems and properly main tags. (Yes, some of the edit-warring is over tags). --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rebuttal Re
- Magnonimous
- User Ronz has overstepped WP:FANATIC guidelines 2-6 on repeated occasions. I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article. My contributions have been undermined repeatedly by outright deletions with questionable reasons. The fact that Ronz keeps coming up with new and creative ways to justify these deletions, leads me to believe that he is more concerned with blocking content that he disagrees with, than maintaining the integrity of the article. I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense, I do not currently subscribe to ownership of articles, but I do believe that complete deletion of contributions is not constructive to articles, and I may react accordingly. Magnonimous (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article." Please provide evidence for such, or remove the accusation. I've made no other edits to Coral calcium or Talk:Coral calcium, through another account, an ip, etc, nor have I asked anyone to do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense... Sweet Mother Irony, what would humor be without you? JuJube (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- User Ronz has overstepped WP:FANATIC guidelines 2-6 on repeated occasions. I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article. My contributions have been undermined repeatedly by outright deletions with questionable reasons. The fact that Ronz keeps coming up with new and creative ways to justify these deletions, leads me to believe that he is more concerned with blocking content that he disagrees with, than maintaining the integrity of the article. I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense, I do not currently subscribe to ownership of articles, but I do believe that complete deletion of contributions is not constructive to articles, and I may react accordingly. Magnonimous (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to forgoe some diffs here unless asked for, as Magnonimous's tiny contribution history (he only appeared just recently to push his content changes to Coral Calcium), as well as having all his edits confined to the article in question and its talk page, makes it very easy to see what he's been doing. Magnonimous is attempting to add content to Coral calcium on purported health benefits. The primary issue at the moment, in my opinion, is that these studies don't mention coral calcium. Rather, they are about calcium supplements in general. I've explained to him that making his claims about coral calcium constitutes content forking and original synthesis, but he has comitted to push his edits anyway, and doesn't see a problem [40]. He has also professed to be driven by a somewhat unusual conflict of interest [41]. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The only question is whether these studies can be applied to coral calcium; and the only difference between all calcium supplements is how much calcium is made available to the body. This amount, or percentage, is called elemental calcium. Example: "If a tablet contains 500 milligrams of calcium carbonate, it contains only 200 milligrams of elemental calcium. This is because only 40% of the calcium compound is elemental calcium". -Calcium Supplement Guidelines, VERONICA A. MULLINS, M.S., R.D. and LINDA HOUTKOOPER, PH.D., R.D.; [42] It's not: What amount of coral calcium provides health benefits?, it's that coral calcium provides health benefits. Magnonimous (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, There is prominent research that suggests that coral calcium is actually better than calcium carbonate for preventing colon cancer.[43] Calcium carbonate was used in the original study. Magnonimous (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. Nobody on this noticeboard cares for content disputes. Take it somewhere else. east.718 at 02:24, December 18, 2007
- Additionally, There is prominent research that suggests that coral calcium is actually better than calcium carbonate for preventing colon cancer.[43] Calcium carbonate was used in the original study. Magnonimous (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Continued edit-warring
Magnonimous continued to edit-war after commenting to this report, and after calling for a "TRUCE": [44]. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The "TRUCE" applied to me and you only, and stipulated that both points of view be included in the article. Magnonimous (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- "I will agree not to add any more to the article." This clearly implies that I would not add more than I already had. Magnonimous (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Magnonimous, while we do not care about content disputes, we do care about things like WP:3RR. The edit Ronz pointed above brings you a hair's breadth away from the electric fence of that policy. I strongly encourage you not to reinsert this material into this article again unless you can obtain a consensus on Talk: Coral calcium. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Update
"
- 02:59, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 - continued edit-warring)
- 02:52, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Calcium (→Coral Calcium Merge - Oppose)
"
- User Ronz enlists the help of a respected colleague: User Someguy1221 to help him resolve this edit war in his favor.
- Someguy1221 Gives good advice including the fact that parts of this article may be a content fork.
- User Magnonimous takes advice to heart, and proposes reintegration of content fork into main calcium article.
- Ronz opposes proposal based on advice of his friend, and then proceeds to retaliate by claiming the edit war continues, in his tireless quest to ban his arch nemesis, who's only crime is to have a differing opinion, and to express it, with sources to back it up.
Magnonimous (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are attempting to have me blocked. As in a court of law, I am allowed to call your character into question, to weaken your credibility, as it pertains to your objectivity in this matter. Magnonimous (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Attention needed
I have to go right now, but can someone please block the uploader of this image (don't worry, it's perfectly safe) and delete all his uploads? This is a serial copyright abuser I've dealt with before. Grandmasterka 23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- What's the prior account? We probably shouldn't just zap someone no warnings without confirming the sock history... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Un-semiprotecting
Royalguard11 (talk · contribs) has started systematically unprotecting semiprotected pages without attempts of obtaining consensus about his actions. This includes pages such as obesity, cancer, Judaism, Muslim, Jesus and other predictable targets of vandalism. When I asked whether he'd considered the risk of vandalism, I received the reply that "eight and a half months is excessive. Period." This user has now stopped communicating with me.
I am deeply concerned that important and vandalism-prone content is being exposed to vandalism. JFW | T@lk 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I've told you already, I'm dealing with the 8.5 month backlog at Special:Protectedpages, mostly because no other admin has taken the initiative to do it. Your also twisting what's happened, because I haven't stopped communicating with you. Your using as many methods you can to make sure that everyone has a bad first impression and therefore side with you. Anyways, yes I consider that 8.5 months is excessive for semiprotection. Every article is unprotected at some time, even Bush gets unprotected once and a while. Why not others? There isn't a policy that says that cancer can be indefinitely semiprotected just because someone says. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, unless you haven't checked, this is a wiki. Everything is vandal-prone. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Protection is never meant to be indefinite solution. Take a look at this discussion on meta: m:Protected_pages_considered_harmful ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be blunt, but I think this is more of a case that you are misunderstanding policy and precedence. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Precedence" actually dictates that indefinite semi-protection be used for articles subjected to continued heavy vandalism, biographies subject to POV-pushing or slanderous material, user pages when requested, and policy pages on a case-by-case basis. I'm disappointed that this administrator didn't seek input before going on a large unprotection spree. east.718 at 00:47, December 18, 2007
Could you explain what I'm misunderstanding here? Or rather, how do I know that it's not Royalguard11 doing the misunderstanding? And where is the precedent you are referring to? JFW | T@lk 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with most of these unprotections, but a few should probably never be unprotected - I've just re-protected Gay after it was hit twice within minutes of the protection being lifted; this one probably isn't worth the effort. I've watchlisted a lot of others, and will keep an eye out. BLACKKITE 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
On what grounds, and for how long, would you reinstate semiprotection? Obviously, the majority of the pages unprotected by Royalguard11 will suffer vandalism within the next hour or so. Where are we meant to draw the line, and should these pages have been unprotected to begin with? By semiprotecting we are not exactly closing down editing - we are only delaying for autoconfirmed registered users. JFW | T@lk 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I feel I must chime in here, that mass unprotection is a Bad Idea(tm). Those articles are vandal magnets and consensus has long been reached that indefinite semiprotection was reasonable for those. Quoth the WP:PROT "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for: Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as the George W. Bush article." — Coren (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am glad that semiprot seems be putting back in place on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a blind mass revert. I haven't checked a list, just yet, but from the chatter it seems like a fair number of these were overdue for unprotection. Possibly not the best method, but I think it was done in good faith, and it's brought attention to the issue. Sooo... on to the issue. If any of these become controversial, we can (and should) discuss them in particular. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Royalguard11 acted in good faith, but the unprotection of some of these articles shows a lapse in judgment in my honest opinion. In any case I agree with Luna, lets take it case by case for now. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Batch unprotection is not uncommon. There are several admins who routinely go through Special:Protectedpages to let in a breath of fresh air to those that are locked for too long without expiry. There are some pages that remain protected for years because no one has remembered, or bothered, to get them unprotected. There are some pages which are obvious candidates for permanent semi-protection, and I hope the unprotecting admin applies some common sense, but if any are unprotected and subjected to extreme vandalism then they can always be reprotected. No big deal. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like batch unprotection... but at the same time, I don't like when admins semi-protect an article and never follow up. Your goal should be finding the right balance of semi-protection and non-protection. Going around and unprotecting articles like Gay and walking away is irresponsible, but so is semi-protecting some obscure article due to a few instances of vandalism, then leaving it semi-protected for 8.5 months. Everyone needs to be more vigilent here... if admins wouldn't make perpetual semi-protections where they really aren't needed, there wouldn't be admins running around doing batch unprotections and walking away. Unprotecting articles like Gay and so on shouldn't be done en masse... anyone wanting to do that should be familiar with the article and its editting patterns and willing to stick around and revert vandalism, and judge when or if semi-protection is needed again. Assuming someone else will do the dirty work is disrespectful of people who deal with unprotected pages, rather than just dash around making them unprotected. --W.marsh 01:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just following what's been done before here. Before I did it, VOA did a ton of unprotection runs, again because no one else did. A lot of the ones I unprotected had "vandalism" as the reason, and was protected for 8 months. Maybe I'm missing something, but vandalism that happened 8 months ago doesn't matter anymore. If I don't do large unprotection runs, the backlog will just get bigger and bigger as time goes on (as it has for the last 8 months). Sometimes these articles are protected almost indefinitely because no one goes through them ever, and no one bothers to ask for it to be unprotected. That's obviously not what Jimbo nor the WMF have in mind for the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", because we have way too many uselessly protected pages right now. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to try to figure out which ones were bad semi-protections, just in response to relatively minor vandalism, and which ones were on articles with severe vandalism problems. Unfortunately, community consensus is that some articles, like George W. Bush, really have to be perpetually semi-protected... advocates of non-protection have unprotected that article then quickly reprotected it in frustration. You unprotected too many pages, as far as I can tell, for you to be following up on them all to see if vandalism got out of control on any of them. --W.marsh 01:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then how are all these articles going to be unprotected? Shall I request the unprotection of a thousand articles at WP:RFPP? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- You should indicate you aren't just throwing the article to the wolves, but will be watching it and helping out. Vandalism isn't just magically dealt with... the people who deal with it appreciate a little respect. --W.marsh 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, even after the "excessive" amount I unprotected, the backlog still stands at late April. If I unprotected the first 1000 articles, that only puts us at Oct. 10. There's still 2 months after that. Do you have any better ideas on how to deal with that? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, everyone needs to be more vigilant... that includes admins who don't set expiration dates (not sure if that feature was around in April though) on semi-protections, and otherwise don't follow up with their semiprotections. If they didn't do that, it's my belief there wouldn't be such backlogs in the first place. But one irresponsible action doesn't justify another... even if it is a big backlog. I could go close every open AFD in a few hours, and justify the dozens of bad closes by saying "How else could we have dealt with the backlog?" --W.marsh 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I must have missed the memo. When did AFD become 8 months behind? The difference is, of corse, AFD is always cleared within a week because it's watched. And while looking through the logs for pages, some had been thorough an expired protection, then reprotected without one. There were several admins who just repeatedly didn't set an expiry date. There are some who don't put an expiry date now for no good reason. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have you talked to any of these admins? --W.marsh 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Two things would help here - first, talk to these admins, as W.marsh says. Second, in the spirit of poka-yoke, is there any way of changing the protection page so it puts an expiry period of 1 month in the field as default, forcing someone to actively select indefinite protection? Neıl ☎ 09:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- That second is actually a really good idea. Don't know why it never occurred to me that "Indefinite" should not be the default option for article protection any more than it should be for account blocking. Is this a proper issue for a BugZilla request, or is there a simpler way to edit that interface? — Satori Son 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Two things would help here - first, talk to these admins, as W.marsh says. Second, in the spirit of poka-yoke, is there any way of changing the protection page so it puts an expiry period of 1 month in the field as default, forcing someone to actively select indefinite protection? Neıl ☎ 09:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have you talked to any of these admins? --W.marsh 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I must have missed the memo. When did AFD become 8 months behind? The difference is, of corse, AFD is always cleared within a week because it's watched. And while looking through the logs for pages, some had been thorough an expired protection, then reprotected without one. There were several admins who just repeatedly didn't set an expiry date. There are some who don't put an expiry date now for no good reason. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, everyone needs to be more vigilant... that includes admins who don't set expiration dates (not sure if that feature was around in April though) on semi-protections, and otherwise don't follow up with their semiprotections. If they didn't do that, it's my belief there wouldn't be such backlogs in the first place. But one irresponsible action doesn't justify another... even if it is a big backlog. I could go close every open AFD in a few hours, and justify the dozens of bad closes by saying "How else could we have dealt with the backlog?" --W.marsh 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, even after the "excessive" amount I unprotected, the backlog still stands at late April. If I unprotected the first 1000 articles, that only puts us at Oct. 10. There's still 2 months after that. Do you have any better ideas on how to deal with that? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- You should indicate you aren't just throwing the article to the wolves, but will be watching it and helping out. Vandalism isn't just magically dealt with... the people who deal with it appreciate a little respect. --W.marsh 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then how are all these articles going to be unprotected? Shall I request the unprotection of a thousand articles at WP:RFPP? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
(deindenting) I don't think there's any point trying to talk to admins. Some even missed the whole point here, so if you want to say something, go ahead, I don't think it'll change anything. I see also that no one has come up with a viable solution for the problem at hand (backlog of pages). The idea about defaulting to 1 month I like, because I'd consider that to be the maximum for any new protection. As zzuuzz said above, articles can be reprotected, it's not a big deal like it's been made out to be here. If someone reverts my unprotection, I won't loose any sleep over it, I promise. Everyone is way too afraid of being accused of "wheel warring". Like Nike says, Just Do It, and stop trying to be politicians. Be bold has been a wiki-principle forever, but no one does it anymore. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any point trying to talk to admins. I'm not sure if that's a good approach. By that reasoning, the rest of us ought not talk to you, either, and just undo your actions without comment.... Incidentally, I don't mind the idea of having a default protection period of some intermediate length. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no point in talking, the only solution is to undo admin actions with a template message? This kind of behavior on both sides is why we have this problem. As far as I'm considered both sides are being uncommunicative and irresponsible... then wondering why there's a problem. --W.marsh 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- As nobody seems to object to putting a default protection period of a month rather than the blank "indefinite" period, does anyone have a Bugzilla account and would be willing to request this? I am technically inept and would quite possibly request the wrong thing from the wrong person. Neıl ☎ 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have only been here a few weeks, but unfortunately I have run across one of the rudest and worst behaved editors here. After noticing me on an article he was engaging in an edit war with several other editors, he followed me to two other articles to revert me. He has a fairly extensive history of being blocked, and is currently engaging in an edit war Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy
Could someone please speak with him and ask him to behave. . DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Newly created account User:DJ Creamity has exhibited far more knowledge and dexterity with Wikipedia user fonts, formatting, and policies than typical of most three-week-old accounts. That's because he's most likely a sock. He's been concentrating mostly on political pages, and has been blanking huge amounts of data on the Laura Ingraham page[45], without gaining consensus, and citing the catch-all "BLP VIOLATION!" ruse when no such policy violation exists. When asked to back up his claim of "BLP Violation," he refuses to supply a coherent answer.
- And now he's falsely accusing me of Wikistalking, and engaging in an edit war. I'm doing neither. But I will be reverting his blanking vandalism, and I encourage all interested editors to watchlist the pages he edits. --Eleemosynary (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, DJ, he's right about that. Why are you removing much amount of sourced information here and here? I'll also add that for this comment, I have half a mind to just mark this resolved and watch you more carefully. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Ricky81682. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Talk:Laura_Ingraham#Removal_of_Controversy_Section, DJ's issue seems to be that the controversy section (even though there are plenty of 3rd party cites) should go because none of those third-party citations use the word "controversy"? I'll leave it to others, but I'd suggest WP:3O but I think it'd be a waste of time.I see that Will have changed the section heading per your view but you still chose to remove the section again. While it is probably not best, I'd like to see how you read WP:BLP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A considerate vandal
I must be seeing things - does this [46] mark the first time a vandal has been considerate enough to report themselves to administrator intervention against vandalism? Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 13:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Must not be getting enough attention. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- A friendly considerate vandal, it seems. They welcomed... themselves [47]. Tonywalton Talk 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit war on David Milband
Can we get some more eyes on David Miliband, there is some fair contentious edit warring going on (I myself perform a revert early on in the edit war)which might slip over into BLP territory, since Miliband is a very prominent member of her Maj's govt and that article is likely to be watched by various media sources, I think we'd all prefer not to find ourselves, once again, the subject of mockery in the UK press. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've protected the page, the edit war had been on going for a few days with no non-reverts in between so protection seemed like the best step. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Herward77 is not only engaging alone in edit wars with at least 3 editors over this but he ois also insulting everyone with such classics as Sounds like the newly found power in your otherwise empty and pointless life is going to your head and calling those who disagree with him communists, anti-patriotic and any other insult he can come up with. IMO this editor is being seriously problematic and seems only interested in attacking Miliband, and his behaviour should be at least reviewed as without him ion the picture there would be no dispute and no issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- There appears to be a reasonable compromise position available here, which I have suggested at Talk:David Miliband#Outside_input. Herward77 does seem to be POV-pushing, and has reverted everyone else who has contributed, but I think that when faced with all the furious denunciations of Milliband by Herward77, Squeakbox has over-reacted a little bit by trying to remove all the content relating to relating to Milliband's granbdpa. Some of it seems quite uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that Lyoshka (talk · contribs) is just putting down links to one website as functionally all of their contributions, as seen here. Is this spam? I'm not totally sure, as the site seems fairly useful, but seeing one user just embed a site on many, many articles caught my eye. The links are all to URLs like www.legistorm.com/member/Rep_Charles_Wilson/867.html for government staff pay information. Lawrence Cohen 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Though the site is a ".com", I don't see any ads. The material is objective and well-presented. WP now has about 658 links to the site.[48] There are 540 members of Congress, so I assume they've all got the link. I'm not thrilled when an editor makes adding external links their sole job, but in this case I can't find anything to object to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a problem either, but it was the spam radar of seeing one person doing just that which led me to ask just in case. An interesting site, at any rate. Lawrence Cohen 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- At first blush I thought this looked like a WP:LINKSPAM issue, however after looking a little closer, I do not see anything objectionable per se. Certainly the volume of links added is a bit surprising. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree 100% that there is absolutely nothing objectionable about the content of the www.legistorm.com website. I was fascinated to see how my congressman was spending his staffing budget, and this would be relevant information for all 534 other congressman. There seems to be justification neither for a spam warning nor to revert these changes. Alansohn (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- 505 links from an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than legistorm.com, is a violation of both WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. It has become apparent that this account is only being used for spamming external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Um... I know where your intent is from, but... - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- legistorm.com is owned by and registered to Storming Media LLC. So we could add WP:COI to list also. Its fairly clear this is promotional spamming
- Accounts
Lyoshka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.93.192.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) →Storming Media LLC STORMING-MEDIA-LLC
--Hu12 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Um... I know where your intent is from, but... - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- 505 links from an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than legistorm.com, is a violation of both WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. It has become apparent that this account is only being used for spamming external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- At first blush I thought this looked like a WP:LINKSPAM issue, however after looking a little closer, I do not see anything objectionable per se. Certainly the volume of links added is a bit surprising. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a problem either, but it was the spam radar of seeing one person doing just that which led me to ask just in case. An interesting site, at any rate. Lawrence Cohen 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a few more from Storming Media;
Dceditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
M.K.Cummings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wattpower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The last three are spam only WP:SPA accounts, with a pattern of starting articles based on the link.--Hu12 (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a few more from Storming Media;
- So, let me see if I understand your reasoning here. If I, as a user that is not an "SPA" were to have added these 505 links (all to neutral, objective, and informative information), it would have been fine. But because a new user who does only this does it, it's spam? That doesn't make any sense at all. And it makes less sense, if it's also spam if I did it, as there is absolutely nothing wrong with any information at those links. Mr Which??? 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWhich (talk • contribs)
- What else do you call it when a group of people edit the encyclopaedia from an IP address associated with a company, adding pretty much nothing other than links to their company's website? I don't think it's especially controversial to describe that as spamming. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism only IP
- 81.149.128.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism only IP. Not current. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Qworty
This user continues to violate WP:BLP issues relating to Mitt_Romney by inserting criticism related to the Mormon religion which is unrelated to Mitt Romney himself. In as much he is in violation of 3RR which apply to violations of BLP issues. In general he is trying to turn the Mitt Romney article into a WP:COAT which is being used to criticize the Mormon Religion. Arzel (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just look out, one more revert and you violate 3RR. It does seem to be a rather short, well-referenced statement, and I don't think it's turning the article into a COATrack. J-ſtanContribsUser page 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Material in violation of BLP issues are not subjected to 3RR. It only takes one coat to be a coatrack. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore did you even read the reference? No, didn't think so. The reference does not make the assumption that Religion played a large issue for Romney in '68 like it does today. The reference is not even in direct relevance to the subject, it is one sentence "Cherry Picked" out of an unrelated article. Arzel (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- His contributions show that he hasn't edited much else for two days. He's been warned a number of times. I think a 24 hour block might be in order here, though an admin may want to talk to him before we have to go that far.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- While i'm not sure that Mitt's father's experiences have much if any bearing on 40 years later, since editors at that article have opened the door, what QWORTY is adding looks well referenced and legit. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Arzel, I must say, I don't appreciate the attitude. I'm just trying to help. First off, George Romney is dead. There's no BDP. I actually did read the source - going through it a second time. The article from the NY times says that much of the attention on George Romney was "concentrated on its [Church of LDS] policy at the time of excluding blacks from full participation." Qworty's edits are referenced, correct, and quite neutral for criticism. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your quick response didn't make it clear that you really took the time to examine before responding. This really is not relevant to George Romney, and I am not making any BLP issues in that regard. However, and let me make this explicitly clear, Qworty has been trying to introduce into this article numerous times that the Mormon Church is either currently racist, or was racist at one time. This many very well be, but it is not relevant to Mitt Romney. This is where the violation of BLP falls. The article is about Mitt Romney, not his run for president. Not George Romney's run. Not about the Mormon Church, and whatever they did in the past. In essence this is what he is trying to say. "Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Mormon's were racist against blacks when his father, George Romney, ran for president." Now tell me that doesn't violate WP:BLP via WP:COAT. Arzel (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Arzel, I must say, I don't appreciate the attitude. I'm just trying to help. First off, George Romney is dead. There's no BDP. I actually did read the source - going through it a second time. The article from the NY times says that much of the attention on George Romney was "concentrated on its [Church of LDS] policy at the time of excluding blacks from full participation." Qworty's edits are referenced, correct, and quite neutral for criticism. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- While i'm not sure that Mitt's father's experiences have much if any bearing on 40 years later, since editors at that article have opened the door, what QWORTY is adding looks well referenced and legit. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that there's a reasonable case to be made that the edits violate BLP on the Mitt Romney article, for reasons Arzel has articulated here. I have left a warning on Qworty's talk page asking that he pay more attention to BLP and NPOV on this topic.
Please do not take this as license to try and swing the article the other direction etc etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the article says"Religion has played a major role in the 2008 presidential campaign". The religious background of his family is relevant to the campaign, discussed widely in articles dealing with him, and relevant to the article. This may be another disgraceful example of presidential campaign politics, but its relevant nonetheless. I don't seethe point of pretending otherwise. DGG (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a legal threat?
LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Marcellogarcia made this edit recently. Is this acceptable? GlobeGores (talk | contributions) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article has now been deleted under BLP concerns, and any possible legal threat has been removed with it. Unless the editor repeats the comments (which I haven't looked at) at another venue then we should all just move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, reviewing their complete contributions including deleted, it's hard not to conclude that it's a single purpose vandalism-only account. I indef blocked Marcellogarcia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Marcello is asking for an unblock review and may have clued in. Uninvolved admin review requested. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Their unblock request states, "I agree to add content to a page only in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. I understand that my substantive difference regarding the William P. DiSalvatore page was not an excuse to get into a needless war over the site and that wikipedia provides ways to deal with disagreements. This is my first time using wikipedia and I have learned something about how it works from this disagreement. Please take this into consideration."
- This new user seems pretty reasonable at this point, and I would support an unblock. — Satori Son 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the user who brought up this request, I hope I'm allowed to voice a comment here: althought I'm not an administrator, I would support an unblock of Marcellogarcia now that he/she seems to know the rules and promises to abide by them. Feel free to strike, remove, or otherwise indicate that this comment is invalid if it is invalid. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are no restrictions on who can comment on things here, although it might be best to avoid putting things in bold like that, people might think you've mistaken this for a vote. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see Nat is handling this and has given them an easy and reasonable option for getting unblocked. Looks resolved to me. — Satori Son 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are no restrictions on who can comment on things here, although it might be best to avoid putting things in bold like that, people might think you've mistaken this for a vote. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the user who brought up this request, I hope I'm allowed to voice a comment here: althought I'm not an administrator, I would support an unblock of Marcellogarcia now that he/she seems to know the rules and promises to abide by them. Feel free to strike, remove, or otherwise indicate that this comment is invalid if it is invalid. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Marcello is asking for an unblock review and may have clued in. Uninvolved admin review requested. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A second set of eyes
Hey guys, I am having a very minor disagreement at Talk:Charles Peirce about content that has been merged as a result of an AfD. Nothing untoward has occurred, but I would like a second set of eyes on it to make sure that I am not way off base here. Also, I am curious about an editor who gets into a debate about our compliance with the GFDL within 6 minutes of his/her first edit. Thanks Pastordavid (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did you merge the full content of Prescisive abstraction into Charles Peirce? Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I placed it (it was a short stub) onto the talk page of the article, for the editors who know more about the subject to merge into the article as appropriate. The original article (Prescisive abstraction) was not deleted, but redirected. Pastordavid (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's a help guideline that governs what you need to do in this case. You can find it at Wikipedia:MERGE#Full-content_paste_merger. So, in short, cut-and-paste mergers can be GFDL compliant, as long as you follow that guideline. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I placed it (it was a short stub) onto the talk page of the article, for the editors who know more about the subject to merge into the article as appropriate. The original article (Prescisive abstraction) was not deleted, but redirected. Pastordavid (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this new account might be an old friend whose name rhymes with Jon Awbrey. east.718 at 23:24, December 18, 2007
- Thanks for the help, I thought something might be off about the account, but AGF and all that. Pastordavid (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Alert: Have just reverted this [49]. Looks like someone is back again, as this is his first (major) edit. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Kato9Tales has just appeared and reversed my reversion herer [50]. It is clear this is the same user as before. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Both now blocked. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The dépeceur of Bergen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User:The dépeceur of Bergen is accused on the checkuser page of issuing serious threats in french. It does not qualify as a checkuser case and I do not speak french so I am bringing it here. Below is the text of the complain from CAT:RFCU. -JodyB talk 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if any of you speaks french, but this text is a death threat directed to me and my family. This is most probably linked to fr:WP:MS, a long term vandalism on WP:fr. Besides vandalising, the vandal steals identities (I had some difficulty getting back the "Bradipus" identity, also here), and posts defamation on WP:fr admins all over internet (here in the serbian WP, a text accusing various admins of serious crimes such as pedophilia!!).
But what brings me here is this text of which I will translate the beginning: "I will cut you into pieces. I was unfairly blocked (not by me, as far as I know), I will do justice myself. I will cut you into pieces and eat your brain and your willie. I will kill all french speaking bourgeois (...). I will take care myself of your two little pieces of trash (that refers to my two children who are mentionned on my user page) that I will drown after crushing them against a wall. We will have your wife raped by hobos. No flemish would want to have that latin bitch (...)".
Death treats againts me and againt my family, this is getting quite serious. And according to what I know, this guy may well live a couple of kilometers away. I would like to get the IP of that guy if possible. Bradipus (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is definitely a death threat. Blocking. — Coren (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- ... been beaten to it. — Coren (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was able to get it confirmed. -JodyB talk 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ewww... Very nasty (odd it's in French, though, given the rantiness of the content against Francophones). I see there's a link in there to the nl wiki. Might that be worth investigating by the people over there? Tonywalton Talk 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Took a look at nl - the user mentioned appears to have been blocked as a sokpop (what a nice word) some time ago. Takes all sorts. Tonywalton Talk 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ewww... Very nasty (odd it's in French, though, given the rantiness of the content against Francophones). I see there's a link in there to the nl wiki. Might that be worth investigating by the people over there? Tonywalton Talk 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was able to get it confirmed. -JodyB talk 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- ... been beaten to it. — Coren (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Affaire Lustucri-MS and m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB. -- lucasbfr talk 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is definitely a death threat. Blocking. — Coren (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've taken advice from Mike Godwin here and have now answered the above checkuser case to the best of my abilities under the circumstances. I wish there was more I could do here but there isn't. I've revealed as much information as I can legally do and note that there is no useful geo-locating information to be obtained from the underlying IP address. BTW - the message in French actually reads worse than the above translation, IMO. It's disgusting - Alison ❤ 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeeny has used sockpuppets to commit abusive attacks on Jimbo Wales, repeatedly 'retired' then returned, showing a great lack of respect for the wikipedia community. In fact, she is currently editing with her retirement templates still in place. She has also attempted to remove licensing information from images she has uploaded, showing ownership of articles.
Her block log [51] shows that repeated blocks, and even mentorship, have failed to curb her disruptiveness and abusiveness.
Her sockpuppet, which she has admitted to, is user:Humain-comme. Contribs [52]. See these two edits for evidence of both puppetry and abuse [53] and [54].
Jeeny is continuing to create a very hostile environment on Wikipedia. I am suprised an indefinite block was not imposed long ago, especially after the sockpuppetry. --The White Stallion (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm stunned this one was not blocked, and have blocked the
account. This is one of the most insane users I have ever met, and I use the term in the most careful sense. The OTRS tickets form this user are nothing short of surreal, and the email addresses have been blacklisted from unblock-en-l, otrs-en and probably other places. Far, far, far too crazy to be let loose on Wikipedia. 'm about to blacklist the known email addresses in my server, based on what happened to the last admin who blocked this account.Guy (Help!) 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- NPA says ". It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.". As an admin, you should no better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is Jeeny. She has emailed more than one person saying it was. Now, should the sock who placed this report be blocked also? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The complainant is Jeeny, too? I've blocked it, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. The complaintant is probably the banned User:Hayden5650, who has had probably near 100 sockpuppets, and continues to harass Jeeny. -Rjd0060 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As he's started to make legal threats, I've protected his talk for 24 hours to let him calm down. Revert me if consensus goes the other way regarding his block. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Without commenting on Jeeny's behavior, can I ask something: has Jeeny invoked RTV and start all over in order to get away from Hayden5650? —Kurykh 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can I comment? I was just wondering about the OTRS comment...WP:OTRS states "The contents of e-mails handled by OTRS members are confidential." Consequently, it doesn't seem proper to user OTRS communications to characterize the user or these communications as surreal and insane. TableManners U·T·C 05:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I struck some of my more belligerent comments above as being unhelpful. The fact remains, this is an unstable and aggressive user. You're right, one of the links I supposed is unproven, but there have been email complaints about this user's conduct (including complaints to me direct via email) and numerous complaints within Wikipedia. I do not think this use is here to collaborate in building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even disregarding OTRS this is more than enough reason to uphold the indef block. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I wonder
The block log states that Jeeny has exhausted the community patience. Should this be considered a community ban? Maser (Talk!) 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- If someone unblocks Jeeny, then he isn't banned after the unblock, defining a ban loosely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but is there any admin willing to unblock? If not, then this user is banned. A community ban occurs when a user is blocked, and no administrator is willing to unblock the user. The reason I'm asking is because JzG said that the user exhausted the communities' patience in the block log. Is there any consensus built for this? Maser (Talk!) 08:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- If Jeeny's name is placed on Wikipedia:List of banned users as a result of this discussion, and no administrator is willing to remove her name from the list, then she is banned. (Note: being unfamiliar with the case, I am not commenting on the merits of the block or proposed ban.) - Jehochman Talk 08:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- My sentiments exactly. But is this block widely endorsed? Personally, I think this user has had numerous chances. What do others think? Maser (Talk!) 08:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abusing socks (rather badly), abusing her mentor's trust when that mentorship was the condition for her previous escape from an indef block and making legal threats because she wants to revoke the release into the public domain of her uploaded images ought to be enough for a ban in my opinion. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- My sentiments exactly. But is this block widely endorsed? Personally, I think this user has had numerous chances. What do others think? Maser (Talk!) 08:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- If Jeeny's name is placed on Wikipedia:List of banned users as a result of this discussion, and no administrator is willing to remove her name from the list, then she is banned. (Note: being unfamiliar with the case, I am not commenting on the merits of the block or proposed ban.) - Jehochman Talk 08:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but is there any admin willing to unblock? If not, then this user is banned. A community ban occurs when a user is blocked, and no administrator is willing to unblock the user. The reason I'm asking is because JzG said that the user exhausted the communities' patience in the block log. Is there any consensus built for this? Maser (Talk!) 08:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Revision deletion requested
Could someone please delete the last six or so revisions of Talk:Alberto Gonzales, please? I've requested oversight, but it hasn't been done yet, and there's some alleged personal information there about the subject and subject's family that really should be removed from the history. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done - it should be restored soon. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Persistant abuse by ip
This IP (clearly a sock of banned user TyrusThomas4lyf) is currently abusing many NBA articles here and here and now even messing with my talk page here after I tried to revert him. I feel that I cannot deal with it alone anymore. And need admin attention now. Chris! ct 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Matthew M. Stein deleting sourced content with POV edit summary at 9/11 conspiracy theories
If an admin could take a look, I would appreciate it. This bit of POV-pushing was his first edit in 9 1/2 months. He followed shortly with a reversion to re-delete the sourced material after I restored it. I dropped a note on his page letting him know this was disruptive, and potentially blockable. Mr Which??? 05:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- He is now attemtping to add original reseach and POV wording to the article here. He's made it clear in his edit summaries that he is not editing in good faith. The sooner he is blocked the better. Mr Which??? 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Still at it. Would an admin please take care of this? Mr Which??? 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- This belongs on WP:AN/3RR since both sides are now edit warring - including 6 reverts by the user being reported here. Report it there instead. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, why? 3RR takes all day, and gives the user all day to keep edit warring, and, quite often, the user will meanwhile get his version protected and not even get blocked (seen it happen a million times) - not to mention this is a single-purpose account, quite possibly a sock. Why the process-wonkery? Just block him. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect because a) both sides are warring rather than asking for protection b) if everyone came to ANI with these things they would fill up the entire page and c) because this is a content dispute. AN/3RR is for people fighting over content issues - ANI is not. The rest of your message is irrelevant to what I was responding to. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, both sides are not "edit warring." One side is protecting the status quo version of the page, while the other is attempting to unilaterally insert POV into the article. We little editors don't have the "protect" button, EG. Our only method of "protecting" an article from such POV-pushing is to remove his changes, and to ask for help here, which I did. Mr Which??? 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
MrWhich, it's 5:15AM over here. Nobody's awake except for the Australian Cabal™. EconomicsGuy, AN3 isn't a place for content disputes either; they get ignored here but laughed out of there. And lastly, I've protected the article for a while. east.718 at 10:17, December 19, 2007
- How does Stein get away with pushing his POV crap into the article, and I get subtly warned about 3RR by EconomicsGuy? This is the kind of junk that discourages normal editors from reporting problem users here for admin intervention. This seemed like a pretty straightforward block of a SPA/POV-pushing user to me. Never mind, I guess. Mr Which??? 12:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will review the contributions. Please be patient. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stein clearly edit warred and was not seeking NPOV or discussing on talk pages. 31 hour block and long explanation on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will review the contributions. Please be patient. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Menudo (band) again, and legal threats
I just blocked 66.229.248.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for this rather unambiguous legal threat. Fighting over this article, from tabloidesque, libelous insertions to conflict-of-interest-violating external links, has gone on for a while. I invite review of the block, review of the general situation, and also another few pairs of eyes on what goes on there. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I extended the block to six months and contacted Jimbo as the situation is more complicated than what it appears, for once he directly ignored Jimbo's desicion in this case wich was that none of the users involved in the COI influenced edit war was to edit the article within a month. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- You probably should email the Foundation's legal counsel also. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is neither our policy nor custom to forward on-wiki legal threats to counsel. The great majority of such threats are done for the purpose of intimidation and disruption. The appropriate response is to block the user until they retract the threat. (Note: I have not looked into the facts of this particular case, and am commenting on process only.) - Jehochman Talk 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- You probably should email the Foundation's legal counsel also. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I extended the block to six months and contacted Jimbo as the situation is more complicated than what it appears, for once he directly ignored Jimbo's desicion in this case wich was that none of the users involved in the COI influenced edit war was to edit the article within a month. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Muntuwandi once again
The following thread above was archived so I had to start a new one. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muntuwandi_and_the_Origin_of_Religion. This user has once again thumbed his nose at the process and recreated the same entry now under the name Evolutionary origins of religion. He has been warned by more than one admin not to do so.PelleSmith (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like a neutral admin to look into this rather than me - I don't think Muntuwandi appreciated my warnings of "stop recreating deleted content under different article names", and someone he has not previously interacted with may have better luck with him. The content is, at first glance, good, but it is pretty much identical to the recently deleted Origin of religion, so needs a considered approach. See the above thread as Pelle mentions for context and background. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would very much so appreciate someone looking into this. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Due to my responses earlier to Mutuwandi above, I may not be considered an objective observer, but taking a look into this matter I found something disturbing: he claims two Wikipedians support this article he repeatedly inserts into articlespace, when to look at what both actually wrote, neither do. This is dab's comment to Mutuwandi: "you are right, I need to sit down and devote some time to this. The problem is, as always, not with the validity of the topic itself but with your erratic or idiosyncratic approach. I'll get back to this." (italics mine) Bruceanthro's is far to long to quote in total, but he says much the same thing as dab: the topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but how Mutuwandi handles it is a problem & gently suggests a couple of ways he believes would be better & not result in these objections. I can only wonder how Mutuwandi would consider they support him.
- FWIW, I know just enough about the subject this article treats to know that it is a fertile ground for potential original research problems. Any attempt to cover it would need to be extensively referenced, & would include many diverse and controversial opinions -- & this from the sources any contributor would agree are reliable or expert! Personally, I wouldn't dare touch such an article beyond simple copyediting without extensive preparation, & can only speculate the dread any reasonably qualified but non-expert Wikipedian would have. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed some important part of Dbachmann's comments.
- "ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:
- 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
- 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
- 3. the teleological view (revelation)
- the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?
These are some of Bruceanthro's comments
- Myself, I feel it is a commendable and worthy object for an Wikipedia editor to seek to create and/or published archaeological research findings and conclusions regarding religions/evidence of religions found around the world. Perhaps rather than seeing Muntuwandi (talk efforts closed down, an article of the kind he has been initiating should be supported, and supplemented with balanced reporting on full range of speculation and theories in this field including evidence and speculation countering Muntuwandi (talk beliefs (in classic Karl Popper style!) .
As mentioned earlier I would welcome any admin who is neutral, willing to listen to all sides and who will follow wikipedia guidelines to participate in helping to resolve this dispute. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
69.138.16.202 (talk · contribs)
Appears to be wikistalking me, with several violations of policy and wikilawyering on both disputed pages Gamespot and Al-Qaeda, specifically, NPOV. See also User talk:Crum375#Relating to WP:AN#Militants or terrorists?... Will (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The IP seems to have
taken issue with User:Sceptre as well, if there-posted (an entire) conversation at Talk:Al-Qaeda (per this diff). ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just thought it was funny given your user name ;) Will, do you have any specific diffs? I can't see anything suggestive of wikistalking at first glance, which is a serious accusation - all I see is yourself and the IP having a Big Argument across lots of pages with wikilawyering coming from both sides, and now he and you are both trying to get the other blocked. Neıl ☎ 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- He was trying to disrupt the Gamespot page by lawyering to include an edit that had got the whole set of articles protected. Suspiciously, he is now trying to lawyer for a term on a page I edited, after I edited it. If that isn't following my edits to continue disruption, I don't know what is. Will (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just thought it was funny given your user name ;) Will, do you have any specific diffs? I can't see anything suggestive of wikistalking at first glance, which is a serious accusation - all I see is yourself and the IP having a Big Argument across lots of pages with wikilawyering coming from both sides, and now he and you are both trying to get the other blocked. Neıl ☎ 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A Wikiquette alert has been filed by the IP here. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Immblueversion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm asking for some comments on this user. This user has repeatedly made significant changes to articles without consensus, altering active articles to his preferred version, despite several warnings [55] [56] [57] - these are just a short selection of his repeated changes to active articles, reverting them to his preferred version. He has received countless warnings and notices on his talk page, which he simply ignores and continues. I think a block is in order here, as his repeat reverting an editing without consensus despite warnings is becoming extremely annoying. Qst 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Haven't got the time to properly look at this now, but judging by this talk page we may also have a problem with unfair fair use here. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I may be one of the few people here who don't know the show, but edits 1 & 3 above seem pretty good edits, and the second one very much the opposite. I think the sequence is he makes a good simplifying edit, gets reverted, then tries to make a point by making things a great deal too complicated, gets reverted with an edit summary "this is the last straw" , and then tries to make a similar good simplifying edit. If this is a sample, it looks like he could improve some of the plot summaries. Some but not all of his most recent edits seem OK also. What's wrong with [58] or [59] ? DGG (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but he has been asked repeatedly not to do this, I rewrote the plot on Stewie Loves Lois when the article was pretty much dead; he then made minor edits, slowly changing it back to how it used to be, I rewrote it further for when it had its GA nomination, and once again, he repeatedly began reverting to his preferred version. Qst 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Immediate action requested regarding email abuse
This morning, I opened up my email to discover a blizzard of short messages saying "F*** you, n****"--all sent by way of the "Email this user" function. All of the emails were sent from accounts that were created very early this morning (North American Eastern Time). I am assuming that these are all socks of an experienced user, as it is very unlikely that a new user would know about the email capability. They are also clearly the person, as the emails all come from the same Yahoo Mail address.
I am asking--no, demanding--that the following users be indefblocked immediately:
- Glorybud44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Beganbud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Maildeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
If necessary, I'll forward samples to any admin who needs proof of this ... just one email from each ID, before anyone gets spooked. Clearly someone is in need of a permanent Wikibreak. Blueboy96 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done, e-mail blocked. Although of course it will be difficult to stop them from continuing through other throwaway accounts if they really want to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could try WP:CHECKUSER to try and block the underlying ip. Woody (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Email personal attacks. Woody (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, this might be useful to report to devs, as it's a spamming loophole. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Kim, are you thinking of putting a limit on its use? For example, allowing each person to use this feature only once per recipient in a given period of time? (The recipient usually has an email address for the sender, so if the recipient wants to talk about something off-wiki they can reply, which gives the sender the recipient's email address, & neither needs to use this again.) Or do you have a better solution Kim? -- llywrch (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Concerns for User:Bluetim1
Here. Special:DeletedContributions/Bluetim1 may have clues as to identity. Dlohcierekim 14:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
"Worthless People" and expression of anger User:Bluetim1 and on my talk. Special:Contributions/Bluetim1. Dlohcierekim 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the Resolved tag as I believe that this IS an issue. Is it possible for someone who can access the IP address of the user in question to forward details to the local law enforcemetn so that a check can be made - as has been done in previous cases? DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- But, there is no threat apparent. Let's not create drama for the sake of drama. Encouraging people to file reports that waste law enforcement resources is not a joke! Perhaps I am missing something. Can you point to the diff that contains an actual threat? - Jehochman Talk 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking as a nurse, I see enough to say we need to try to identify this person and have the cops do a welfare check. Speaking form Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users, there is enough to contact the authorities and have them do a welfare check. We are not shrinks and could not assess over the internet if we were. Ergo, the best, safest choice is to try to identify and get local authorities to check. Dlohcierekim 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also per Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users, it is not a waste of time. Dlohcierekim 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Talk of suicide is often a threat of suicide even if the threat is not directly articulated. In my experience, the police would much rather investigate and find no real problem, than not receive a report and run the risk of having to tell a family that their loved one is dead, and that someone knew there might be a problem and chose to do nothing. To make a good-faith report of concern to the police is never a waste of their resources, instead it is giving them the information they need in order to do their job properly. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The VERY FIRST diff at the start of the thread - the addition of the comment "solves everything" to the talk page of Suicide. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Suicide talk page here, as I already posted. State of mind as evident in his comments to my talk page and and his uesr page. State of mind in the deleted article Worthless People.(Links as per my original, heading refactored by someone else, post.} Dlohcierekim 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are not qualified to to say it is not a suicidal ideation. Having the cops come to the house and consider an involuntary commitment is the last thing any one wants. It will not encourage anyone to post such remarks to have someone send out the cops and check. That is why the policy says to post here. Dlohcierekim 15:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like a simple venting of frustration to me rather than an actual serious threat. I wouldn't consider a ambiguous statement made 10 hours ago to be something that is really actionable at this point. More likely than not, any attempt at this point to get authorities to contact this person will only exacerbate the situation.--Isotope23 talk 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the guy is just frustrated because he really wants Wikipedia to have an article about his favorite science teacher. Last time I checked, Wikipedia:Notability says we don't have articles about non-notable people. It isn't worth it for us to send law enforcement out to his house. There's no credible evidence that he's threatening anything against himself. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know that "otherstuff exists" isn't regarded as a valid reason for keeping an article, but Wikipedia has thousands of articles about non-notable people - but women who flash their tits for money, or guys who wrote some obscure video-game are apparently the sort of people a lot of editors want to see here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we're not in a position to judge whether somethings credible or not. We're not mind readers, it's always worth it to send law enforcement on check welfare calls. It's part of their job and it's what they do. I'm always surprised when I read people's comments when they try and judge whether someones serious or not. I'll tell you one thing, they (LE) always take this stuff seriously. Always. And we should too. It's not "therapy" having someone do a welfare check...RxS (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is no threat at all. If you look at the diff, there is no statement whatsoever like "I am going to do X". Please people, let's stop being trolled and get back to work. - Jehochman Talk 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Worth pointing out that if law enforcement authorities conclude that there is no threat and do not act, it then becomes their decision rather than ours, and I'd much rather they decide than myself. That being said, there is a high chance it is simply trolling. Orderinchaos 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed we are not here to do welfare checks - but the police are happy to do them, it is, after all, part of their job. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably vandalism, but this comment was posted on the talk page: "I MUST SAY THIS DUDE IS LIKE A ROLE MODEL TO ME.. IM PLANNING ON DOING A SIMILAIR MASSACCRE IN MY SCHOOL ITS GONNA BE AWSOME!!!" see diff: [60] --Strothra (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, he just posted that it was a joke, [61]. --Strothra (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Still worthy of advice that this, even as a joke, is unacceptable on Wikipedia. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange user, requesting review
I'm strongly considering just blocking and forgetting this user. But I would like others to see if there is something here that indicates a positive contribution to the encyclopedia.
Ced101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I noticed because he copied User:Shell Kinney's userpage to this User:202.14.85.246 IP editor user page. Since then I've seen him copy two other user's talk pages to his (User talk:Jc37 and User talk:Sheep81). Yesterday Tonywalton deleted a number of hoax pages he had created. I can't find an edit that I'm sure is good (but I'm not sure those to Dumaguete Science High School were bad, so I haven't reverted them yet. The user appears to also be editing from 222.127.228.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today and 202.14.85.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday. GRBerry 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be also worthwhile considering User:Sphynx rdc as well? It seems 202.14.85.246 likes to edit his userpage. Rt. 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Updating, I've blocked today's IP address for 1 week for vandalism. I've also semi-protected Ced101's talk page for vandalism by the IP address; I don't see any reason right now that an IP or new editor needs to be commenting there. But semi-protection will allow Ced101 to use it should he log back in. GRBerry 18:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Article becoming image gallery
User:Nikkul insists on putting an image in Poverty in India article taken by him with a caption Low income homes in rural. In doing so
- The article is becoming an image gallery
- The image is cleary irrelevant there.
Despite my repeated deletions, he is adding the image again and again. Someone please investigete the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Nikkul also put this image in Poverty article. The image is also irrelevant there. He is specifically insisting of putting this image photographed by himself. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As long as the image is properly licenced, and not obviously vandalism, then the matter of its inclusion in a particular article is a content dispute. As such WP:DR, rather than WP:ANI, is the correct venue at which you raise your concerns. In particular, with the exception of over-use of fair-use material, articles becoming image galleries (or not) isn't specifically an admin matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - doesn't seem to be a problem, as the image is properly licenced, and image seems appropriate to article. Orderinchaos 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The image may be licensed, but the problem is that the image is not appropriate there. This image is very misleading to the subject of the article. The homes shown in the image doesn,t illustrate the subject of the article. The homes may belong to those who are not affluent, this is not explicitly illustrative of poverty in India. Poverty in India is much more dire than this image. The article has three images which exactly illustrate poverty. This image is completely irrelevant and is being input with POV to disparge the subject of the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- However, this is not the place to discuss it. I cannot find any sign of you trying to discuss with User:Nikkul regarding those images, one of the first steps in dispute resolution. This "case" is a content dispute which needs to be solved by dispute resolution, and this page is not part of it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oldspammer (talk · contribs)
I'm going on holiday in 16 hours, so don't expect much response from me. However, this user - who Ive had dealings with in the past - seems absolutely incapable of WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. He's an altmed type, and not very civil about it either. For instance, in response to one person pointing out that he's citing studies that deal with dental treatments as evidence for blood treatments, he says:
He also claims that altmed is being repressed, and inevitably is promising and useful:
And why is there no evidence of their usefulness?
...That's right, there's a conspiracy of fraud against them all.
These examples are pretty typical of him; frankly, I don't think he's able to write in an NPOV manner. I'm not sure what should be done, but surely something. Adam Cuerden talk 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- What should be done with him? Let him talk. We don't block people for making bad arguments. What he said does not amount to libel. DGG (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- If it was just talk, yes, but he also is a major force for the creation of bad and biased articles on fringe subjects. Adam Cuerden talk 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The most immediate issue appears to be disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood electrification (2nd nomination). - Jehochman Talk 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- We dealt with that fine--an ed. moved the excessive comments to a talk page. I see he is not the only one saying keep at that AfD. DGG (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- If it was just that AfD, fine, but it's not. It's just that it was a convenient nucleus to set out some of the problems. Adam Cuerden talk 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- We dealt with that fine--an ed. moved the excessive comments to a talk page. I see he is not the only one saying keep at that AfD. DGG (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- What should be done with him? Let him talk. We don't block people for making bad arguments. What he said does not amount to libel. DGG (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- If I may, as someone who's interacted with Oldspammer in the past... His focus is on very specific topics: "blood electrification" and Robert Beck, an entrepreneur associated with same. He's had real difficulty with basic policies like WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. I've tried to help here, but these issues are coupled with a readiness on Oldspammer's part to assign anyone who disagrees with him or cites policy to the vast conspiracy to suppress the truth about blood electrification. Recently, canvassing has been an issue as well ([62], [63], [64], <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">8062&diff=prev&oldid=177656588, etc) - though Oldspammer has denied that these posts constitute canvassing, and continued posting to a highly selected audience, albeit in less inflammatory terms ([65], [66]).
- The question of what to do is interesting. I agree with DGG that we don't block people for making bad arguments. Prolonged editing contrary to policy is a bit tricky. In this case, Oldspammer's edits are limited to a small series of articles. I think the best approach is to continue working with him and deal with these articles as we would any other - apply notability criteria, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. I think the more editors work on these articles, the better, since my experience has been that Oldspammer is either not understanding basic Wikipedia policy or is unwilling to follow it. But a block would be somewhat harsh, based on what I've seen so far. A few more paranoid attacks on other editors as members of a pharma-FDA conspiracy, or more blatant canvassing, might change my mind. MastCell Talk 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Other highlights include constant reference to a Big Pharma-FDA conspiracy ([67]), fact-tagging another editor's AfD comments: [68], and this canvassing gem, which I'd missed earlier: [69]. Again, I'm not arguing for a block, necessarily, but the problem goes well beyond a few bad arguments at AfD. MastCell Talk 21:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think mentorship would help him? Adam Cuerden talk 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nah. He's a man with a mission, and mentoring won't change that. I don't think a block is necessary. As long as they don't cross over into tendentiousness, contrary editors serve a purpose in motivating other to make sure that our sources are top-notch and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think mentorship would help him? Adam Cuerden talk 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Other highlights include constant reference to a Big Pharma-FDA conspiracy ([67]), fact-tagging another editor's AfD comments: [68], and this canvassing gem, which I'd missed earlier: [69]. Again, I'm not arguing for a block, necessarily, but the problem goes well beyond a few bad arguments at AfD. MastCell Talk 21:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have a great holiday, Adam. When you get back you will find that Wikipedia is still here and there will still be things that need fixing. These things may or may not involve particular altmed editors and articles attracting same, but that is true if you didn't have a break. :~) Happy Christmas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! And see you when I'm back! Adam Cuerden talk 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as "spam"
Continuing his crusade of administrative abuse, User:JzG has add legistorm.com to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (see this edit). As discussed earlier, this is a neutral, non-partisan site that provides objective and relevant information regarding Congressional staff salaries. Above and beyond the general benefit of providing this information fro all congressmen, an example of where this is particularly relevant was a citation used at the Jerry Lewis (politician) article, documenting the fact that the representative's wife is employed at $120,00 per annum as his chief of staff. This reference was removed by JzG, with an excuse in the edit summary noting that he was "removing per discussion on ANI and elsewhere". The problem is that there has been no consensus reached that Legistorm.com is spam, nor has there been any support here for JzG's bizarre position. It seems that JzG, having been caught with his pants down in an abusive block of User:Timjowers, has decided to compound the abuse by declaring the site spam, preventing any reference to the site in any context. Above and beyond removing the listing from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, it is high time that JzG is stripped of any and all administrative powers. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest proposing the removal of the site from the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find any relevant ANI discussion or even a consensus on the blacklisting of the link. After viewing the site, I can't find any reason that the site should be banned, given that it does do a heck of a job at providing politician salaries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here is all I can find: [70]. It's used as such in the CongLinks template, such as this example. And there has been no discussion or even feature removal at the template, indicated here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would have been blacklisted for spamming, obviously. It was blacklisted per here, here, and here. Sean William @ 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looking above and here, five accounts and an IP registered to the site have spammed the link. I support the blacklisting. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- One problem with the site is lots of ads. Adding a link to hundreds of congresscritter's articles helps to funnel eyeballs and therefore ad revenue to the site. Linking to a noncommercial source for the same information is preferred under external links policy. Thatcher131 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds right (although google adsense is hardly "lots of ads"), but is there a non-commercial site? A quick look finds me no replacement. Unless there's an alternative available, I think the site should be removed from the blacklist and be linked on its own merits.
- As for the retributive attitude, I understand the need to deter spammers, but I'm going to confess some ignorance. When I think of "spam," I think of a minor site getting undue placement for its own benefit. These links, although they were spammed, look meritorious and have been adopted by non-COI users. I think it would be bizarre to blacklist meritorious sites; it would give bad faith spammers the ability to block links to sites they don't want. I think this kind of gaming would occur in political topics. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I don;t think the links, as added, were meritorious or editorially appropriate. It's as if you put a list of salarys of Microsoft executives in Bill Gates' article. See my comments below. Thatcher131 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As for the retributive attitude, I understand the need to deter spammers, but I'm going to confess some ignorance. When I think of "spam," I think of a minor site getting undue placement for its own benefit. These links, although they were spammed, look meritorious and have been adopted by non-COI users. I think it would be bizarre to blacklist meritorious sites; it would give bad faith spammers the ability to block links to sites they don't want. I think this kind of gaming would occur in political topics. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. Gates is not a public servant; it's a strange comparison. Even JzG saw merit to the information stating, "If that is public information it'll be available form a site that does not eomploy spammers." Isolated sources do sometimes report on staff expenditures, but this has the combined annual data in one place, along with their financial disclosures, which are useful primary documents. The Washington Post links have more ads than this, quite honestly. Cool Hand Luke 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here: 1) is it appropriate for an editor, who may be associated with a website, to add hundreds of links to the site; and 2) does the legistorm.com website, which provides neutral and objective details re congressional staff salaries qualify as spam, such that it should not be included as a link under any and all circumstances. You might find support that case 1 qualifies as spam (though I would heartily disagree). As for case 2, there has been no discussion, let alone any valid justification offered, as to why the site should be included on a blacklist so that neutral third party editors could add it as a link or reference. It is case 2 that is the subject for discussion here. I am more than willing to leave issues of JzG's administrative abuses to be dealt with separately. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is no attempt to provide any context here, such as "representative Smith has the largest and highest paid staff, despite being a junior member" or some such. Remembering that this is supposed to be Rep. Smith's biography, a bare link to a site with information on his staff salaries seems tangential at best. If Rep. Smith has had problems with his staff, or his staff has in some other way come to public notice, perhaps. As nothing more than a link, without context in the article, and on a tangential topic, it is unquestionably spam. It may or may not deserve to be on the blacklist; I expect that if Rep. Smith or Sen. Jones' staff suddenly get embroiled in a scandal, their salary information will be covered by other sources without the spam problem. Thatcher131 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would you put information about Microsoft executive salaries in Bill Gates? Is there an article on Congressional Staff Members that discusses salary? This would be a good place for the link, or as a source. Thatcher131 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is a faulty analogy. I also wouldn't link to how Bill Gates voted, what his campaign contributions were, or how various interest groups rated him either (all of these are currently on all/most congresspeople). Neither those or staff salary information makes since in the context of a CEO of a private company. However, they all DO make sense when we are talking about a public, elected official. Each of these are currently used. The following two of them also from sites that feature ads as well (more prominant than those on legistorm), and have not be blocked.
- The bad actions from some users/ip's apparently associated with the legistorm domain justifies blocking (after the warnings I assume took place) those users and/or ip #'s from editing -- it does NOT justify blocking an a site that offers useful, relevant information that is not offered anywhere else online (that any of us have found). kenj0418 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would you put information about Microsoft executive salaries in Bill Gates? Is there an article on Congressional Staff Members that discusses salary? This would be a good place for the link, or as a source. Thatcher131 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Claire McCaskill's voting record maintained by The Washington Post (huge ads)[71] Claire McCaskill's issue positions and quotes at On The Issues (dancing and/or blinking banners) [72]
- Jesus wept. See the start of the thread? User:Alansohn. As far as he's concerned the definition of an abusive action is: I did it. He has been nurturing a grudge against me for pointing out that he used misleading edit summaries in a content dispute. I blacklisted the site because it was being spammed, it's a perfectly standard action, thois is an AdSense spam site which was being heavily linked by single purpose accounts - the canonical definition of link spamming. It was linked on the noticeboards and the spam project. What's really bizarre here is that it was Alansohn who originally complained about the legistorm spammer! Which admins will Alansohn permit to deal with his reports of spamming, so we can avoid being accusded of admin abuse for dealing with a problem that he identifies? Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. Before everyone gets out the pitchforks and torches, lets look at the spam report earlier today (well before the blacklisting) on the WikiProject Spam talk page. Another admin, Hu12, went through all the edits of multiple single purpose accounts (and a Storming Media IP) and found two of these SPAs had added 656 links with no other edits.
The bad actions by some legistorm related people (I'll take it on your word that it happened) does not justify removing a legitimate, informative website by blocking the entire domain in the spam blocklist. This is a ridiculous overreaction. I have requested that this domain be removed from the blacklist. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals kenj0418 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a complete inability by JzG (and his apologists) to distinguish between actions and content, combined with an utter refusal to pursue consensus on this issue. While one could argue (weakly) that the addition of links by those assoicated with an external site could constitute spam, no one -- not even JzG at his most disruptive -- has argued that the site itself is spam, and that no third party editors should be able to add links to the site under any circumstances. You admins can decide amongst yourselves if the editors associated with site and adding links are spammers. I'm not, and I am one of many editors who want to link to the site. Either give a legitimate policy reason why the site should be blocked as spam under any and all situations or remove the link from the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's a wiki, and what is done can be undone. There is no question that the addition of 600+ links, to an ad-supported site, with no other editorial content or purpose, is spam. Putting the site on the black list is the most effective way to deal with it. If a regular (i.e. multi-interest, not connected with the site) editor wants to selectively add the link where appropriate (say, to an article about a congressperson who has a staff scandal) he can ask that it be removed from the list, either temporarily or permanently. But there is nothing wrong with the initial blacklisting at the time. Thatcher131 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- So if I added it, it'd be okay? Either the links are okay or they aren't. The account that adds them shouldn't matter. Timjowers e-mailed me today. Fortunately, I don't think he's gone for good. So, at least Guy didn't manage to chase off a potential contributor. Mr Which??? 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I get the impression a huge number of SPAs (sockpuppets?) were adding a huge number of links in a very small amount of time. Why wouldn't that attract some stiff attention? I don't think I've seen a declaration that "we won't link to this site, ever," more like "WAAAAAAGH WE'RE DROWNING IN LINKS STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT." Now that things have hopefully calmed down a bit, it's easier to discuss the merit (or lack thereof) to linking. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that if you as an editor felt that this site was a reliable source in an editorially appropriate context, then you should be able to do that. However, adding 600+ links in the absence of any editorial context was spamming. These are bios about the members, not their staffs. If the article includes discussion of the staff so that it is relevant to talk about their salaries or financial disclosure forms, then this site might be a good reference to cite. The distinction is perhaps too subtle for some, but I think (in general but definitely in this specific case) that adding relevant sources to the body of the article as determined by the needs of the article is good editing, but adding the same external link to 600+ articles is spamming, even if the site would be acceptable as a reference under other circumstances. I guess that means that I think the site should be taken off the blacklist, but that the prior editors who made 600+ links were spamming, and the addition to the blacklist was in good faith. Thatcher131 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Justifiable Blacklisting, supported by evidence, more evidence and facts. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. This blacklisting is a clear result of WP:SPA (WP:SOCK) accounts and a WP:COI IP ('Storming Media LLC) being employed for the sole purpose to Spam Legistorm.com and to self-promote. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Storming_Media_LLC_Spamming. Storming Media LLC has clearly illustrated a situation where a single company is using Wikipedia to promote for their own interests (Adsense pub-5159231827098763).--Hu12 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, all you have accomplished with this supposed "evidence" might support the fact that those individuals associated with the site who are adding links may justifiably be considered spam. There has been no discussion or justification provided by the administrator who blacklisted the site as to why this was done or what we're being protected from. Nothing in this laundry list of links justifies falsely labeling the site and its contents as spam. I -- and many other editors -- have indicated that there are valid reasons to include the site in articles, both in references and as external links. Rather than asking "Mother, may I" for each and every article that would benefit from a link to the site, the entry must be removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Leaving it on the blacklist is disruptive in the most WP:POINTy way possible. Hell, if ads are the real issue, let's get rid of all those links on Congressional articles to The Washington Post and The New York Times. Alansohn (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then go to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. Thatcher131 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Alansohn, Additions are logged. The administrator who blacklisted the site did properly log the entry apropriatly, so that future users can easily find the reason. We had this discussion on the CongLinks template's talk page, You were aware of the posibility of blacklisting, and act supprised that it has occured. --Hu12 (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hu12,t he policy say one should avoid editing with COI, not that it is prohibited. The reason for this is that many good articles (and many good links are originally contributed by people with COI (and then have to be discussed by other editors). What would have been really good is if the outfit had come out with the proposal to link the material there, and let people consider it objectively. I hope we would have decided to use it, for it is truly excellent material that cannot be matched by any other single site, is non-partisanb, and very useful; to supplement our articles. They support themselves by ads, yes, but they do do to a good purpose. Our own purpose is to write an encyclopedia. We have the COI and SPAM policies because most material from such sources does not help accomplish this, and instead contributes to onesidedness, lack of NPOV, and bias rather than enlightenment for the user. When something comes along otherwise, we should use it. They did it wrong, but to we want to punish them for it, or to provide information in an encyclopedia. I care about results. I care about providing NPOV information. DGG (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy thread
- Let's try and keep things on topic, please. "I don't like Guy" comments moved here. Thatcher131 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Beyond the resolution of the blacklisting issue (which is, one might argue, better dealt with at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist), I don't know that there's much that this thread can accomplish. I have long been of the opinion that the net effect on the project of JzG's being an admin, and perhaps being an editor, is negative, and I have long been inclined to believe that that view is shared by the majority of the community, although on each occasion of Guy's leaving the project many editors described him as an exceptional admin and encouraged him to return. In any case, though, even as the community has the absolute right to confer the tools on any editor at its discretion, it does not, at present, bizarrely, have the right to remove the tools, and I don't see any behavior—or, really, pattern of behavior, since most of his controversial actions seem to garner at least some support from the community, such that they're not all, I suppose, plainly contrary to consensus and policy— here that would result in the ArbCom's desysopping Guy, and I do not believe that any further input from the community on this issue or on the broader issue of "administrative abuse" will produce any positive results. Joe 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I completely concur with everything you wrote above. And since I don't see the community of admins having the stomach to really sanction him for what he does, I've decided that until or unless he makes another block as bad as the one on User:Timjowers, I will not address him again. He has blanked several threads on his talkpage, by various editors (one that included multiple posts from several editors in that thread alone) who attempted to question his actions. Those aren't the actions of an admin open to changing his behavior, and I'm not experienced enough (a la Giano) to be able to truly agitate for change with the Arbcom. Mr Which??? 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the apparent lack of willingness on the part of admins at large to confront an admin who is managing to seriously piss off a number of good editors through his unwillingness to listen to the community, his (what appear to me to be) misleading comments, his hypocrisy in complaining about behaviour in others which he engages in himself, and his refusal to admit that he ever makes mistakes. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Before choosing to lynch Guy over this spam blacklisting, I suggest you review the evidence at:
- I think the data on this massive spamming campaign speaks for itself. --A. B. (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just stop with the "lynch Guy over this spam blacklisting" hysteria. Those who have a problem with Guy have made it clear that the problem with Guy runs much deeper than that. Much deeper. Mr Which??? 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then take it to RFC. There's no actions here for an admin to take. Metros (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was wondering when Metros would turn up. DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've made it crystal clear what I'd like to see an admin do. It's very informal. I don't want an effin' RfC. I want someone who Guy won't "hang up on" at his talkpage to discuss his pattern of behavior with him. Mr Which??? 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then take it to RFC. There's no actions here for an admin to take. Metros (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just stop with the "lynch Guy over this spam blacklisting" hysteria. Those who have a problem with Guy have made it clear that the problem with Guy runs much deeper than that. Much deeper. Mr Which??? 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Request review of User:JzG's block of User:Timjowers
I am formally requesting review of this block. It was placed on a sub-100 edit user, User:Timjowers after he placed links in several different presidential candidates’ articles. It was placed with no warning, and no attempt to engage in a productive, educational dialogue with Timjowers. The block has no expiry, making it even worse. He indef-ed a new user with no warning, and no attempt to engage in productive dialogue pre-block. JzG has steadfastly refused to unblock, though he claims he has no problem with another admin unblocking Timjowers.
Here is the response from the blocking admin, after User:Timjowers responded, with some justifiable anger, to the block. Note the blocking admin’s bite-y “You have precisely two enforceable rights here: the right to fork and the right to leave.”
I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look at Timjower’s contributions to the project thus far, and unblock him straightaway. For further discussion of this block, see JzG’s talkpage, as well as the “spam” thread about Timjowers above. Mr Which??? 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you link to that thread please Guy? I have been unable to find it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that JzG has unblocked the user, you still request that we conduct a "review of the actions taken in this case"? After that, what administrative action do you think would be warranted? This is an administrators' noticeboard, after all, not the Wikipedia complaints department. — Satori Son 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but it does say at the top of the page " If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here.". -- Ned Scott 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? I made it clear, I was simply wanting a few admins to take a look at his actions. That Hu12 (a fellow anti-"spam" admin) closed and archived this with an edit summary of "no merit" is beyond unreasonable. I am requesting that it be reopened for an informal review of JzG's actions in this case. Mr Which??? 02:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that Guy could have handled it in a number of different ways. Discussion. COI noticeboard. Editing. Blocking, and without discussion or warning, was probably the worst of the options. But it has been undone and dealt with now. I think that is the best you are going to get. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, MrWhich, you asked for a review of the block. A review was performed and closed. What more do you expect to happen, that has caused you to reopen this section? Corvus cornixtalk 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- So what do you want us to do? Don't tell us to just look at JzG's actions; we did that many times already. Those who demand change should give suggestions on what and how to change, and not leave other people guessing about their intentions. —Kurykh 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like for someone with the juice to actually talk to the guy (who he won't feel as comfortable simply reverting threads from) to discuss the pattern of behavior that JzG has evidenced throughout his tenure as an admin, including his bad block of Timjowers referenced above (and his responses to disputes of that block, both here and at the talkpage). I don't have that "juice." Mr Which??? 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- People make bad blocks over the course of their admin tenure. A few bad blocks that are reversed does not an abusive admin make. —Kurykh 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like for someone with the juice to actually talk to the guy (who he won't feel as comfortable simply reverting threads from) to discuss the pattern of behavior that JzG has evidenced throughout his tenure as an admin, including his bad block of Timjowers referenced above (and his responses to disputes of that block, both here and at the talkpage). I don't have that "juice." Mr Which??? 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- So what do you want us to do? Don't tell us to just look at JzG's actions; we did that many times already. Those who demand change should give suggestions on what and how to change, and not leave other people guessing about their intentions. —Kurykh 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)Guy has a history of blanking attempts to talk to him, with edit summaries such as "not interested". He aslo, in my experience, has a history of failing to read threads properly before forming his unalterable opinion. He might be more receptive if an admin had the guts to point out his disruptive behaviour, as it is fairly obvious from his behaviour that he is not prepared to listen to non-admins. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Quite simply Guy is a nuisance and a menace and as an Admin serves no useful purpose. He needs to be de-sysoped, God knows how with that attitude he was ever promoted in the first instance. The problem is, is there anyone around with the guts to do it? - I doubt it. Giano (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Innocent editor"? Please see the domain registration info for guono.com, the site he was adding all those links to. It's registered to "TimmyInternet Jowers". I would not have followed as strict a course as Guy did -- I would have started with a very mild warning -- but Timjowers was adding a number of links to his own website. --A. B. (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is turning into an edit war on this page as people archive and de-archive this discussion. Some 3RR warnings need to start being issued. Corvus cornixtalk 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The thread would appear to have been prematurely archived, as discussion is continuing (including edits made to the archived thread by the editor who originally archived it). DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is still no explanation as to what the various anti-Guy editors would have admins do. Corvus cornixtalk 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is - we would like some admins to explain to Guy the problems he is causing - I believe I am right in saying that this has already been said above. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also object to the epithet "anti-Guy editors" - I am not "anti-Guy", I am anti disruptive behaviour by an admin, and the apparent refusal of admins to attempt to resolve it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is still no explanation as to what the various anti-Guy editors would have admins do. Corvus cornixtalk 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's only turning into an "edit war" because of the abuse of the archive function by Metros. Mr Which??? 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- This really is a pointless discussion. Admins can block, delete and protect. None of these functions is appropriate even if there was a consensus that Guy was abusing his position, since there is long precedent and practice that editorial abuse is dealt with by blocking one's ability to edit, but admin abuse is dealt with by removing the tools. Only Arbcom can do that. Therefore, discussions like this, no matter who started them and who the focus is, can accomplish very little in relation to the amount of drama and ill feelings they promote. If you intend to file an RFC or Arbitration case, feel free to advertise that fact here. If not, then nothing further can be achieved by perpetuating this discussion. Thatcher131 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- An RfC seems like a more organized forum to collect and air grievances of this nature, while hopefully assessing community consensus on the matter. Imperfect, yes, but hopefully better than a posse on AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- This really is a pointless discussion. Admins can block, delete and protect. None of these functions is appropriate even if there was a consensus that Guy was abusing his position, since there is long precedent and practice that editorial abuse is dealt with by blocking one's ability to edit, but admin abuse is dealt with by removing the tools. Only Arbcom can do that. Therefore, discussions like this, no matter who started them and who the focus is, can accomplish very little in relation to the amount of drama and ill feelings they promote. If you intend to file an RFC or Arbitration case, feel free to advertise that fact here. If not, then nothing further can be achieved by perpetuating this discussion. Thatcher131 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- So you are saying that there is no point trying to get Guy to engage in discussion of his behaviour? Or to expect admins to try to deal with disruptive behaviour? DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Thatcher is suggesting that an RfC would be a better mechanism to achieve both of those ends. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Posse" implies some degree of organization, what happened here is that people see a problem being discussed and join in - not a posse. DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wasn't the meaning I had in mind -- was thinking more of the vigilante aspect -- but point taken. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Calling people vigilantes is no improvement. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Care to focus on, I dunno, the matter at hand? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok - Guy's behaviour is disruptive, uncivil, hypocritical, and damaging to the communtiy and the Wikipedia generally. The failure of other admins to attempt to engage Guy in discussion with a view to helping him contribute more positively undermines confidence in all admins, and the way in which discussion of the issue is curtailed by premature archiving of threads (this is NOT the first time, as I am sure you are aware) creates more stress and drama than it prevents. I am reluctant to start an RfC, both because I do have better things to do with my time than track down diffs of Guy's behaviour and the effects it has, and because when I have seen Guy's actions, a few predictable admins seem to leap to his defence by a) criticising or mischaracterising those raising the issue, or b) sideling discussions into tangential issues. DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- If only there were some forum where you could back up accusations of admin abuse with concrete evidence like diffs and community support. Like an RfC or something. I'm not trying to be condescending, really I'm not, but you've just specifically said you're not going to take the one avenue most likely to produce results, and that doesn't make sense to me. If you're really of the opinion Guy is ignoring complaints, make the sort of complaint he can't easily ignore. You've said you're unhappy with prior forays on AN/I (I think?), that's probably in part because discussions on AN/I rarely ever lead to desysoppings -- RfC->ArbCom is a more standard escalation, in that regard. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok - Guy's behaviour is disruptive, uncivil, hypocritical, and damaging to the communtiy and the Wikipedia generally. The failure of other admins to attempt to engage Guy in discussion with a view to helping him contribute more positively undermines confidence in all admins, and the way in which discussion of the issue is curtailed by premature archiving of threads (this is NOT the first time, as I am sure you are aware) creates more stress and drama than it prevents. I am reluctant to start an RfC, both because I do have better things to do with my time than track down diffs of Guy's behaviour and the effects it has, and because when I have seen Guy's actions, a few predictable admins seem to leap to his defence by a) criticising or mischaracterising those raising the issue, or b) sideling discussions into tangential issues. DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Care to focus on, I dunno, the matter at hand? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Calling people vigilantes is no improvement. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wasn't the meaning I had in mind -- was thinking more of the vigilante aspect -- but point taken. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Posse" implies some degree of organization, what happened here is that people see a problem being discussed and join in - not a posse. DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Thatcher is suggesting that an RfC would be a better mechanism to achieve both of those ends. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- So you are saying that there is no point trying to get Guy to engage in discussion of his behaviour? Or to expect admins to try to deal with disruptive behaviour? DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Saying I am reluctant to do something is not specifically saying I will not do it - please read carefully. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay? Either an RfC is filed or it isn't. It seems to me that you and Which are getting distracted by unimportant word semantics, and that's blunting your momentum. I mean, I'm sorry that I offended you, that was my mistake. If you want to address allegations of admin abuse, focusing immediately on a poor choice of words I made without really thinking about it isn't getting you any closer to your goal... and it makes it difficult to talk to you, if I have to spend five times as long carefully considering the various ways you might interpret every word I throw out. We're not making law, here, we're talking. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Saying I am reluctant to do something is not specifically saying I will not do it - please read carefully. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Re-focusing, then, after your personal attack calling us all a "posse" and "vigilantes": I started the first thread as an attempt to get a few admins (who Guy wouldn't feel as comfortable just reverting their comments) to attempt to engage him in discussion. That's not too much to ask, and kind of the point of AN/I, I thought. Mr Which??? 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- That might depend; is your goal to get analysis of a single admin action? AN/I can work well for that. But an entire admin career? RfC is probably better suited. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no. IT's more about his attitude, and his playing fast and loose with some of the tools (especially the block button). Having a few respected admins discuss his behavior and actions was what I considered an initial step, before an RfC. Mr Which??? 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Well, if it keeps coming up, and you're not satisfied with his responses, I'd still recommend escalating -- it may not settle matters entirely to your liking, but hopefully getting some proper closure on things will help? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- If JzG still believes they have the trust and confidence of the community then why don't they put themselves up for an RfA reconfirmation similar to Walton One. They'd be no need for them to resign beforehand but if the RfA goes against them, then desysopping would be automatic. A lot quicker than an Arbcom and it gives the whole community the chance to express their views and get a quick result. At present it seems admins are easy to create but hard to uncreate, hardly conducive to harmony I'd say.RMHED (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is he in the admin recall category? If so, then your advice would have been taken already. If not, then your advice is moot. Admins are not politicians subject to constant popularity contests. And we are veering off topic. Again. —Kurykh 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think it is accurate to describe a suggested solution as "veering off topic", and it is not a question of popularity, it is one of competence. DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is he in the admin recall category? If so, then your advice would have been taken already. If not, then your advice is moot. Admins are not politicians subject to constant popularity contests. And we are veering off topic. Again. —Kurykh 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate Mr Which's attempt to badger the admin community into trying to work with User:JzG and improve his actions, this is really a waste of a lot of community goodwill. The community would be better served by allowing User:JzG to actually retire as he has threatened to do, and pick up the admin work he feels he's the only one doing. less drama all the way around. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As folks in this thread have been told multiple times already - AN/I is not the place for this discussion, period. If you feel the issue needs addressing by the community, then file an RfC or an RfAr. If you can't do that, then it must not be that important to you. There is nothing that can be done here based on your review, except what you have already tried to do (engage him in discussion). So, move along. AvruchTalk 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest opening an RfC on JzG. There's plenty of material to support one (I know where to find plenty without even having to search for it), and I could be one of the certifiers (two are required), because I've tried and failed previously to persuade him to correct his behavior. If anyone else wants to start an RfC, let me know and we can work together to collect all the evidence and get it drafted. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- So, I blocked someone for adding links to a site of which he is the owner. Terrible, the project will crumble Real Soon Now. And I blacklisted a site for no grounds at all, other than hundreds of links being added by single purpose accounts, which is not in the least bit spamming. Much. Given that I appear to be the very spawn of Satan, at least according to my loyal crew of grudge-bearers, can't people find better examples of supposed abuse than these? About the only genuinely helpful or productive thing anyone's said to me lately is "go and write some articles". Which was good advice, so I took it. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Guy, do you honestly believe that you are benefiting Wikipedia in your rôle as an admin? Or maybe you could be more productive by dropping the tools and going back to writing? DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's just this kind of snarky attitude that I'm talking about. Mr Which??? 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I mean, "loyal crew of grudge bearers"?!? Care to support that accusation in my case, JzG? Before the Durova affair, I didn't know who you were. Mr Which??? 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Guy acts grouchy like this sometimes. It doesn't excuse his admin actions, but it does explain (in my eyes) his talk page attitude. It's not so much a snarky attitude as a rather jaded one. Learning when you need time off to recharge the batteries is nice if you can recognise it in yourself, but not everyone can (I generally can't). Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Suggested you do some writing? That was Irpen, wasn't it? Nice articles, BTW. Commented at your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As suggested by others, please take this somewhere else. I don't see any new arguments being made by now and this particular noticeboard is really a poor venue for an ongoing, extensive debate such as this. If Guy's critics were out to criticize him and possibly embarrass him, they've done so by now. If they were out to de-admin him or otherwise smite him, well it's not going to happen here on WP:ANI. If the goal was to deal with the legistorm spam or Timjowers' block, well that's either been done or is being discussed elsewhere. If Guy's critics wanted to get his attention, well clearly he's been reading this since he's made several replies. If the goal was to make Guy grovel, well, it's certainly not going to happen any time soon based on an objective assessment of Guy's comments on things.
This board is largely for short-term incidents that need immediate administrator assistance and attention. If this topic needs further discussion, I'd like to ask that Guy's critics take to his talk page or to an RfC. it's time to open WP:ANI to other traffic. --A. B. (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the complainants should wonder why no action has been taken on their request, that is, assuming any action is necessary (hint hint). Multiple admins have commented...in the same fashion. Now no one is saying that JzG didn't do something wrong. But the complainants should take a step back before further commenting on whether their quest for JzG's pound of flesh is worthwhile and appropriate. —Kurykh 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your comments add nothing to the discussion, in my view. I don't want a "pound of flesh" from him. I want uninvolved (read: not you) to discuss his behavior pattern with him, and for this behavior pattern to change. That's it. If he refuses, as he is doing, then perhaps an RfC is the only option. Mr Which??? 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise your constant expressions of ire add nothing to Wikipedia. If you want to open an RfC, open one already and save us all this drama here. I certainly won't stop you. Perhaps you should stop trying to discredit any comment you don't like and blindly charging forward and actually try to follow some advice that we have given you here. Of course, you are free to continue down your path of JzG criticism, but favorable solutions not guaranteed. —Kurykh 01:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, BS. If you look back through here, about the only time my "ire" really got up was when Merkos just archived it without allowing discussion. I've said from the beginning that what I wanted were for some uninvolved admins to talk over JzG's problematic behavior with him, and for his behavior to change. I'm not looking for "advice" here at all, so there's no need to give me any. I'm looking for a few admins to communicate with JzG about his problematic behavior. Mr Which??? 01:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know you're not here looking for advice. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't take them either. You're here to find admins who will do what you ask, and not finding any, you are here complaining? Does the obvious reason of "because they don't see your point as valid" escape you? But perhaps you will disregard my comments because they don't conform with what you want to hear, so I guess I'm wasting my time on this thread. —Kurykh 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- One sees remarkably few admins actually speaking up for Guy's behaviour - rather one sees narrow defences of certain aspects of it, or ridiculing of editors who complain. DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- And one also sees when the complainants have been judiciously rebuffed, they will repeat the same thing again and again until they get their way. How constructive for the encyclopedia. —Kurykh 02:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very true, DH. Carch told me last evening (when I opened my "Review" thread) that his response was probably the best I could hope for. He was certainly right. There do not seem to be any admins willing to actually discuss these issues with JzG on his talkpage, which was all I was asking for. How that becomes a "pound of flesh", I have no idea. Mr Which??? 02:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- One sees remarkably few admins actually speaking up for Guy's behaviour - rather one sees narrow defences of certain aspects of it, or ridiculing of editors who complain. DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know you're not here looking for advice. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't take them either. You're here to find admins who will do what you ask, and not finding any, you are here complaining? Does the obvious reason of "because they don't see your point as valid" escape you? But perhaps you will disregard my comments because they don't conform with what you want to hear, so I guess I'm wasting my time on this thread. —Kurykh 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, BS. If you look back through here, about the only time my "ire" really got up was when Merkos just archived it without allowing discussion. I've said from the beginning that what I wanted were for some uninvolved admins to talk over JzG's problematic behavior with him, and for his behavior to change. I'm not looking for "advice" here at all, so there's no need to give me any. I'm looking for a few admins to communicate with JzG about his problematic behavior. Mr Which??? 01:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise your constant expressions of ire add nothing to Wikipedia. If you want to open an RfC, open one already and save us all this drama here. I certainly won't stop you. Perhaps you should stop trying to discredit any comment you don't like and blindly charging forward and actually try to follow some advice that we have given you here. Of course, you are free to continue down your path of JzG criticism, but favorable solutions not guaranteed. —Kurykh 01:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Kurykh's comment was well said. You may want to consider the "conspiring with the Forces of Darkness" allegation, seems he's posibly the very spawn of Satan.. lol--Hu12 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask you, Kurykh: if a relatively new admin like myself had done what Guy did, and said what he said, what would have been the response? DGG (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The response certainly would not create this drama here. I'm sorry for not directly answering, but the question seems to have omitted the aspect of prior history, which is in play here. The complainants are trying to use JzG's history as "proof" of their allegations, something that would have been absent for a relatively new admin. —Kurykh 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- He asked you a specific question. You did not answer. For the record, the answer is, several admins would have engaged you on your talkpage, and let you know what was wrong with your actions, and how you could improve. That's all I've wanted to see happen from the beginning. (I'm going to go work on the actual encyclopedia for a bit before bed now.) Mr Which??? 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- No one told you to answer for me, and no one was asking you to judge my answer. Your interjection was extremely rude. DGG can evaluate my answer himself, and I can elaborate when requested. —Kurykh 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- And I can comment whenever, and wherever, and for whatever purposes I would like, without your permission. DGG can also evaluate my answer himself, and I'm free to elaborate on your nonresponse if I wish to do so. And there was nothing "rude" in my initial response to DGG. I simply pointed out that you had not answered his question, which you yourself admitted. Mr Which??? 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Take it outdoors, lads. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- And I can comment whenever, and wherever, and for whatever purposes I would like, without your permission. DGG can also evaluate my answer himself, and I'm free to elaborate on your nonresponse if I wish to do so. And there was nothing "rude" in my initial response to DGG. I simply pointed out that you had not answered his question, which you yourself admitted. Mr Which??? 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- No one told you to answer for me, and no one was asking you to judge my answer. Your interjection was extremely rude. DGG can evaluate my answer himself, and I can elaborate when requested. —Kurykh 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- He asked you a specific question. You did not answer. For the record, the answer is, several admins would have engaged you on your talkpage, and let you know what was wrong with your actions, and how you could improve. That's all I've wanted to see happen from the beginning. (I'm going to go work on the actual encyclopedia for a bit before bed now.) Mr Which??? 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Weasel123
User has been blocked by Icairns (talk · contribs) for 31 hours. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This user is continuously creating user-talk pages with a message stating they have been blocked indefinitely by User:Chrislk02. He has blanked his user page several times. Could all the fake messages he created please be deleted? He has vandalized my userpage too. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Report him to WP:AIV as well if it hasn't already been done. He also got my page as well, and I was a bit confused to put it mildly. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's been blocked for 31 hours by Icairns (talk · contribs), and it appears his contribs have been reverted already. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also note his second-ever edit was to install Twinkle. Can he be trusted with it? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why is there no minimum edit limit on TW like there is for AWB?. Surely since they are as far as i know used for the same things, similar enforcements should be in place.--Jac16888 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you mean VandalProof, Jac1688. AutoWikiBrowser is, as far as I know, used primarily for cleanup and/or markup fixes in the mainspace. VandalProof has a editcount limit of 250 (non-vandal, mainspace) edits. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with Rodhullandemu. Another user, User:Le Funtime Frankie, who has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul, had installed TW and was using it to the last 20 or so edits admin Yamla had made (using 'vandalism rollback'). In fact, as far as I know, he still has the Twinkle script in his monobook.js. However, Weasel123 never actually did use TW when he edited. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why is there no minimum edit limit on TW like there is for AWB?. Surely since they are as far as i know used for the same things, similar enforcements should be in place.--Jac16888 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also note his second-ever edit was to install Twinkle. Can he be trusted with it? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have pointed out this thread over there; I'm thinking that perhaps this discussion would be better on its own page because it clearly has deeper significance than just one or two users. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
User has been repeatedly rude, impolite and uncivil on numerous occasions. Recent examples (Some are in the edit summary): [73], [74] and the restoration of a personal attack after I removed it [75]. I didn't want to argue so I just took it straight here. He makes good edits but he is prone to losing his temper and allowing profanity to enter during his dialogue with other editors. What to do? (I've warned him a couple of times using templates) ScarianTalk 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This user is re-adding prod templates after I remove them. --NE2 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion is currently here - from AeronPrometheus's comments, I think there is possibly some confusion between proposing deletion and listing at AfD. Addhoc (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Was this really an ANI grade problem? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't think so. In other news, AeronPrometheus reported NE2 to WP:AIV, which obviously led to the report being rejected. Addhoc (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've taken similar issues here in the past, and sometimes asked if this was an appropriate place with a positive response. Where else would I take it? It was quickly approaching 3RR, and I don't know if removing prods is an acceptable "excuse" for breaking 3RR. --NE2 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It looked like it was posted here before there was enough time for them to reply on their talk page and discuss there, though they seem to have missed that for a bit during the reverting.
- If they'd refused to talk or kept doing obstinate things for longer then sure, here's fine. But this seems like it was still in an early stage. I figure this is where we come if AGF and patience failed, or in case of serious urgent emergency... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with George, and notified the user. A bit premature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Was this really an ANI grade problem? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You must recover
I've just seen two different pages vandalized by several unrelated IPs, a new user, and a sleeper account with the text "You must recover." Has Colbert organized a new assault on Wikipedia or something? This just doesn't make sense to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- What pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Masahiro Sakurai and Super Smash Bros. Brawl so far (the former is helping create the latter, so maybe not unrelated?). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fairly small number of distinct IPs related, it appears, i'm semiprotecting pages for a week and blocking the IPs for a week. If more show up let us know here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Masahiro Sakurai and Super Smash Bros. Brawl so far (the former is helping create the latter, so maybe not unrelated?). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin
Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm interested in hearing from administrators in relation to this user, who has been editing tendentiously on Satanic Ritual Abuse and Recovered Memory Therapy for some time. The user has consistently failed to AGF in relation to editors that do not share his POV. He has accused others of being sockpuppets, lying and falsifying information.
Particularly concerning is his pattern of stalking and harrassing another editor, Abuse truth. I've asked that he cease this pattern of behaviour but it has continued[76]. He has followed Abuse truth from one article to another ("I followed Abuse truth's trail of inappropriate spam here from his disreuptive edits on other articles")[77] whilst blocking dozens of Abuse truth's edits without seeking consensus[78] or establishing a any basis for the constant reverts. When challenged by Abuse truth, he admits that he is reverting AT's changes on 'suspicion' that AT is lying about his sources ("I have no idea whether you're accurate when quoting hard-copy")[79]. He has also accused me of being Abuse Truth's sockpuppet [80].
Recently, he deleted info posted by Abuse truth stating "I don't believe AT understands the concept of truth"[81]. He has also claimed that Abuse truth cannot speak English [82] and later claimed that Abuse truth is lying about his competency in English [83].
Rubin takes a particular interest in articles relating to child sexual abuse, and his POV on these matters is clear. As his userpage states, he believes that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is "scientific, unbiased, and in support of children" [84]. It is clear that Rubin seeks to entrench this POV within the articles that he edits, and he has a particularly elastic approach to assessing credibility. In two instances where a source that supports his POV has been demonstrated as unreliable (for instance, by the substantiation of that sources link to a pro-paedophile organisation [85] or the False Memory Syndrome Foundation[86]) he claims that a "severely biased" source is not "necessarily unreliable", whilst elsewhere, he deleted information from a newspaper article on the basis that the newspaper itself was somehow "discredited" [87], and he supported an attempt to remove a reference to a book by a tenured professor on the basis of the political orientation of the book's publication house. [88]
It looks to me as though Rubin meets all the criteria for wiki-stalking and tendentious editing. A number of editors have expressed concern about his conduct on RMT and SRA but he has yet to modify his approach to the articles, or cease his attacks on Abuse Truth. Any advice or assistance would be welcomed. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- In my experience, User:Abuse truth is a fairly provocative editor who makes a habit of pushing his POV as far as he can get away with. He is not deliberately disruptive, but many of his contributions are prejudicial, lack sources, or are sourced to (say) the "Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media", a small and fairly controversial group of therapists who work in the area that used to be called "Multiple-personality disorder", or to Feminista!, the online "Journal of feminist art, literature, social commentary and philosophy." To say nothing of his rather "aggressive" username (with concomitant double entendre). Reviewing his contribution logs, and reverting or discussing where appropriate, would not necessarily be out of line. <eleland/talkedits> 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- this topic has, not surprisingly, a long history of this sort of behaviour on all sides. As neither believes the opponents are acting in GF in the RW, what can be expected? I know I could not edit there on a neutral way, so I don't try to. DGG (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eleland, it is not appropriate for you, or Rubin, to regularly review an editors contribution logs and revert dozens of changes en masse. Rubin has achnowledged that he undertakes this activity on suspicion that AT is lying or misrepresenting offline sources, but he has yet to actually demonstrate that this is the case.
- AT is an inexperienced editor, and your confrontational approach to AT, and Rubin's pattern of harrasment, constitutes a failure of either of you to AGF and work collaboratively with him so that he's more effective in the future. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- this topic has, not surprisingly, a long history of this sort of behaviour on all sides. As neither believes the opponents are acting in GF in the RW, what can be expected? I know I could not edit there on a neutral way, so I don't try to. DGG (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like also like to draw admin attention to the two complaints have been made recently about Arthur Rubin's conduct on the RMT and SRA pages here [89] and [90]. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This AfD is so old, it is getting moldy. To merge this may take several mops. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Indiejade, 76.230.237.117 and COI
This user (and her anonymous associate; let's be generous and assume she'd forgotten to log in) have been hitting open source, open-source software and free and open source software with an extlink to her site for the last week. A sample counterargument for leaving these links in from her talk page:
Are you writing your tirades from Internet Explorer in a Microsoft Operating System?
Anyway, yeah, it's not vandalism, but it is obvious COI and it's beginning to get annoying. Talk isn't getting anywhere. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I find the best way to stop this type of nonsense is to blacklist the website. That will put an end to the whole tirade. Consider a report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)