78.34.151.178 (talk) |
m robot Adding: fa:ویکیپدیا:تابلوی اعلانات مدیران |
||
Line 601: | Line 601: | ||
Can an admin protect the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)]] from editing for a while, preferably at an older version before the changes started? A group of editors disagrees strongly with the naming guidelines for article titles in plants and performed some 117 edits to the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)]] page over the month of December.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)&action=history] When this page, the flora naming guidelines, was protected from editing, the editors moved on to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) page. It would be easier for other Wikipedians using these guidelines, if they guidelines were not the targets of an edit war. And, it would not be much of a burden for the editors concerned to gain concensus, propose the change, then ask an admin to allow the change or do the change. Thanks. --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
Can an admin protect the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)]] from editing for a while, preferably at an older version before the changes started? A group of editors disagrees strongly with the naming guidelines for article titles in plants and performed some 117 edits to the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)]] page over the month of December.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)&action=history] When this page, the flora naming guidelines, was protected from editing, the editors moved on to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) page. It would be easier for other Wikipedians using these guidelines, if they guidelines were not the targets of an edit war. And, it would not be much of a burden for the editors concerned to gain concensus, propose the change, then ask an admin to allow the change or do the change. Thanks. --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I asked specifically for an older version to do away with the undiscussed changed made by this group of editors, which, will, of course, leave it at a bad version, but all of their changes should have been discussed first. --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
:I asked specifically for an older version to do away with the undiscussed changed made by this group of editors, which, will, of course, leave it at a bad version, but all of their changes should have been discussed first. --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
[[fa:ویکیپدیا:تابلوی اعلانات مدیران]] |
Revision as of 03:13, 2 January 2009
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
There is a bunch of requests for protection regarding targets of banned user Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) at WP:RFPP. I personally would decline all of them for not much activity but I am unfamiliar with the user so I'd like some more input. Regards SoWhy 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bambifan101, aka "The Disney Vandal", uses dynamic ip's to attack favourite articles - the ip accounts are quickly stomped upon, but usually not before they are abandoned. If the major targets can be sprotected without too much (preferably no) collateral damage then it would remove a lot of potential damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would grant the requests. The Disney Vandal is persistent, and does a lot of damage with edits that aren't obviously vandalism, making it difficult to get his accounts dealt with quickly through AIV and other more normally useful techniques.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've softblocked his /17 range (it's fairly high traffic) for 72 hours. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bambifan101 nearly exclusively uses named accounts. Soft-blocking is of no help.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It is if the accounts are new. Black Kite 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Meh, forget that - I was having a "softblock"/"semi-protect" senior moment... Black Kite 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)- Softblocking is anon. only, account creation blocked. This block will prevent him from harassing users anonymously and hopefully stymie his rampant account creation. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, "limited help". An editor that has been this dedicated for this long with this many accounts probably has a nice collection of socks pre-knitted. If soft-blocking only permitted confirmed editors, I'd be a lot more optimistic.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I had been reading this as being instead of protection. As an addition to protection, I have no strong objection.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Against; last week another user requested a semi of all of the vandal's user talk pages for the simple reason he wanted to deny him ANY pages to edit and thus bore him (No, seriously, that's what he said). This is no different; the only difference is the namespace and the requesting editor. It's pointless to prot every single article a vandal tends to target because it encourages the vandal to target *new* articles, broadening his scope and making ID'ing more difficult. Besides, there's serious WP:DENY issues here as well (though I'm probably the LAST person who should be speaking of that...). -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 12:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Softblocking is anon. only, account creation blocked. This block will prevent him from harassing users anonymously and hopefully stymie his rampant account creation. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bambifan101 nearly exclusively uses named accounts. Soft-blocking is of no help.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've softblocked his /17 range (it's fairly high traffic) for 72 hours. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat related to this issue. Despite my attempts to get away from this crap, I ended up doing some reverts of his latest round of vandalism. To my shock, however, established editor User:Colonel Warden is now actively supporting this known vandal's edits and is doing edits for him,[1] including undoing merges that have been in place for months,[2][3] and reverting attempts to restore them,[4], restoring Bambifan101's IP sock edits,[5][6] even adding a WP:COPYRIGHT violating link to one reverted article,[7] etc. He is even using false edit summaries in these edits. I mean, I know he's a big time inclusionist, but this seems very excessive to me, and it seems to be more about attempting to undo something I did rather than a genuine concern for the articles, from his own remarks about why he undid the merge.[8] I asked LessHeard vanU about the issue, as it seemed very inappropriate to me that CW is now basically helping the vandal which seems to go against WP:BAN.[9]. Unfortunately, CW's responses were less than encouraging.[10]
- Comment My interest in this matter arises from User:SoWhy's post at the head of this section which caught my eye yesterday. I looked into the topics in question and found them in need of some content-editing attention. One of them, for example, is a Number 1 hit single in the UK which has sold over a million copies, making it a platinum disk. Furthermore there was some seasonal relevance in that it was nearly a Christmas No.1 which is a perennial topic at this time of year. I have been fleshing this out but Collectionian seems so incensed by this that she has now proposed that the article be deleted altogether - an absurd proposition. Anyway, this is just an ordinary content dispute and the only special feature is that we have this Bambifan chap buzzing around in the background. I have no particular interest in them - it is the topics which concern me. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This edit summary alone is sufficiently deceptive that it renders Colonel Warden's motivations suspect.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hardly. I was adding to the article, working from the previous full version. Collectonian had interposed a redirect and so, of course, this was overwritten in adding additional material to the article. The point here was that another source was being added, so making the redirect moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Evasion in response to having your deceptive edit summaries pointed out doesn't help. The major impact of your edit was to undo a redirect. You and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles both try this nonsense of pretending that redirects don't exist and your edit summaries don't need to take them into account. It's disruptive when he does it, and it's disruptive when you do it. I think that behaviour alone is worthy of a block until you agree to stop doing it.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I gather that you are an enthusiast for such redirections and so are not impartial in this matter. Please indicate a relevant guideline/policy regarding edit summaries and I will be happy to consider it. Currently I tend to be brief and indicate with words such as "etc" or "&c" if there is more than can be easily summarised. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Undoing redirect" is beyond your ability to type?—Kww(talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have consulted the relevant guideline which says, "Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).". This is what I did - I summarised the changes which seemed important to me - the addition of sourced material - and appended ", etc." so that editors with other priorities could consult a diff if they wanted to know more. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can't seriously expect people to believe that you find the redirects unimportant. If they were unimportant to you, you wouldn't spend so much of your editing energy searching them out and undoing them. As usual, your response to criticism is to attempt to be evasive and glib. I don't think that you fool anyone.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously. I mean...what is the point of lying in an edit summary like that. It isn't like people with half a brain are going to say "Hmm, he says he's making minor changes but the file size changes from 234 bytes to 5600, I guess I won't check up on that". What do you gain? Protonk (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. The suggestion that this was deliberate deception is ridiculous because it is obvious that adding content will override a redirect. Collectonian watches over articles quite closely and, as in this case, you can expect immediate counter-action when making an edit with which she disagrees. I have had content disputes with her before and am quite familiar with the pattern. Rather than engaging with the substantive issue, one has to deal with a torrent of wikilawyering like this irrelevant matter of the edit summary. The bottom line here is that I have reinstated and improved an article which should never have been redirected in the first place and the community is endorsing my action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!. A better example of deception can be seen at this AFD in the claim of consensus for that redirection, when on inspection, it turns out to have been a unilateral action. The AFD nomination itself is an obvious abuse of process. Maybe this pattern of zealous behaviour is relevant to the Bambifan matter. Why is the Disney Vandal so fixated upon Collectonian? Is this a case of a young editor who was bitten hard and is now retaliating in a correspondingly immature way? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, that's nice. Now you continue lying. The AfD is not an abuse of process. You undid a very valid merge for no other reason than because you saw that I was the one who did it. Even the AfD is only saying keep (it was already kept), rather than delete. Sucks, but the merge was still valid. The article was tagged for merge TWO MONTHS without a single voice of complaint, so the merge was performed. How you can actually believe that one paragraph stub is somehow better in its own article than merged into the Teletubbies article is beyond me, but considering you are running around helping a vandal who has been active for over a year, nothing you do surprises me anymore. As for your final implication, to be blunt, F you. If anyone is acting like a fanatic, its you with you continued decline from at least a semi-respectable editor to pulling the same sort of crap I'd expect from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Nevermind that you totally ignored WP:BRD as the merge had been in place long enough that you should not have continued reverting its doing, but instead should have started a new split discussion. and As for the vandal, he was active long before I got involved (and would be the first to tell you) and he continued being active long after. I just amused him more because I caught him faster than anyone else bothered too, so he likely felt he had a challenge for the first time. He also vandalizes at least 5 other known Wikis, but of course, here he now has a new best friend (you) who will help him re-ruin many articles. Good going! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. The suggestion that this was deliberate deception is ridiculous because it is obvious that adding content will override a redirect. Collectonian watches over articles quite closely and, as in this case, you can expect immediate counter-action when making an edit with which she disagrees. I have had content disputes with her before and am quite familiar with the pattern. Rather than engaging with the substantive issue, one has to deal with a torrent of wikilawyering like this irrelevant matter of the edit summary. The bottom line here is that I have reinstated and improved an article which should never have been redirected in the first place and the community is endorsing my action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!. A better example of deception can be seen at this AFD in the claim of consensus for that redirection, when on inspection, it turns out to have been a unilateral action. The AFD nomination itself is an obvious abuse of process. Maybe this pattern of zealous behaviour is relevant to the Bambifan matter. Why is the Disney Vandal so fixated upon Collectonian? Is this a case of a young editor who was bitten hard and is now retaliating in a correspondingly immature way? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have consulted the relevant guideline which says, "Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).". This is what I did - I summarised the changes which seemed important to me - the addition of sourced material - and appended ", etc." so that editors with other priorities could consult a diff if they wanted to know more. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Undoing redirect" is beyond your ability to type?—Kww(talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I gather that you are an enthusiast for such redirections and so are not impartial in this matter. Please indicate a relevant guideline/policy regarding edit summaries and I will be happy to consider it. Currently I tend to be brief and indicate with words such as "etc" or "&c" if there is more than can be easily summarised. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Evasion in response to having your deceptive edit summaries pointed out doesn't help. The major impact of your edit was to undo a redirect. You and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles both try this nonsense of pretending that redirects don't exist and your edit summaries don't need to take them into account. It's disruptive when he does it, and it's disruptive when you do it. I think that behaviour alone is worthy of a block until you agree to stop doing it.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- It is my experience that Collectonian knows what she is doing here. As far as I'm concerned, when she makes protection requests or sock reports, I take them seriously. Tan | 39 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and to note, I primarily did protection requests on those sub-articles which have been merged for quite awhile and which he seemed to be amusing himself by un-doing the merge, then redoing, then undoing. Protection seemed the best route. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, whilst Kww is quite right about the "sneaky" undoing of redirects by certain users, this one is undoubtedly independently notable. The edit summary should've noted it, though. Black Kite 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Even if it is notable, does it really need its own article when all there is to say about it is what is there? That same information was already merged to the main article over a month ago, with no issues at all. Sometimes, even notable stuff can and should be combined into a more notable piece. And shouldn't a discussion have occurred before just arbitrarily undoing it under false edit summaries? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- My previous experience with Collectorian is that she appears to have serious WP:OWN issues regarding articles that she has unilaterally removed from Wikipedia (frequently via blanking rather than formal process), and though she may lays down a paper trail in talk pages she actually pays very little attention to consensus. She may talk the talk, and have a firm grasp of wikipedia politics, but she cares more about preserving her own edits than whether or not the articles or wikipedia itself. Admitedly my experience with Collectorian is restricted to deletion disputes, she may do great work elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you have a personal issue with me, take it elsewhere, but this really has nothing to do with this issue. I have no personal stake in the article, and only did the merge as it was in my watchlist from dealing with this vandal. I do damn good work and I won't have you sitting here disparaging my editing character when you admit you barely even know anything about me, which is pretty obvious when you say I don't care about articles or Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- My previous experience with Collectorian is that she appears to have serious WP:OWN issues regarding articles that she has unilaterally removed from Wikipedia (frequently via blanking rather than formal process), and though she may lays down a paper trail in talk pages she actually pays very little attention to consensus. She may talk the talk, and have a firm grasp of wikipedia politics, but she cares more about preserving her own edits than whether or not the articles or wikipedia itself. Admitedly my experience with Collectorian is restricted to deletion disputes, she may do great work elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems I'm a little late to this party, my invite must have been lost in the mail. I'm the one who tried to get pages blocked in order to obstruct and bore the Bambifan socks. I still don't quite understand the resistance to this idea. This banned user's latest blocked sock was using their talk page to "suggest" changes they might like to see. That is ban evasion and a clear abuse of multiple accounts. I let User:AGK convince me to drop it while he tried to reason with the sock, and when he saw how this banned user was talking one thing and doing another, he suddenly [11] quit the project. So, now that we've lost a valued admin (at least partially) over this, you'll have to forgive me for feeling that we need to do everything within our power to stop this person. This conversation has wandered slightly off that topic, but it is my main interest here is to stress that I think with a concerted, prolonged effort they could be stopped, but only if admins don't take a defeatist attitude, saying it's not possible to stop this user, they'll never go away, etc. This user is not like other vandals, who move on to new territory when their "favorite" articles get blocked. They are obsessed with a small circle of articles on children's TV and films. If we can take those away from them, they won't have any "fun". And I don't see why any talk page of a known named sock of this user shouldn't be indef protected to prevent them from evading their ban and causing more disruption, like this whole episode. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"I've been pondering the retirement for a good while. I've banned enough users in my time to not become totally disillusioned with the project because one banned user fails to reform" is basically my thoughts. - AGK, as told to Penwhale, posted with his consent
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that makes me feel a little better anyway.Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- My question is why we haven't dealt with this at the ISP level. Can't someone from the office call whatever the ISP is and notify them of the continued abuse? They should be able to track down who the user is and throttle their WP access at the source. // roux 20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I filed an abuse report months ago, no one did anything with it. I also emailed the ISP abuse line and got no response at all. One of many reasons I got tired of dealing with the mess, seeming impossible to really do anything about him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- The abuse reports seem worse than useless. Isn't there someone at WMF who can handle these things at an 'official' level? One would think a letter on WMF letterhead from Godwin would be enough, no? // roux 20:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protection's a definite here--the only question is how long? I'd personally go indef, given the level of disruption. Blueboy96 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Collectonian, can you post a list of currently unprotected, Bambi-sock-target articles to my talk page, and I'll indefinitely semi-protect them? Tan | 39 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- List posted. In the last AN/I thread I participated in about this, I also posted a basic summary of his editing style and indicators its probably him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Collectonian, can you post a list of currently unprotected, Bambi-sock-target articles to my talk page, and I'll indefinitely semi-protect them? Tan | 39 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Semi does nothing. I've seen it happen on Simple. One of his original targets was The Fox and the Hound, which Majorly protected. Once Cassandra semi-protected WALL-E and Charlotte's Web 2, Bambifan jumped around to Teletubbies (those had to be protected as well). It's been so long ago that I can't remember all the targets that he's hit. Synergy unprotected those articles about a month ago, and I haven't been back to check to see any history of disruption. Indef semi will only block valid anonymous user edits and really doesn't stop him. He also puzzlingly became productive with his Touchpath account (riddled with typos, but he was creating articles where none existed) and was only blocked by Majorly when Collectionian informed them that he was, in fact, the Disney vandal. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- See my talk page for a comprehensive list of pages I semi-protected indefinitely. I agree that this is not a complete fix, Hbdragon. However, I disagree that it will do "nothing". It at least creates another hoop for him to jump through, at minimal blood and treasure for us. Tan | 39 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- As a regular editor of two of the pages just semi-protected I was surprised to learn they were targets of "persistent vandalism". They aren't... not by Bambifan... or anyone else. Both articles received trivial and harmless edits many weeks ago from one of the suspect IPs. It wasn't a problem then, and is certainly isn't now. They do get a fair number of IP edits of dubious value by overly enthusiastic children. Now, I find children as annoying as any other childless thirtysomething male does (my interest in these two articles is their connection to Edwardian literature), but I put up with them. And I think it sends a very negative message about Wikipedia when those kids are blocked from editing all of their favorite movie pages like this, just in case those articles might become future targets of vandalism. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the list, I included all of his regular targets, as well as recent ones. While I see your concern, I think it is important to protect them now, as he has shown in the past that when his old favorites are blocked, he moves on to the newer films, including these two (which is why he hit them last time). This isn't blocking kids, this is blocking one. The rest are free to make accounts or make edit requests to the talk page, same as any other new editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian, can you drop by my talk page with a link to that list? I'll look at semi-protecting a large number of them it if seems reasonable and would fall loosely withing WP:PROTECT. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I posted the list earlier at User talk:Tanthalas39#Bambifan101 favorite targets :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Close please It feels to me like this issue has been more or less resolved, and leaving this thread up may just add "fuel to the fire". Let's just get back to WP:RBI on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I posted the list earlier at User talk:Tanthalas39#Bambifan101 favorite targets :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian, can you drop by my talk page with a link to that list? I'll look at semi-protecting a large number of them it if seems reasonable and would fall loosely withing WP:PROTECT. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the list, I included all of his regular targets, as well as recent ones. While I see your concern, I think it is important to protect them now, as he has shown in the past that when his old favorites are blocked, he moves on to the newer films, including these two (which is why he hit them last time). This isn't blocking kids, this is blocking one. The rest are free to make accounts or make edit requests to the talk page, same as any other new editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- As a regular editor of two of the pages just semi-protected I was surprised to learn they were targets of "persistent vandalism". They aren't... not by Bambifan... or anyone else. Both articles received trivial and harmless edits many weeks ago from one of the suspect IPs. It wasn't a problem then, and is certainly isn't now. They do get a fair number of IP edits of dubious value by overly enthusiastic children. Now, I find children as annoying as any other childless thirtysomething male does (my interest in these two articles is their connection to Edwardian literature), but I put up with them. And I think it sends a very negative message about Wikipedia when those kids are blocked from editing all of their favorite movie pages like this, just in case those articles might become future targets of vandalism. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyway we can get some more range blocks for his current set of IPs? He's hitting from them like 2-3 times a day now. Most recent ones I found that seemed to have been used within the last four or five days: 65.0.178.65, 65.0.175.197, 65.0.191.174, 65.0.161.84, 65.0.169.163, 65.0.161.84, 65.0.175.60 (self identified[12]), 68.220.189.30, 68.220.187.88, 68.220.190.65, and 68.220.187.133. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Harassment
On Talk:List_of_Naruto_antagonists#Quit_saying_Pain_looks_cool I removed where an artists says he drew a character to make him look cool. Sounds like another artist on a soapbox to me.
I am tired of Snapper2 offensive behavior to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me. Saying "You are in the minority here, as nobody shares your opinion (which apparently you shouldn't be giving anyway)" to discourage me from editing anything is harassment.
Plus Sephiroth_BCR threat of blocking me for removing an artist's advocacy of one of his characters that belongs in a blog is overkill. Since when is self-promotion protected here? --MahaPanta (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removed piped link to make it clear which page was being discussed CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- And this requires administrator intervention how? JuJube (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- While a touch rude, it certainly isn't harassment. I'm assuming you're the IP editor on that Talk page? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 08:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't log in at first, since it seemed like a minor case of an over zealous fan. Telling someone you shouldn't be editing, especially on a discussion page, use to deserve at least an administrator's warning, because no one is suppose to "discourage them from editing entirely" as thaken from the WP:Harass page.
- As a defense, consider the following explanation of my comment:
- "You are in the minority here, as nobody shares your opinion" - This is certainly true. You and you alone are in opposition to (currently) six different editors. Add that to the fact that precedent in regards to "opinions" is clearly against you and you're just arguing for argument's sake.
- "your opinion (which apparently you shouldn't be giving anyway)" - Your argument is that "opinions" do not belong on Wikipedia. That in itself is an opinion. Following your own logic you should not be giving your opinion about opinions on Wikipedia, hence my statement.
- As for Sephiroth, you were edit warring in defiance of established consensus, both of which are blockable offenses. ~SnapperTo 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- As a defense, consider the following explanation of my comment:
- Please familiarize youself with WP:NOT#DEM.
- A discussion page is not an article page.
- No, even Sasuke9031 commented that I am following WP:BRD.
- --MahaPanta (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#DEM is not a license to argue fruitlessly and pointlessly for no reason. And no, you're not following WP:BRD as you reverted twice (1, 2) even after you were aware there was a clear consensus to keep the information. It doesn't matter what you think in this situation, as you don't have an inkling of support for your action on the talk page and are merely attempting to exhaust the patience of those involved in the discussion. Had you reverted again, it would be under my discretion to block you for edit warring. In any case, there's no reason for this to stay open. There's no need for administrator action, and you're not going to get the change you want here, as ANI isn't for content issues. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't put words into my mouth, I never said it was. Just because 6 people agree, some of wich could be sock puppets for all I know, doesn't matter since that's not what we're talking about. It's still their interpretation of wiki policy. That's why we have talk pages. I reverted once after I was told "we may as well go ahead and delete what has been said for both of them".
- This is a collaboration of volunteers, it matters what everyone thinks in this situation. You have no right to censor anyone durring a discussion.
- Again, don't say that I said something I never said. I never mentioned making the change here. I posted here because Snapper2 was trying to discourage me from posting. --MahaPanta (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have not been following this issue, nor have I got a single clue what is going on, but I would like to point out that accusing people of being sockpuppets is an extremely serious offense and should not be done so lightly. Please, if you wish to accuse people of being sockpuppets, substantiate the request. I highly doubt there are sockpuppets working against you in this case; you seem to be fighting six separate editors from what I can tell. DARTH PANDAduel 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't accusing anyone. It's just that I'm trying to discuss the civility of one of the replies, and sephiroth bcr keeps derailing that with everything else. He keeps saying six against one when as if it means something in a community this large. He'll say anything to change the subject and it's really wearing thin on my patience. --MahaPanta (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sock puppets, really? Six well-established editors? WP:AGF in your vocabulary? How pathetic. It's one thing to count numbers when there's six people agreeing against five, and another thing when you're the only person attempting to push a point forward. Move on. Discussion over. You're not going to get your change. At that point, you're discussing only to exhaust the patience of those in the discussion. If you try to revert the inclusion of the content again, then I block you for edit warring. Coming here and whining about Snapper's comments (and characterizing them as "harrassment"? Really?) isn't going to get you anything either. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- You never listen. I said nothing about change here. It's about someone trying to discourage me from editing entirely. Quit trying to change the subject. --MahaPanta (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- And you're getting away from the subject with your baseless accusations. You tend to evoke a less-than-congenial response when you accuse six well-established editors of sockpuppetry. Snapper's statement isn't harassment, as pointed out above. See what harassment actually is. If you believe so, then grow a skin or pay attention to his explanation above. In any case, what is the point of you continuing this discussion? You're not going to get anything out of it, and I'm pointing out that further discussion on Talk:List of Naruto antagonists is pointless anyways so you're doing nothing on two fronts. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You never listen. I said nothing about change here. It's about someone trying to discourage me from editing entirely. Quit trying to change the subject. --MahaPanta (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sock puppets, really? Six well-established editors? WP:AGF in your vocabulary? How pathetic. It's one thing to count numbers when there's six people agreeing against five, and another thing when you're the only person attempting to push a point forward. Move on. Discussion over. You're not going to get your change. At that point, you're discussing only to exhaust the patience of those in the discussion. If you try to revert the inclusion of the content again, then I block you for edit warring. Coming here and whining about Snapper's comments (and characterizing them as "harrassment"? Really?) isn't going to get you anything either. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I said no names just that it didn't matter if they were because votes are not what we are debating here, even though that's the only thing you'll talk about.
- It defines one type of harassment as "discourage them from editing entirely", and that's what he tried to do.
- Again, when is the last time I mentioned changing Talk:List of Naruto antagonists? Even I dropped that, you should too.
- --MahaPanta (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop being rude to each other for little apparent reason here on ANI. Especially here on ANI. It's violating WP:CIVIL and not a constructive way for either of you to solve your conflicts. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit war at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
There seems to be an edit war, that has lasted several days now and counting, going on between Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) at the above article. Would someone who doesn't mind dealing with these things look to see if protection and or some user warnings are warranted? Kelly hi! 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Endemic" is the proper word. "Several days" understates how this article has been handled for several months now. Collect (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that, I just looked at the history. Yeesh. Enough. How about this:
- Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned from the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 for a mininum of three months. They may use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies. SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The debate is like the hot-stove league, debating how someone's favorite team could have won the pennant if only thus-and-so hadn't happened. Content disputes, like they can somehow change the election results if they just get the article "right". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- SirFozzie, I'd expand that to each other's talkpages, Joe the Plumber, William Timmons, and List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, based on editing intersections for the past couple of months. Send them back to their separate corners. // roux 20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- BB, you just made me cry. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Roux, We can simply make and related pages part of any topic ban to cover that, I think, but I agree that we need to keep them from interacting with each other. (and Bugs, or a more recent version, why the )!@*@+$*@_$ did Grady leave Pedro in so long! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- BB, you just made me cry. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. Endorse community topic ban with respect to pages related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election for at least 3 months. This may give them something more productive to do. Will notify the two. Sandstein 20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I also endorse the expanded community topic ban. Suggest that 'related' include any person related to the 2008 campaign, to the extent of any congressional figure NOT representing the two editors' directly, Foreign personalities commenting on the matter, State races in which either candidate was endorsed by either presidential race, any article on any interaction between any candidates, and so on... Can we just ban one to articles on insects and the other to articles on french cars, ensuring ZERO communication? ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hell yes. This has gone on way too long. McCain campaign and related articles, broadly construed, and if we have to bang heads together to make it stick then let's just do that. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- YES! It's way over due. See my comments here and here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Expanded version based on comments:
Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:
- any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
- Each other's talkpages, with the sole exception of any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads. Users are required to keep such notices brief, formal, and polite.
- They may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
- This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies.
Seem about right? // roux 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the summary. That's about right. Sandstein 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why is Bob Hope coming to mind just now? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. A topic ban as worded above by Roux seems logical and fair. To be definite, I suggest that the topic ban expire on 30 March 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- uninvolved support - three months to do something else is a good starting point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from Amwestover. Whoa! I do not think this is a fair characterization of the dispute at all. I have made numerous attempts to reach compromise on the World opinion section of this article, and I have plenty of diffs to prove this effort. This is part of the editing process, and I don't think I should be punished for it even if it has taken what some would consider a long time. In the past few weeks, every time I'd address one of csloat's concerns, however, he'd raise a new one -- this is part of the reason that this has gone on for the length of time it has. So eventually on the suggestion of another editor after I'd lost all patience with csloat, I went with the simplest version of the section possible hoping that this would finally end it all. That was wishful thinking cuz it didn't. So now the dispute is over material that was removed which I think is non-notable and is being given undue weight. Instead of giving evidence of notability and relevance, he has refused to do so. Instead, he has decided to claim that his version of the edit is the "consensus" version (he has quite a history of this...), and that past consensus is immutable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is the debate over just that paragraph about the alleged al-Qaeda "endorsement" of McCain, or is that only one of many content disputes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with all of the content in the article, except for the al-Qaeda content which I believe has no place in the article. I can't speak for csloat, though. I honestly have no idea what he's come up with, but I do know that he'll claim whatever version he supports is the "consensus" version. You could count the number of times he's done that in his edit summaries with your fingers and toes and you'd still run out. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is the debate over just that paragraph about the alleged al-Qaeda "endorsement" of McCain, or is that only one of many content disputes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Seems appropriate. — neuro(talk) 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed addition to topic ban - in addition, the two users should refrain from talking about each other anywhere on-wiki. Leave each other alone, period, is kinda the point here. // roux 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Anything that stops this sort of absolute buloney is a Good Thing! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Or... You could all try and put this into some sort of context instead of !voting. Maybe even contribute an opinion on the matter since uninvolved opinions have been needed for a while. I hope this isn't how all admin action discussed. There was an RFC like two weeks ago, and now we're blowing past all other forms of dispute resolution (if you can call this proposed action that) right to blocking? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seems pretty extreme to me for a content dispute. The only issue is with the McCain campaign article and it's the al-Qaeda paragraph; every other editor on the page has seemed ok with keeping some version of the paragraph in except Amwestover. I'm willing to compromise and I'm willing to go along with whatever version of that paragraph the consensus supports, and I'm certainly willing to not touch the page until a consensus emerges on that paragraph, whether the "wrong version" is in place or not. Hopefully some sort of voluntary solution such as that is preferable to a mutual topic ban? csloat (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Change bullet 2 to read any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads would be better. (Can't exactly run RFAR without RFC/Mediation these days.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support just wanted to note that I also support this proposal. I've seen this user Commodore Sloat edit on other articles before resulting in similar issues with disruptive edit warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. Three months topic ban for having a strong opinion about including a single paragraph on a page. And with no due process whatsoever or even an attempt to look at non-punitive means of dispute resolution. Happy new year, Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh come off it. You two have been fighting for ages. This is the clearest way to make the disruption stop. // roux 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Penwhale left a notice of an alleged topic ban on my user page and I've discussed (and may be continuing to discuss) the notice. The topic of discussion has been mainly this: where anywhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines does it state that an editing restriction can be imposed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee? I've thoroughly searched the policies to the best of my ability and haven't been able to find anything that gives authority to administrators or the uninvolved community to spontaneously impose an editing restriction on any single user without due process. So this discussion of a topic ban whose terms were suggested by SirFozzie and which were blown way out of scope by roux are nonconstructive and not appreciated.
Now, if anyone would like to offer an uninvolved third opinion on the matter, which some editors already have done and what has been needed for a long time, then you are more then welcome and encouraged to do so if you desire. Advice on further steps in resolution are appreciated too, however I'm not sure if they'll be necessary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
fellow admins, what would you do?
I know this issue doesnt concern English WP, and is therefore probably not the place to post, but I am very interested to know the input of english wp admins (since you have the most experience):
I'm one of the admins on Persian wikipedia.
Recently, a report on Radiofree Europe mentioned plans of "Baseej" groups (semi-government paramilitary groups in Iran) for mass mobilizing online presences to "bring back Islamic values to the internet" and mass filter "problematic sites on the web". Many of our pages are already filtered inside Iran.
However, lately, we have noticed a massive flux of peculiar users (who seem to know their way around well despite their new accounts), and who have caused chaos on fa:wp
Some have uploaded an anti-Israeli flag and have used it on their userpages to declare their hatred to Israel. Others (such as this user who warned of "washing away Israel with a bucket of water" are even proud to display their intentions on their user pages, proudly depicting "our long-range missiles during operation the holy prophet"). They even proudly profess being members of the "baseej".
These users constantly use ad hominems but are evasive in their edits. They're net (overall) presence is highly disruptive, and have stirred up unrest in our AN/I and village pump.
Our sysops are often absent from all the management, maybe because I am omnipresently dealing with them, or maybe because they do not wish to get involved, as the "Zionist" and "Israel" issue is a sensitive one, and is off limits to many users (for fear of being tracked down inside Iran).
The problem is, the wave of anti-semitism and disruptive editing is turning out to be overwhelming. My job has now become debating them 24 hours a day about this or that law, and its interpretation. As if they intentionally wish to erode the rule of law and the people enforcing it. They are literally turing wa:fp into a battlefield of good vs evil, and they keep using every seeming loophole they can find (wiki-lawyering) to justify their edits and position. They go around creating pages with titles like "Imam Khamenei issues a Jihad to help Gaza" (even though there was no official declaration of Jihad), and spend hours and hours of everyone's time endlessly debating all the sensational news they put in it (like "students in so and so cities have signed up for suicide bombing Israel"), and ridiculous crap like that. And they object when I tell them such crap is not encyclopedic.
We are way past the "discuss" stage. It is a massive recurrence now. Do I block these people for displaying rhetoric and polemic material on their user pages? What if they keep refusing? How much of a free hand do I have in restoring order and the constructive flow of a proper encyclopedia back? What do I do if they keep throwing "This is an Iranian wikipedia. and therefore we have a consensus to do this and that." ("we" meaning the 10-15 new users who in unison seem to be causing havoc everyhere)? Is taking a more heavy-handed position acceptable for me (as an admin), in order to bring back order? Is adopting more stiff and strict policing methods (and I hate the word policing) acceptable, inorder to stop these people from gaming the system with their agenda? Theyve even accused me of being "an Israeili agent", for trying to stop anti-semitism on fa:wp.
What would you do, and how would you do it? I'm just interested to know ideas and some general tips on what other experienced admins would do.--زرشک (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Giving a distinctly non-administrative opinion, but speaking as a experienced editor, I would note that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a foundation-level policy for all Wikipedias. As use of the Persian-language Wikipedia as a forum for the advocacy of antisemitism is incompatible with this policy, editors who seek to subvert the encyclopedia in this manner may correctly be blocked. Furthermore, the use of any Wikipedia as a forum for antisemitic propaganda has the potential to bring the entire project into disrepute. Therefore, should remedying the situation exceed the capacity of local administrators, it would be appropriate to contact User:Jimbo Wales or an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation for further assistance. John254 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just a comment, Jimbo exercises very little special authority outside en-wiki. See Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- While decisions made at en: are not binding anywhere else in the Wikimedia universe, there are several ArbCom decisions which make it clear what standard procedure in this sort of situation. I would take this before whatever equivalent of ArbCom is at fa: (if there is one) or propose something at the fa: equivalent of this message board, and propose a "warn once and block immediately afterwards" for actions that appear to be part of these semi-coordinated attacks. Also, you may want to find ways to get some more admins up and running at fa:, you could probably use the added help! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds a lot like some of the nationalism issues that we have here on en, issues that regrettably we have been unable to deal with decisively so far. I'm not sure whether fa.wiki has an ArbCom or similar body, but you could try opening a case there and get some solid injunctions against the sorts of pages and edits they're making. Failing that, if I had a free hand, I'd adopt a "one warning, then indef block" policy to get rid of them (assuming they're not contributing anything of value in the midst of their disruption). Note that NPOV is mandated across all language versions of WP, so they cannot possibly have a consensus to engage in the sort of blatant anti-Israel polemic that they appear to be engaged in.
- However you choose to deal with it, good luck! Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
- Concur with Lankiveil that taking the hard line is probably best with a "one warning, then indef block" dictum if that's within the scope of your responsibilities. For one, I'd delete the anti-Israel image and for all users who have anti-Israel polemics on their user pages, warn them once to remove the material. If they refuse, block them. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the advice given above. I don't know if there are any Farsi encyclopedia projects that do allow POV (something like the Jihadist equivalent of Conservapedia?) that such disruptive users might be told to contribute to, rather than Wikipedia. You might also want to work on expanding the Farsi admin corps with people that do not have to fear persecution in Iran, such as Iranians abroad, to help you out.
- Given that NPOV is Foundation-level policy, the Foundation might eventually be forced to close down the Farsi Wikipedia (or to restart it from scratch) if it becomes apparent that its community is, for one reason or another, unable to adhere to NPOV and that this Wikipedia is instead systematically used as a vehicle for political and religious advocacy. You certainly have my thanks in your efforts to prevent this, and I wish you the best of luck. Sandstein 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with Sandstein; Wikia is not permitted to host a biased wiki, and may need close any that is being conducted outside the terms of service. This may not stop a wiki (which is a concept) being created and hosted elsewhere with much the same bias, but it will not be part of this family. How this helps our Iranian colleagues I am not sure, as it appears that zealots often would prefer to bring the edifice down around their own ears than have viewpoints that differ from theirs allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- As an aside, a Commons admin might like to have a look at commons:File:No_Israel.svg, I am pretty sure that racist polemic is outside the mission of Commons. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- The history at Commons:File_talk:No_Israel.svg indicates that it was already deleted and then undeleted - through what seems a not entirely transparent process - and would presumably need a new discussion, probably together with several others from Commons:Category:Anti logos. Sandstein 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not having read the deletion and undeletion dialog, I see that flag as no more or less problematic than a Nazi flag flying over the Reichstag or the same flag being burned in protest. Having such material on the commons can useful for documenting historical events and pro- and anti-whatever organizations in an NPOV manner. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is a crossed out Israeli flag racist? I'm certain the other stuff is no good, but I'm not sure the tern racist applies to a crossed out flag. In fact, a sysop is using it here [[13]] Die4Dixie (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, User:OsamaK is not a sysop on the English Wikipedia or Commons. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- We Americans have tried to cross out the Union Jack for over 200 years, but it has no effect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, User:OsamaK is not a sysop on the English Wikipedia or Commons. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I am not an admin, but I would have ZERO tolerance for "folks" who would try to "take over" any of "our" foreign wikis in order to push ANY agenda. I would drop nukes on them(block), pardon the pun, like no tomorrow until they ran back under the rocks from where they came. NPOV and non agenda pushing are our equivalent of star trek's prime directive. Bets of luck since it sounds like you will need it. --Tom 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- NPOV is exactly like the Prime Directive; it is something we talk about all the time but have great trouble actually implementing. Jon513 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, everybody. Israel crossed flag issue, which is related to me, is a clear one: we discussed it more than once at Wikimedia Commons, and finally, with supports of many admins at Commons, it has been kept: fairly after discussions. So please let's never file this issue in a place where it's not helpful.. The issue must take its size, it has nothing to do with NPOF (which is fully respected), fawp (where I haven't work before) or the "Islamisation web group" (No Israel flag shouldn't be understood as a religious matter). If I expressed my (and hundreds of millions' on the real life) opposite of Israel, as long as it is in the user free space: his or her user page, and without attacking our contributors, then it shouldn't affect the project at all. So please never link anti-things in user pages with NPOV, a contributor's nationality or religion has never affect my judgment while building our great encyclopedia.--OsamaK 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if fa.wiki has an arbcom. If it doesn't, you can only do what's in your power. What's in your power and rights is to clear all such people away with blocks, i.e. ideologue crazies who've got no intention of respecting the spirit of an openly edited encyclopedia. If the admin community there is viable it can decide if this was the correct thing. If it's not viable, then you got nothing more to worry about and should clear them as you please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- For your academic curiosity, I said that people who've got no intention of respecting the spirit of an openly edited encyclopedia should be banned. Banning is a purely practical solution to a wikiproblem; so long as no policy violations or disruption is happening or likely to happen, no-one need ever be banned, and that's whether they burn Israeli flags in private or worship them as deities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need for (short) editorials here if they are not helpful to the case.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which was the right place. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Admin impersonation
I don't think this user, User:MissPiggyLove is an admin as s/he claims here. Could someone take a look? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- She isn't an administrator, I'll ask her what's up. Nothing much to do here unless they start claiming it everywhere. — neuro(talk) 04:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- If the user was an administrator, the username would have "(Administrator)" after it here. Somno (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the administrator category off of the user's user page as well as some barnstars the user place there that she didn't earn, either way (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone else find it odd that her first edits are to whip up some user boxes (including an admin one), some barnstars referencing AIV, and contribute to 2 completely far out and soon to be deleted articles?--Crossmr (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, if Miss Piggy can marry Kermit (Bob Crachit) in The Muppet Christmas Carol, and have pig daughters and frog sons, then anything is possible...♪BMWΔ 10:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Er, you do realise that this is the movies? These were just juvenile actor piglets and froglets (you can't use tadpole actors, I understand) pretending to be their children... Wow, some people are so gullible! LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- They were adopted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- But imagine if you could cross a pig and a frog. For breakfast you could have eggs and green ham. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, How do you come up with this stuff :) --Tom 14:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's a gift. Or a curse, maybe. It's a fine line. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- At least he didn't tell the joke about why Miss Piggy can't count to 70. ♪BMWΔ 15:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- We try to keep things G-rated here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that "because at 69 she gets a frog in her throat" is not G-rated?? Have you watched evening TV lately? The new 90120 maybe? ♪BMWΔ 18:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's no accounting for the public taste anymore. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that "because at 69 she gets a frog in her throat" is not G-rated?? Have you watched evening TV lately? The new 90120 maybe? ♪BMWΔ 18:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- We try to keep things G-rated here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- At least he didn't tell the joke about why Miss Piggy can't count to 70. ♪BMWΔ 15:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's a gift. Or a curse, maybe. It's a fine line. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, How do you come up with this stuff :) --Tom 14:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- But imagine if you could cross a pig and a frog. For breakfast you could have eggs and green ham. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- They were adopted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Er, you do realise that this is the movies? These were just juvenile actor piglets and froglets (you can't use tadpole actors, I understand) pretending to be their children... Wow, some people are so gullible! LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, if Miss Piggy can marry Kermit (Bob Crachit) in The Muppet Christmas Carol, and have pig daughters and frog sons, then anything is possible...♪BMWΔ 10:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
<-- Now she created an (untranscluded) RfA page for an account with no edits. This should get interesting. Tan | 39 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- She has a better chance than some already LOL ♪BMWΔ 18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- He/she popped up as a sockpuppet on a checkuser... --Smashvilletalk 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is there an actual SSP report or statement from a checkuser? I'm not really arguing - WP:DUCK and all that - but wondering if this actually was "proven". Tan | 39 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. [14][15]..and another. --Smashvilletalk 20:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Duh. Didn't realize jpgordon was a CU. Tan | 39 20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- What's funny is I never would've caught it if he didn't forget to log out when he edited the sock's talk page, wouldn't have had to post an unblock request to which jpgordon wouldn't have had to run a CU...Plaxicoed. --Smashvilletalk 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- The poor man's checkuser. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- What's funny is I never would've caught it if he didn't forget to log out when he edited the sock's talk page, wouldn't have had to post an unblock request to which jpgordon wouldn't have had to run a CU...Plaxicoed. --Smashvilletalk 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- apparently +1 for my spidey sense..--Crossmr (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Duh. Didn't realize jpgordon was a CU. Tan | 39 20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. [14][15]..and another. --Smashvilletalk 20:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is there an actual SSP report or statement from a checkuser? I'm not really arguing - WP:DUCK and all that - but wondering if this actually was "proven". Tan | 39 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- He/she popped up as a sockpuppet on a checkuser... --Smashvilletalk 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Lee Hasdell, User:ClaudioProductions
Not sure whether to take this to the COI noticeboard or this one, but here we go:
User:ClaudioProductions has written most of if not all of the Lee Hasdell article. This was the state I discovered it in back in August; lacking reliable sources for 90% of the article, and written in a very pro-Hasdell/non-NPOV tone. I made an attempt to clean up the article (diff), adding cleanup- and fact-tags as necessary. I also switched out his (unsourced) fight record table, to a reliably sourced one. My edits were promptly reverted without explanation by ClaudioProductions (diff), cleanuptags and all, so I reverted him and explained to him why the edits were made. He reverted again, another editor reverted to my revision, and he reverted back to his again. He explained to me his main problem was my changing of the record table to the reliably sourced one from Sherdog, since it was missing fights. I accepted to let the record table stay as long as he accepted the edits to the prose, and took a break from the page tired of arguing.
I came back to the page in the start of December and saw the page was mostly back to it's former state, so I made another attempt to clean it up (diff). Most of the changes was reverted over a couple of days (diff), readding statements like "Hasdell was unfortunate", "After his close defeat", (after a loss) "which is one of the toughest no holds barred events in the world", "with a spectacular flying knee". I was getting tired of editing only to be reverted, so I decided to take babysteps, and simply added an articleissues-tag. It was then removed, so I readded, and it was removed again, a third time, a forth time etc, over a few weeks even with my explanation of why they were added.
In the middle of this you have discussion on his and my talk page with me explaining the basis for my edits (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc etc.), without him budging much on his view that the page is OK as it is. After some more discussion, we had a "breakthrough" with him finally realizing the need for sources to prove his claim. With this I decided to try my luck with a third copyedit, which he again promptly reverted (my edits, diff of before and after my copyedit (no change, because it was reverted). I restored my version, and asked what what wrong with my edits. The answer was:
Well it is not presented as well. It seems to contain more mistakes. date of birth for example. In fact it is less reliable then my version. please can we just use my version as I find more sources. Him being my father, I take this page very personally. I understand where your coming from but because I know a lot about him and his career its not like an average fan etc lol. So it bothers me when the page gets changed away from my liking. ClaudioProductions (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
... and again reverting the page. In light of this COI issue, and with no resolve in sight I decided to take this here.
To conclude, I feel ClaudioProductions has been taking ownership of the article, not allowing me to improve it by giving it a NPOV, remove the more spectacular unsourced claims, source it as far as possible (my latest copyedit included <ref>-tags for all reliably sourced claims), and generally improve it. The article as it is is using http://sfuk.tripod.com as it's primary source of reference, obviously not a reliable source. To try to resolve this I've tried to compromise, leaving unsourced statements inn but with a fact-tags - without getting anywhere (relevant quote after me asking reason for removal of tags: "How many times do you want me to tell you! There is no sources, everything is fact. Most of the information is direct and i have used wikipedia as a way of getting this information on the internet."). I feel this has been going on for way to long, and would like help to get it resolved. Especially the COI issue is something I hope others can take a look at to determine whether it's an issue.
Sorry for not including more diffs of the discussion. Please take a look at both the article history as well as his and my talkpage to get the full picture. Thanks in advance for anyone who decides to take a look at this. --aktsu (t / c) 16:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- ... or do this belong at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, or someplace else? --aktsu (t / c) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say this one is more suited for WP:COIN. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Will take it there then, as a start to resolving this. Will see what comes out of it and start off with a blank slate. It it continues as it has, I'll follow the steps at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and eventually bring it up here if needed (as a new case, forgetting the above). Thanks! --aktsu (t / c) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say this one is more suited for WP:COIN. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The page is currently unbiased, i am also finding more sources. So it is work in progress for once. Do you have anything better to do with your life ? ClaudioProductions (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Help required being treated unfairly by an Admin
I don't wish to make a big issue of this but an admin PhilKnight has threatened to block me on an unfair basis. PhilKnight removed over 50% of an article Silent Gig removing content that needs work but is valid all the same. I restored the content and have begun the process of finding suitable references etc. I have left a comment on PhilKnight talk section explaining what I was doing and that I felt blindly removing the content was not the correct course of action. I feel it is important to point out at this stage that I did not author the content nor do I know the author but I feel it is valid if written in an unconventional way.
PhilKnight then responded quite bluntly by threatening to block me from wikipedia. PhilKnight did not respond to my comments regarding my planned attempt to bring the content into line. I feel this is grossly unfair, as without any discussion I was threatened in this way. I was under the impression that user opinions and information was what wikipedia is all about not a single admins perspective on a subject i doubt they are familiar with.
This is not why I donate to wikipedia and would like this issue addressed. Bigruzzy (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Phil was correct. content needs sourced before being added. if their are no sources it will be removed. re-inserting without sourcing violates our policies. Canis Lupus 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you copy the material to User:Bigruzzy/Drafts and work on it there? Once you have assembled the necessary references, you can copy your draft into the article. Jehochman Talk 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since you've just admitted that you don't know the author of the content, it is a copyright violation and should be instantly removed. See WP:Copyrights for more information. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)- The material was unsourced and written in a non-neutral tone ("it's the next wild craze!"). Wikipedia policy demands removal of such material. Dendodge, I think that Bigruzzy is just saying that he doesn't know what user put the material on the article; I don't really understand your copyright warning there. Tan | 39 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh - I thought the user was saying they took it from a website. Struck. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Phil was right to remove the content. It was blatantly expressing your own point of view, and using peacock terms, to say nothing of the decidedly non-encyclopedic writing style. (The event was a great success, One highlight of the night most certainly had to be the almost deafening sound of over a hundred people bleating like sheep at the request of The Good Reverend and the Nuts boys, experimental night that was a success, Quite Rightly: The Silent Gig is the very next craze!)
- Whilst Wikipedia welcomes your donations, donating money to wikipedia doesn't buy you a right to flout policy on content.
- If somebody reverts your additions, the correct action is to discuss (WP:BRD). Simply re-adding the content is disruptive, and you were warned for it.
- Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh - I thought the user was saying they took it from a website. Struck. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- The material was unsourced and written in a non-neutral tone ("it's the next wild craze!"). Wikipedia policy demands removal of such material. Dendodge, I think that Bigruzzy is just saying that he doesn't know what user put the material on the article; I don't really understand your copyright warning there. Tan | 39 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Mayalld, remind me to give you a shout the next time I need someone to tactfully and thoroughly explain something. Tan | 39 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, very well explained Mayalld, except for the Whilst part, didn't you mean While? I am kidding!! --Tom 20:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, seems like calling someone King of Wikipedia is "the next wild craze".--Atlan (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
apologies for the "king of wikipedia" comment but with no open discussion straight to a warning of a ban not being a wikipedia expert I did not know where to turn. I am assuming this is the right place to bring this issue? I have offered to edit the article to the best of my ability but due to this reaction by PhilKnight I am reluctant to as I do not wish to be banned. I know the topic area and will do what I can to bring the users content into an acceptable addition to the article. However PhilKnight has added incorrect information and I feel removing it will only result in me being banned by him/her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigruzzy (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can you show us where is the "incorrect information" Phil has added? Also, have you read our policy of verifiability, which states that you cannot simply add your knowledge to an article? As an aside, you don't have to link to Phil's userpage every time you mention him. Tan | 39 17:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I can only apologise if there is a better way of doing this but the article states "A silent gig is a progression of the Silent Disco concept, but instead of DJs playing out over two channels, a silent gig showcases two bands at the same time." the one that philknight has added was DJ's and a band (DJ on one channel the band on the other), so really a merge of two concepts the standard silent disco and the silent gig. This may seem trivial but from a sound engineering point of view (my area of knowledge) they are very different and should remain separate. I have read the verifiability document and I realise the text has many issues but it also has accurate information. bethyn elfyn of BBC Wales discussed the event at length and interviewed one of the bands involved which is something I wish to reference (once I work out how to reference a radio show). The text has good valid information its just written in a bad way. When I return from my trip mid January I will do what I can to bring it into line with wikipedia standards. Bigruzzy (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fine idea, and your help with improving this article would be greatly appreciated. We're not here to yell at you; we're here to ensure Wikipedia policy is upheld. Let me know on my talk page if you need any help! Tan | 39 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Two bands playing at the same time? Didn't they do that already, in Xanadu? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I will leave a message for the original author and on my return begin work. Thanks tan I'll be in touch if I get stuck Bigruzzy (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Possible Lightbot Problem
Lightbot has been removing delinking "meters" in the infoboxes of most television stations and has now started on the radio stations. Also is delinking "Square Miles" and "Kilometers" in city/county/state pages, among other forms of measurement. Should this be stopped, should I revert, what should be done? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:36
I have blocked LightBot
Lightbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Is it supposed to be unlinking hundreds and hundreds of units of measurement? J.delanoygabsadds 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I contacted Lightmouse about this, but recieved no response. It looks like Lightbot was operating by itself. Are bots supposed to operate without someone to make sure it doesn't go all haywire? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:43
- Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3, it is supposed to act like that. As for NeutralHomer's question, many bots are completely automated, so the botop does not approve the edits manually. Maxim(talk) 18:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have reverted some of Lightbot's edits (ones that popped up on my Watchlist...please see my contribs), should I self-revert to Lightbot's edit? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:49
- I would advise yes, and I've saved you the trouble of clicking undo again by simply rollbacking them myself. Maxim(talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks...I will check to make sure you got them all. I did that when I wasn't sure if the bot should be doing that, but we took care of that here. Thanks for the input and the rollbacks :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:54
- I would advise yes, and I've saved you the trouble of clicking undo again by simply rollbacking them myself. Maxim(talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have reverted some of Lightbot's edits (ones that popped up on my Watchlist...please see my contribs), should I self-revert to Lightbot's edit? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:49
Well, it seemed out of its mind to me. Sorry for the mess won't be blocking bots again in the near future. J.delanoygabsadds 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Since when does approval to use a bot mean that anything the bot does is okay? If fact, even when people tried to indicate support of his actions, they were shot down in those discussions.
- Furthermore, approval of such a vague request, with no real guidelines and pretty much open-ended as to what the bot does, is something that should be reviewable either here or somewhere else outside the bot requests. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing out of the ordinary here. The bot is simply bringing dates and units into compliance with the WP:MOS, specifically WP:OVERLINK and WP:MOSNUM. I will look into its edits in more detail, but as far as I can tell, its doing basically mundane repetive MOS compliance. I see nothing controversial here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:MOSNUM says "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". It looks to be delinking ALL occurances of units. I will be reblocking, since it looks to be working somewhat out of compliance with the MOS. Its probably a minor glitch. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- What should happen to all edits it has already made? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 19:34
- Actually, WP:MOSNUM says "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". It looks to be delinking ALL occurances of units. I will be reblocking, since it looks to be working somewhat out of compliance with the MOS. Its probably a minor glitch. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- There was, in fact, nothing in the bot approval to keep him from unlinking whatever he chooses to unlink. That is not in accordance with those pages. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I think I figured out the confusion. WP:MOSNUM says "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked", however WP:OVERLINK says "It is generally not necessary to link... Plain English words, including common units of measurement". We have battling guidelines. One or the other needs to be fixed so that the two guidelines aren't saying the opposite thing!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I gotta run for like an hour or so. If anyone thinks I fucked up royally here, please feel free to re-unblock the bot. I just want to resolve the problem with the two guidelines, so that we can be certain there is no ambiguity on what is to be done with the linking of units. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- That "plain English words" part is bothering me, because the bot is changing "meters" to "m". Some people may not know that m=meters. Should the bot delink and change to the "plain English words" not the abbreviation? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 19:42
- I gotta run for like an hour or so. If anyone thinks I fucked up royally here, please feel free to re-unblock the bot. I just want to resolve the problem with the two guidelines, so that we can be certain there is no ambiguity on what is to be done with the linking of units. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- The bot is not designed to change the text that the reader sees. Thus it should not change "meters" to "m". If you give me examples, I can investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Common" is a subjective term that we should not leave to Lightbot's handler's disgression. Anything the bot does needs to be explicitly spelled out.
- There are in fact actually at least a half-dozen or more different places in the MOS saying that various units of measurement should be linked. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gene Nygaard wrote
- "Common" is a subjective term that we should not leave to Lightbot's handler's disgression
- 'Common' is indeed subjective, but the guidance provides explicit examples. Please click on the [2] at the end of the guidance at Wikipedia:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gene Nygaard wrote
If I ran programs that run as sloppily and destructively as these bots are allowed to, I'd have been fired long ago. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You say that as if anyone here is more than a volunteer. As my grandma oft said, "you get what you paid for." --Kralizec! (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- That was going to be my next comment. But being paid nothing is no excuse. No one is forced to do this work. If they can't do it properly, they should go away and let someone else try it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the issue here is with the somewhat fuzzy constraints the bot is operating under. All of its edits appear to be kosher as per the WP:OVERLINK guideline ... but unfortunately that guideline appears to be contradicted by the WP:MOSNUM guideline. While I personally tend to like the WP:MOSNUM rules where only the first usage is linked, I have to feel for Lightmouse (who is generally very responsive to detailed trouble reports) because you cannot make anyone happy when our guidelines appear to contradict each other. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Then he should do some investigation first and ask some questions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the issue here is with the somewhat fuzzy constraints the bot is operating under. All of its edits appear to be kosher as per the WP:OVERLINK guideline ... but unfortunately that guideline appears to be contradicted by the WP:MOSNUM guideline. While I personally tend to like the WP:MOSNUM rules where only the first usage is linked, I have to feel for Lightmouse (who is generally very responsive to detailed trouble reports) because you cannot make anyone happy when our guidelines appear to contradict each other. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- That was going to be my next comment. But being paid nothing is no excuse. No one is forced to do this work. If they can't do it properly, they should go away and let someone else try it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is, what, the 25th AN/I thread on WP:MOSNUM? Why do we even have this nonsense if all it does is result in endless arguments? *** Crotalus *** 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
What should the guidelines say?
So here is the crux of the problem. There is no issue with any editor bringing any article into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. By extension, there should also be no problem with an editor using an approved bot to do the same; as long as the bot is making edits that someone using Firefox and a keyboard would be expected to make, there is no issue. So let me make clear that my recent block of the bot is not because I have anything wrong with the bot per se. However, before the bot is to continue doing its good work, we should establish exactly what the guidelines should say. There is a clear conflict between at least two three guidelines:
- WP:MOSNUM states clearly that units should be linked at their first occurance in an article only, and not at further occurances.
- WP:OVERLINK states clearly that units should not normally be linked, falling explicitly under the category of "plain English words".
- WP:MOSLINK states "In tables and infoboxes, units should not be internally linked to Wikipedia pages" but says nothing about article body text on the issue.
- <please add additional guidelines here as needed>
Mr. Nygaard notes that there are a half-dozen or so guidelines that also deal with this, I have left a place for the list above to be expanded, please do so.
As far as Baseball Bugs's concern; it appears that Lightbot was exactly in compliance with WP:OVERLINK and the bot was not slopily programed; it is not unreasonable to think that our guidelines would be consistant! That they are not is something that needs to be addressed. Given that this is likely a problem spread across several pages; I think we need a centralized discussion. If there is enough interest here, I will start an RFC to provide that centralized discussion. What does everyone think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- The crux of the issue appears to be the inexact definition of "plain English words" in WP:OVERLINK. So while I may have a good idea as to what a square mile is, my wife would not have a clue [16]. Likewise while my daughter may understand metres, my son has not yet reached that stage of school [17]. If we do not want to make any assumptions regarding exactly which units of measure are "plain English" for our readers, then we should stick to WP:MOSNUM's recommendation to link the "first occurrence" only. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Lightbot's present tear has been unlinking square kilometers. Even in that context there is a big difference between removing the link from:
- 18.4 [[square kilometer]]s → 18.4 square kilometers, or
- 18.4 [[square kilometre]]s → 18.4 square kilometres
- on the one hand, and from unlinking the symbol in
- 18.4 [[square kilometer|km²]] → 18.4 km²
- Why is there a difference? Because many of the rules of our Manual of Style are built on the premise (an ill-founded one, in my opinion, but nobody listens to me) that English-speakers are too stupid to know what the superscript means in that symbol, so the MoS gives us rules actually prohibiting the use of commonly used symbols such as ft³ and mi². Fortunately, the innumerate people writing our rules don't often venture out into the real world of the articles where people actually use them anyway. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gene, those symbols are advised against because they are harder to read. Relevant quote: "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. They are harder to read on small displays, and are not aligned with superscript characters (see x1x²x³x4 vs. x1x2x3x4). Instead, use superscript markup, created with <sup></sup>." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Lightbot's present tear has been unlinking square kilometers. Even in that context there is a big difference between removing the link from:
- I have started an RFC for a centralized discussion of the issue of linking units in articles. I arbitrarily chose the talk page of WP:MOSNUM, but I am also leaving notices on as many relevent talk pages as possible to attract centralized attention to this. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Centralized discussion for linking of units of measurement. Please carry on all further discussion at that location. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Kralizec wrote that wp:overlink had an inexact definition of common units. Please look again, wp:overlink provides an exact definition by giving examples. Just click on the [2] at the end of the guidance at Wikipedia:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Feet and metres are the most commonly linked items on Wikipedia, so most of this discussion is about those. We don't link plain english terms like river even the first time it appears. Similarly we don't need to link feet or metre even the first time it appears on a page about the height of a mountain or a person. If a conversion is provided, that is double the reason not to link. Lightmouse (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't we link river? Shouldn't we say "The Mississippi River is a river in the United States?" --NE2 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Need history check for Matt Lee
NOTE: Someone deleted this entire thread before it was resolved. I have replaced it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was archived [18] because nothing new had been posted for 24 hours or more. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I did not see where it said that it was archived so quickly, we were waiting for checkuser results to "come in" which they have now - see below. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Are either Matt Lee or the historical, pre-redirect versions of Matt Lee (musician) substantial copies of deleted versions of either article? If so, please speedy-delete them and look into the possibility of sockpuppetry with the current version. If not, especially if it's about another person altogether, please say so. Thanks. See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 28. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article, as it stands now, seems to be marginally compliant with WP:N requirements at a first glance. A recent speedy-G4 request was denied as the article with a recommendation for a new AFD. It looks like the same person as in the deleted articles, HOWEVER, the article appears to currently be substantially expanded from the September 17th version deleted via AFD (I checked), which would indicate that, if deleted again, it should be handled under a new AFD. Any sockpuppetry issues should be handled seperately. If you could perhaps list some diffs to compare between different accounts, that would help us see if there are sock issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. My main concern was that it was mere re-creation of deleted material. Since it's not, I'll treat is as new. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- See Joeyboyee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matt Lee(musician) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.94.31.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these are all one and the same individual beyond any reasonable doubt. It's a G11 job, blatant self-promotion, or G4, since it's blatantly gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Both Matt Lee and Matt Lee (musician) have been deleted and doused with sodium cloride. I was probably going to AFD anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- See Joeyboyee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matt Lee(musician) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.94.31.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these are all one and the same individual beyond any reasonable doubt. It's a G11 job, blatant self-promotion, or G4, since it's blatantly gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Best I can reconstruct, following the brief discussion at WT:CSD#Redirect question about the same article, it was userfied after the last AfD and expanded by User:Spartaz, who is neither banned nor an SPA. It seems to be beyond both G4 and G5, and AFAIR it had a number of references so I don't think it's a G11 that can't at least be stubbified. Can someone please review this article? I've
tnulledremoved the{{resolved}}
for now.
Thanks, Amalthea 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)- OK, I see now that Spartaz didn't work on it, but the editors listed above did (at User:Spartaz/Musician – was it moved per copy&paste?)
Nonetheless, none of the editors listed above is banned, it's not a recreation, it's not blatantly promotional if the userfied article is any indication, and he certainly has an assertion of significance. Enough, in my opinion, to earn the article at least an AfD. --Amalthea 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I see now that Spartaz didn't work on it, but the editors listed above did (at User:Spartaz/Musician – was it moved per copy&paste?)
- And my bad: should have been G4 and IAR a bit, not G5. Nobody is banned, it's just a point and click issue with somewhat diminuitive dropdown text. Either way, it's a long-term campaign of vanispamcruftisement by the subject. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the blocks involved thus far with this article see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99. EDIT: While not included at the time of those checkuser/sockpuppet issues it appears that Special:Contributions/69.231.39.97 (69.231.39.97/D.Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/69.231.50.49 (69.231.50.49/Dan Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/76.94.25.192 (6.94.25.192/D.Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/76.94.31.7 (76.94.31.7/Dan Schneider dif) and most likely Special:Contributions/Joeyboyee are all the same person. In what may be a little "slip up" a few posts made in September at User talk:Spartaz/Musician by user/sockpuppet Guitaro99 are text "signed" as "D Schneider" ("D Schneider logging of till tomorrow.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)) (Guitaro99 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC))" followed by four more posts by "Guitaro99" but all text signed as "D Schneider". And now we have Special:Contributions/Bill Blake990 who has just recreated Matt Lee(guitar player) as I type this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I could have guessed that.
Nonetheless, that's a little too much IAR for my taste. If someone works on a userfied article for three months and tries to address the problems from the last Afd then I'd give him the courtesy of an AfD, even if it's worked on only by the topic himself. After reading it, I see that the article certainly still has deficits, in particular since the sources don't support all the facts in the article. The topic *might* pass WP:MUSIC however since he allegedly worked with The Divine Horsemen and X (American band) – probably not though since he wasn't a member, so it'll only be redirected.
Amalthea 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I could have guessed that.
- I just wanted to add on that the entire road to userfication as a result of DRV on September 18 is a bit weird. Toon05 posted a message for 69.231.39.97 on September 18 saying that "you can recreate it at User talk:69.231.39.97/Matt Lee (musician) - where it won't be deleted (unless it's an attack page or something), and you will have time to make sure it meets the notability criteria, and it's well sourced.". This offer seemed to go unanswered however the same day the IP 69.231.39.97 made several posts - User:Coren saw a accusatory post asking for help, User:ukexpat saw a post also asking for help and it appears when they posted a message for Spartz the article was userfied. THere is no mention of the article being userfied in that DRV, and it was not really closed so the conversation continued September 28 where Lifebaka said "I suggest you create a userspace version of the article (at a title that's nice and easy, such as User:Joeyboyee/Matt Lee) and work on it there. Then, when you believe it meets all the relevant guidelines, bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it. If consensus is that it no longer has the issues laid out in the 2nd AfD above, it'll get moved back into the mainspace." The only hint that the article may have already been userfied was the comment by Tony Fox who said "Look, the article has been recreated many, many times at Matt Lee, Matt Lee (musician), Matt Lee (guitarist), and various other places. It exists right now at User:Spartaz/Musician in the condition that it has been in through most of the most recent deletions - basically, the article's been identical through the last I don't know how many recreations (and, essentially, the same since the last AFD)." User:Joeyboyee made several posts, never commenting the article had already been userifed, (See User talk:Joeyboyee, very first post made on September 26 by User:FisherQueen who said "Hi! You've created an article with an error in the title; User:Sparatz/musician. I'd move it for you, but I see that you already have a version of the same article under the correct title, so I'll just delete the one with the wrong title for you.") Out of all of this the most logical comment seemed to have been made by Lifebaka who said in reply to User:Joeyboyee that once the article was userfied and worked on to "bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it". From what I could see that was never done and the userfied article was simple moved to mainspace by User:Joeyboyee on December 25. In all of this I also found out that there was a User "Matt Lee(musician)" at one time as well who tried to post/repost both Matt Lee (musician) and Matt Lee(musician) on November 27. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser has confirmed sockpuppets at play. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99. Suggested blocking of all offending usernames and I.P.'s. Current DRV was opened by Special:Contributions/Bill Blake990 and mostly is being argued by I.P 76.94.31.7. This entire thing was kicked off really by User:Joeyboyee creating a new article in mainspace. Checkuser shows that all three are the same. User talk:76.94.31.7 shows a conversation where user is asked directly "Are you connected in some way with Matt Lee?" and the reply is "No" and a further question is answered with a story about being a fan who does "punk rock memorabilia collecting and buy and sell posters, guitars, amps and other instruments owned by known punk rock icons" This directly conflicts with comments made by confirmed sockpuppet Bill Blake990 who said, in reply to another editors question posted on a talk page (Now userfied at User talk:Bill Blake990/Matt Lee(guitar player)#WP:COI), "We don't manage him, we manage one of his old bands." Connecting the dots shows that blocked user Guitaro99 made the comment on a talk page (now userfied at User_talk:Spartaz/Musician) that "my band that I'm still signed to The Divine Horsemen is out here. I ave more refs I'm searching for to help out too. I just have contacted some publishers for the pages that I'm on. I will have more stuff soon." Shortly after 76.94.25.192 started doing work, posting as "D Schneider" (as I showed above), at one point Guitaro99's posts were also signed as "D.Schneider". Now, following the confirmed sock path - we see 76.94.25.192 was confirmed as a sock of Guitaro99 on September 9, 2008 and today it was confirmed that 76.94.25.192 is a sock of 76.94.31.7, Joeyboyee and Bill Blake990. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have boldly closed the last of the three running DRVs, since the request was logged by a blocked user evading his block and the IP was also the same user evading the same block. I have commented that I think we should wait a while, allow userfication for good faith rework, and then ask for a new DRV (in a while, please, to allow the dust to settle). There is no doubt in my mind that if we simply unsalt the multuple deleted titles, the abuser will simply come back and start again. If we ever do have an article we need to eb explicit that the multiply-blocked sockpuppeteer is topic banned, arguably he is sitebanned anyway due to multiple block evasion and sockpuppetry. As with many articles like this, the input of WP:SPAs makes life near impossible for anyone who wants to write an article in god faith. Once the SPAs have been ealt with, and the dust has settled, then I am sure a rational discussion can be had. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Please check
This user keeps making unsourced alterations to film articles without sources or not once having placed an edit summary in their entire history despite several warnings. It's becoming hard to keep up with what this user is doing to these articles. Too many manual reversions for me. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- i am in the process of revertin all og his edits Smith Jones (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the "Resolved" template; given the exceptionally unusual writings of Smith Jones, I am uncertain that he or she has really helped. Can someone more familiar with either these specific topic or these editors please look into this further? --ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Not resolved
- I don't beleive Smith Jones is addressing this properly. I have reverted numerous edits by ObsessiveJoBroDisorder which were unsourced alterations to film budgets without sources or edit summaries, never in their history. Several requests have been made to stop without any effect they are continuing it presently. Many articles on my watchlist are being altered and I have no idea if they are good edits. The user hasn't slowed down to learn the policies yet and should be indicated to do so. Mjpresson (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Legal threat made by Carolrubensteinesq
User:Carolrubensteinesq has made a legal threat on this User Talk page [19] threatening to subpoena Wikipedia for my information in a civil suit. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Better be careful, that one is "a member of the New York, Michigan and California Bars". In fact, there's a good chance the user is in one of those Bars right now, this being New Year's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Next stop Trenton, NJ. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Or another Jersey city whose name illustrates what is done with vandals: Hack 'n Sack. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Next stop Trenton, NJ. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Better be careful, that one is "a member of the New York, Michigan and California Bars". In fact, there's a good chance the user is in one of those Bars right now, this being New Year's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note: The article in question has been recreated at the unsalted page Scott walterschied. Requested CSD-G4. 78.34.151.178 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done And... gone. 78.34.151.178 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone with fewer champagne bubbles take a look at KillerCroc101 (talk · contribs), please? He's added some freaky templates to random editors' pages, made a half-assed accusation(? but not really) of sockpuppetry re. a Satipo (talk · contribs) wannabe, and has generally been disruptive. I find the Satipo sockpuppet accusations weird; I'm naturally inclined to think this might be Satipo himself. Anyhow, happy new year; a pair of eyes with more experience looking at this kind of editing pattern would be much appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- His edits don't seem to match the patterns of Satipo, but if his main aim is disruption then it wouldn't. They do have some SW edits in common, though. He's been repeatedly warned; I'd advise a block myself, although it is up to admins to decide how long that should be. With the absence of YES i AM SATIPO HAHAHA posted on his userpage or a CU result you can't really block him as a sock. I don't understand why a sock would open a SSP request on someone though; way to put yourself in the public eye. Ironholds (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone needs to review his image uploads. File:09 - welcome to camp slither.jpg is not an example of proper copyright law. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's been blocked indefinitely. Re. him being a Satipo sock: this, combined with the random sockpuppet "accusation" for an editor whose activity I think didn't overlap with his, still itch the back of my head; I guess we'll see if anything comes up later. Thanks again! --EEMIV (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone needs to review his image uploads. File:09 - welcome to camp slither.jpg is not an example of proper copyright law. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- He also added himself to the CU and Admin listings, which I had to revert. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack
On a talk page I am watching, I saw this rude attack. I do not like these kind of statements on our project pages at all, because they disrupt its reputation and the motivation of fellow editors.
I have not put messages here on ANI yet, so I would also appreciate a feedback whether such an incident is worth being reported here. Tomeasy T C 08:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- After 1, 2, 3 prior noticeboard complaints about incivility and two blocks, I'll consider a block in the morning but I think he deserves something. Notified him as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh, didn't see that; ignore me people. Advise block as well. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- His response should be sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good block. His next-to-last comment before being blocked was, "annoying me is a quick way to get insulted," and his last comment before the block was a warning that anyone who edits his little list of rules "shall incur my wrath." As Guy's followup comment to the block shows, he who wraths last, wraths best. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was wrather clever ♪BMWΔ 11:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just trying saying it 3 times quickly. Just typing it was difficult. We need a bot of some kind that would smite the uncivil heathens with the wrath of wikipedia rules. I'm thinking it could be called The Dan Wrather. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wrath upon you, you wricked Wrikipedia Wrascal! // rouxbot
- Yeth, I am a wrathcally wabbit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wrath upon you, you wricked Wrikipedia Wrascal! // rouxbot
- Just trying saying it 3 times quickly. Just typing it was difficult. We need a bot of some kind that would smite the uncivil heathens with the wrath of wikipedia rules. I'm thinking it could be called The Dan Wrather. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- My doctor told me to stop wrathing, as I was getting a wrash. // roux 12:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that's wrough. Ya know, we have various essays in wikipedia. Maybe we need one to collect parting comments from users just before and/or just after they get indef-blocked. There could be a whole section about "evil roommates", for example. The two unwitting parting shots from that guy fall into an "infamous last words" category you could title "D'oh!". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- You have bested me, sir, yet again. I cannot possibly top that. // roux 12:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure you can. I liked the "defeats and dehands" comment. He who bests lasts, bests best. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Another "D'oh!" moment was this one [20] posted by the soon-thereafter-blocked Carol Rubenesque, or some such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure you can. I liked the "defeats and dehands" comment. He who bests lasts, bests best. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- You have bested me, sir, yet again. I cannot possibly top that. // roux 12:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that's wrough. Ya know, we have various essays in wikipedia. Maybe we need one to collect parting comments from users just before and/or just after they get indef-blocked. There could be a whole section about "evil roommates", for example. The two unwitting parting shots from that guy fall into an "infamous last words" category you could title "D'oh!". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- That was wrather clever ♪BMWΔ 11:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good block. His next-to-last comment before being blocked was, "annoying me is a quick way to get insulted," and his last comment before the block was a warning that anyone who edits his little list of rules "shall incur my wrath." As Guy's followup comment to the block shows, he who wraths last, wraths best. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- His response should be sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh, didn't see that; ignore me people. Advise block as well. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- After 1, 2, 3 prior noticeboard complaints about incivility and two blocks, I'll consider a block in the morning but I think he deserves something. Notified him as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Abusive Language
Zampafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Zampafan has just carried out five edits using abusive language. Three on English Football Clubs, the other two are more serious with the insertion of "Orange Bastards" on Northern Ireland and Belfast. --Snowded TALK 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Belay that, the user was indefinitely blocked --Snowded TALK 13:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- The place to take something like this is WP:AIV. That is probably some alternate account, since it was created 2 1/2 years ago, made a few vandalistic edits [21] and then did nothing else until now. It should have been blocked in 2007, but it was probably overlooked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
90.201.141.202. Disruptive user, showing no regard towards other editors, etc
90.201.141.202 has been warned several times, but he keeps readding several things, even though it clearly violates several rules, including the free use rationale, WP:MOS etc. He has been blocked for a period of 3 months using the 90.199.99.31 IP once already, aswell as one week using the 90.199.99.144 IP. He has been warned several times, and as evident by his past blocks and how he keeps ignoring the warnings, he cannot be reasoned with. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I left an LTA warning on his talk page, since he was last warned on December 26. If he edits again, he definitely needs a long time-out--though I won't object if another admin feels inclined to block him now. Blueboy96 16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is an assigned ip, so the next time it vandalises it can be hit with an long term sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
SPA account
WhoWatches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This appears to be a clear SPA account only used to comment at the AdminWatch proposal located here. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like its only purpose is disruption. You could try at WP:AIV unless someone blocks it here first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Time to call the Watchmen. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would go to AIV, but it's not vandalism, hence why I've brought it to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- You might have considered informing me you were discussing me, or talking to me perhaps. I am clearly NOT being either disruptive or vandalizing anything, and I am completely within my rights to communicate WP:Sock#Legit as per Segregation and Security, section 3 to avoid being the target of harassing emails or phone calls merely for entering into discussion with other Wikipedia editors. I will thank you to cease threatening me. WhoWatches (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is so ironic as to verge on rustiness; Why didn't you just copy over what I said to you when I found that I had been casually accused of "admin abuse" by you, without bothering to let me know? Oh, that would be because I'm an abusive admin, wouldn't it?
- nb. Yeah, this account is not violating policy (well, WP:CIVIL a little maybe...) so fine - but it is making what may have been a good sounding board for highlighting problems with some sysops into an irrelavent admin hate mongering page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know users that disclose alternative accounts yes, but you haven't done that. For all we know, you could be an abusive sockpuppet. (I'm not saying you are, but you could be) D.M.N. (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- You might have considered informing me you were discussing me, or talking to me perhaps. I am clearly NOT being either disruptive or vandalizing anything, and I am completely within my rights to communicate WP:Sock#Legit as per Segregation and Security, section 3 to avoid being the target of harassing emails or phone calls merely for entering into discussion with other Wikipedia editors. I will thank you to cease threatening me. WhoWatches (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would go to AIV, but it's not vandalism, hence why I've brought it to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no policies being breached. Tan | 39 19:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Equally, I don't see how the account passes WP:SOCK#LEGIT as it claims. Black Kite 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Who was harrasing you with emails or phone calls under your other account? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- So long as WhoWatches restricts himself to commenting on the talkpage of Tony's user subpage for Adminwatch, there is not a major concern, I think. I agree though that this is not a legitimate use of a sock under Segregation and security, point 3. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. I do not have to have already received such to be justifiably worried about receiving them.WhoWatches (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't even have ever bothered commenting to WP:ANI, except that someone put this discussion here and couldn't even be civil enough to speak with me first via my talkpage, nor civil enough to inform me I was being discussed. WhoWatches (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Considering your rather aggressive attitude towards all editors at Wikipedia, and not just admins, I can't say I blame people for not wanting to contact you on your talk page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- While I neither know nor care who WW is a sock of, I don't understand the issue here or what this pointless thread is doing on ANI. The account's sole contributions (with the exception of one post to a user talk page, and replies on this thread) have been in Tony's userspace. If Tony thinks he's being disruptive, Tony is more than capable of telling him to stop (as he's already started to do), and/or complaining himself. Otherwise, what's the problem? – iridescent 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there would be a problem if the account was making his points in a reasonably civil manner, and refraining from throwing around the phrases "admin abuse" and "corruption" like confetti. Apart from anything else, he's not exactly helping his own credibility. And as LHVU says above, he's degenerating a pretty good discussion on the premise of AdminWatch into a slanging match with such claims. Black Kite 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call it pointless. If this user had another account with adminstrator privilages, then I would understand possible need for a alternative account for article-related activities, but this user hasn't disclosed details of his other accounts, privately to any admins. I'm not sure whether to leave it (in case this may be a sock field), or whether a private checkuser is required. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
At an absolute loss
For the past month, I've been involved in a dispute at Threshold (online game), Frogdice and Michael Hartman with an editor or small cluster of editors, at least one of which has a COI. contributions (which resolves to a webserver operated by the subject) began to revert my edits to that group of articles blindly and with offensive edit summaries (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The redir soon got full protection (per AfD results), and the two articles got semi'd to encourage discussion. Well, a user, contributions, showed up at Talk:Threshold (online game), where he began to make repeated unsubstantiated accusations that I'm a "disgruntled banned player", which he later admits are without actual evidence. Throughout, Cambios also performed repeated reverts with edit summaries along the same lines of the IP, which is one sign that suggests to me that they are one and the same.
I've sought outside assistance from several venues (WP:COIN, WP:EAR and other users who had shown interest in the article previously); this has gotten me some help (the earlier protections) and advice (see here). However, even when applying the advice, Cambios has reverted blindly (see here, and here where even trivial changes to the infobox get reverted). While I'd rather not drive away someone knowledgeable about the game, he's continued to make it very clear that he opposes any changes made by me on a personal basis. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've reverted Frogdice to the less spammy version, after all we aren't an advertising concern, and watchlisted the affected pages. Black Kite 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring over copied passages at Earthquake engineering
I'm having some trouble with User:Shustov at Earthquake engineering.
Useful links:
- Shustov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Earthquake engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Talk:Earthquake engineering#Plagiarism
- User talk:Shustov#USGS info in Earthquake engineering
The article came to my attention on 28 December through a thread started by Shustov on WP:AN on a matter (not related to content or user conduct): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180#Blocking Wikipedia article by Google. I glanced at the article and noted some passages which seemed...out of place. A quick Google search revealed that the bulk of phrases and passages in the article section on Failure modes were copied from United States Geological Survey (USGS) documents. I reported this problem on the article talk page ([22]) and watchlisted the article. (Since the USGS is a US goverment agency, its reports are generally in the public domain; the issue here is one of plagiarism rather than of copyright violation.)
On 29 December, I had a brief look at the article history. It's quite thick, as Shustov had a habit of making many, many, many rapid-fire minor edits with few edit summaries. Nevertheless, I surmised that the passages I was concerned about had been added by Shustov, so I dropped him a note about the problem on his talk page, and encouraged him to review and correct his contributions: [23].
Over the following couple of days things took a turn for the worse. Shustov repeatedly denied ([24]) any problem with the passages in question, despite several attempts to explain both the problem and how to fix it: [25], [26], [27]. His responses became mocking and derisive ([28], [29]). I eventually removed the offending text to the article talk page, and explained the problem (again). He has reverted this removal three times now (once while logged in, and twice more while logged out as confirmed ([30], [31]) by Checkuser), and I'm afraid that I don't have any other ideas what to do here.
He has some sort of academic credentials, but seems to be unfamiliar with normal academic standards for verbatim copying of other authors' writing. I'm not getting through, and I fear there may be a language barrier issue at work. In any case, I'm out of ideas. As I've gotten closely involved in this mess, I'd like another admin to have a look at what's going on, and to issue a final warning or block as necessary – or to protect the article (sans plagiarism) until Shustov or another editor can rewrite or properly cite the section in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After he made an uncivil commentt on Talk:Rick Warren, I warned him for the attack using HG. Then he went onto my editor review and said that was "no way for an adult to behave" (for those of you keeping score at home, I'm 15). Anyone have an opinion on what to do here? PXK T /C 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
True.:) He's received two warnings after a final warning User_talk:Teledildonix314#January_2009 with the warnings coming from several different editors. After a final warning plus more acting up, the next step is usually a block of some kind. Sticky Parkin 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out what kind of "love toy" a "teledildo" would be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's Teledildonics, according to a user (a wikipedia user, not a Teledildonics user). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- To me, the user appears to be completely tone-deaf to all aspects of Wikipedia culture and policy. I am not in a hurry to see this user blocked - given the most recent edit, perhaps my lengthy engagement to try to educate him might have had some positive effect. His inability to understand what constitutes a BLP violation versus his insertion of defamatory material into an article I find most troubling and certainly solid grounds for a block if he puts it back in. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tone-deaf? Maybe the Teledildonics are drowning out the sound. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, for the love of- is there any way we can topic ban him from me? He sent me another tone deaf message on my talk. PXK T /C 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Guess I should retract my second sentence above, eh? Mike Doughney (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think someone needs to adopt him. But it sure as hell isn't gonna be me. PXK T /C 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I had to revert his edits on my editor review page because of his nonsense. His smearing of my reputation literally hurt my feelings. Willking1979 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- What the actual fuck? Is this guy some kind of idiot savant? (serious, not a personal attack) PXK T /C 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given this last edit to which I think you're referring [32] it sounds to me like it's time for a block. Throwing around all kinds of accusations of threats for simply warning a user about their behavior, after a final warning, is clearly grounds for a block. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- What the actual fuck? Is this guy some kind of idiot savant? (serious, not a personal attack) PXK T /C 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now he's gone on my ER again and called me a bully for performing normal tasks. This really needs to end. Where are the damn admins? PXK T /C 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- They all went to a Julian Year's Eve party and found themselves several days in the future. We'll have to wait. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Report at WP:AIV has been removed, the issue has been thrown back here. [33] Mike Doughney (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
An unprotected image is displayed on the main page -- this really has to stop
File:Moet and glass.jpg is currently displayed on the main page, and is not locally uploaded or protected at the Wikimedia Commons. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading the file locally (which cannot be effectuated by non-admins due to a conflict with the filename at the commons and cascading protection for the main page) or protecting the image at the commons. Additionally, it would be useful to more forcefully inform the administrators updating template:did you know of the need to ensure that images are correctly protected before placing them on the main page -- while the edit window for Template:Did you know/Next update contains specific instructions to this effect, they apparently are insufficiently compelling. John254 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I told the admins hanging out at IRC; both the wp and commons versions are protected. We need a proper way to handle this though. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Reversion, reversion, edit, revert, edit, revert, revert, edit....
Can an admin protect the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) from editing for a while, preferably at an older version before the changes started? A group of editors disagrees strongly with the naming guidelines for article titles in plants and performed some 117 edits to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) page over the month of December.[34] When this page, the flora naming guidelines, was protected from editing, the editors moved on to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) page. It would be easier for other Wikipedians using these guidelines, if they guidelines were not the targets of an edit war. And, it would not be much of a burden for the editors concerned to gain concensus, propose the change, then ask an admin to allow the change or do the change. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)