→User:Traimb and issues raised at Template talk:Welfare state sidebar: Fixed sidebar, and have amended sidebar |
|||
Line 1,296: | Line 1,296: | ||
Am I just being paranoid or is there a legitimate concern here?? |
Am I just being paranoid or is there a legitimate concern here?? |
||
=== Hi === |
|||
Hi all, here's the sidebar for everyone to see (if this other individual stops blanking it! :) ). |
|||
{{Welfare state sidebar}} |
|||
Welfare related topics are now a fairly large area, and having a template to link some of them seems quite logical. This is the initial creation of the welfare state/welfare topics sidebar, so of course it can be perfected and improved by others, made bigger, smaller, whatever. Thank you. [[User:Traimb|Traimb]] ([[User talk:Traimb|talk]]) 10:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::See also my recent post at [[Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Use of templates to introduce inappropriate associations]]. This gives more information and raises the particular concern about the use and misuse of presentational links in Wikipedia. I am inclined to leave this issue for discussion here because clearly you are an experienced editor but you have chosen to hide behind a new identity. Why? You have also created a template of the kind typically used collaboratively as part of a development project. But you have consulted no one about this. Why not? And you have used this template to artificially link articles through the medium of the template that are not related. This is inappropriate. I know that your template looks innocent enough on the outside but you do not appear to have edited any of the articles nor consulted editors there. Which leads me to believe that there are other motives at work here. In addition to health care you also include articles on transfer payments and public education which are not really welfare state issues and have biased links to terms like "Nanny State" which are not encyclopedic as regards categorizing content. If you are really determined only to create a quick referencing page for the use of finding related articles, why did you not work with others to create a portal page like [[portal: socialism]] with an appropriate portal link? Changes made on the portal page will not transpose into the article page without other editors being aware of it as can happen with templates. The issue is not so much the way it looks now (though there are issues but you have ignored them) as to how it might look later. --[[User:Hauskalainen|Hauskalainen]] ([[User talk:Hauskalainen|talk]]) 11:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
::See also my recent post at [[Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Use of templates to introduce inappropriate associations]]. This gives more information and raises the particular concern about the use and misuse of presentational links in Wikipedia. I am inclined to leave this issue for discussion here because clearly you are an experienced editor but you have chosen to hide behind a new identity. Why? You have also created a template of the kind typically used collaboratively as part of a development project. But you have consulted no one about this. Why not? And you have used this template to artificially link articles through the medium of the template that are not related. This is inappropriate. I know that your template looks innocent enough on the outside but you do not appear to have edited any of the articles nor consulted editors there. Which leads me to believe that there are other motives at work here. In addition to health care you also include articles on transfer payments and public education which are not really welfare state issues and have biased links to terms like "Nanny State" which are not encyclopedic as regards categorizing content. If you are really determined only to create a quick referencing page for the use of finding related articles, why did you not work with others to create a portal page like [[portal: socialism]] with an appropriate portal link? Changes made on the portal page will not transpose into the article page without other editors being aware of it as can happen with templates. The issue is not so much the way it looks now (though there are issues but you have ignored them) as to how it might look later. --[[User:Hauskalainen|Hauskalainen]] ([[User talk:Hauskalainen|talk]]) 11:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
Hi Hauskalainen. If you didn't like socialism being in there, why didn't you just take that out? It's no big deal. Look, I'll even do it for you, even though it robs socialism of due credit for building welfare institutions. And though publicly funded health care is perhaps the largest aspect of welfare based policies where I'm from (Australia) and other nations in the OECD, I'll take that out too. PS, I have used public education (all my schooling), have been to public health care, and have received government payments (transfer payments - for unemployment & during study) at times during my life. I am most certainly not against welfare. [[User:Traimb|Traimb]] ([[User talk:Traimb|talk]]) 12:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#Disruptive_editing_by_Koavf Unresolved issue] == |
== [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#Disruptive_editing_by_Koavf Unresolved issue] == |
Revision as of 12:19, 29 April 2010
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct
Draganparis (talk · contribs)
For weeks now, user Draganparis makes constant accusations and slanders certain users he deems as his archenemies in Wikipedia. In the course of a few months he was banned once for disruptive editing and once for sockpuppetry and has 3 confirmed socks. Two of them were discovered after my complaint and were confirmed here [1]. Since then, he has been roaming Macedonia related pages intentionally and blatantly slandering my name and this of other editors. He also initiated a sockpuppetry case against user Athenian, accusing me and two other editors of being his puppets, which produced unconfirmed results only. It proved that 3 of us operate from northern Greece, but that was all [2]. Since then, user Draganparis is constantly making improper and slandering comments in a personal battle against me and other users making customized "technical notes", posting them around and threatening people (even admins!!!!) not to remove them!!!
Evidence:
[3],
[4]
[5],
[6]
Here he is warning another user to not remove his "technical note"...[7]
Here he is warning an admin to not remove his "technical note"...[8]
Here I warn him to stop propagating slanders... [9]
He of course goes on... [10]
..and on.. [11]
..and on.. [12]
...
Anybody who will look into this matter will easily see that throughout this time, I tried to refrain from discussion with user Draganparis and most if not all of his comments were made in irrelevant instances and with me (and the other users he mentions) absent from the discussion. This clearly shows his intention to slander. It will be very interesting for any admin to occupy himself with this case to look into the edits of all concerned editors, mine, Draganparis' as well as any other's Draganparis constantly abuses. Since day 1, he has not made A SINGLE constructive edit in any article. He is a man of single purpose and is only active in discussions to disrupt and propagate his personal beliefs. I could go on and on about how he has behaved to other editors and admins, but in this complaint, I only refer to his conduct towards me in the last weeks.
Please, look into this matter and rule out something... GK (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's a heap of irritating disruption in that long message of his, and I agree it does not belong on a talk page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed it three times now - and since April 9 it has not come back. It's a bit late to leave him warnings about that unless he does it again. I have notified the editor for you. --SGGH ping! 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry, my informing the community that we "might" have kind of collaborative editing is not accusatory. I think it is now well known, and if there is no collaboration, there is certainly a need to reduce edits of bare support of the opinions of the other editors from the "group" and STOP permanently insulting the opposing editors. Producing evidence (this is a history page!) is needed instead. I would appreciate if the Administrator would inform the mentioned "group" about the rules of decency on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- So, here you have it... He "informs" the community that some users "might" have some kind of collaborative editing... And then he again talks about the mentioned "group" which "might" exist and "might" collaborate and "might" be socks as he propagates... I think that user Draganparis' words here clearly show the extent of his misconduct... He propagates his suspicions, no matter where or why and blatantly attacks me and other users. He does not seem to understand that accusing somebody once, during a heated discussion, of something that according to his opinion "might" be true is not the same thing as continuously and methodically propagate such accusations. GK (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let's look at what Draganparis considers a "discovery":
- ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Someone please link "conspiracy theorist" and "there is no cabal" stuff...
- Seriously though, it's not only that he accused some editors of being socks, he got his investigation which didn't prove his accusation, but then he goes on to keep insisting that the investigation was wrong and he is still right and he no less than SPAMS the same thing over and over and OVER again. This is not proper behaviour and I wonder why admins have not blocked him again. It's not like he was a perfect example so far, he's been blocked for trolling and sock-puppeting already! And he disputes those investigations too and claims we blocked him and not uninvolved admins. He slanders YOU too! Instead of focusing on borderline cases of unproven incivility (my pet peeve), how about you do something about a clear cut case such as this? Simanos (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is rather surprising that this is still going for months. Inaction can cause trivialities to grow into real problems. Then again, admin involvement is a thankless task, when there is a real or perceived ethnic dispute (here it is only perceived as such by one user).
- For instance, I have no dispute with Draganparis, and not the slightest knowledge of his edits concerning Cyril and Methodius (I had only filed his first confirmed SPI case in January [13] ; then, nothing more, zero interaction, despite being called a nazi on that case page [14] etc). His latest posts only came to my attention now, because I was inactive since March, being busy IRL, and therefore not willing to address any kind of provocations, or sloppy actions (see below). Nevertheless, it is disappointing that I come to discover my username continuously and repeatedly included, with no justification whatsoever, in a series of "warnings" or "notices" posted all over the place (from what I gather, in irrelevant pages) about belonging to some conspiracy or group or whatever entity of users (no matter who those users are). In fact, such posts in article talk pages, and unconcerned third user pages, would be disruptive, under any circumstances, even if they had been proved to be true. Even more so, when there is no basis for them, as is the case here.
- Moreover, let me add, that the SPI case mentioned [15] (against Athenean, myself et al.) was opened and closed in a much too hasty, even sloppy way. And to make it clearer: 1. there was no behavioral evidence justifying a checkuser privacy intrusion; 2. the conclusion as presented is unhelpful (and probably the investigation was too shallow; for example, I had been travelling a lot those days/weeks that there could be no coincidence of my location with any other users, except maybe at one given time... not to mention that I started my itinerary in the opposite part of the world). In this situation, I can guess the best intentions of those that acted, after hearing "scary" words like Macedonia, but the point of an SPI is not to get rid of it quickly, but rather to resolve it in a way that helps move on with encyclopedic work. Anyway, I hope concerned users don't take offence on this comment of mine; I refrained from commenting on this till now, but I see it as one of the sources of the current problem, and a clarification or intervention might be needed to finally move on... Antipastor (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but a checkuser's role in an SPI investigation is to evaluate the technical evidence (note, I was the checkuser in question). The technical evidence supported no conclusions. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Correct. So, according to you, is user Draganparis parade through Wikipedia spamming warnings regarding these IPs justified? GK (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, further revealing discussion on this issue has been conducted in DP's personal discussion page here [16].
Here, he admits of his fault, he admits that he acted against the rules of Wikipedia but he embellishes his confession with so many theatrical pleas and arguments that I still cannot accept them as a true, sincere and straightforward apology. I am prepared to let go, as long as user Draganparis publicly admits to his misconduct and clearly, without any excuses and peculiar wording swears he will not do it again. As for the rest of the users who have been victims of DP's misconduct, I leave it to them to decide how to act. GK (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is overflowing everywhere, including on user talk pages (and my talk page unfortunately). Nothing productive is happening either there, here, or on the user talks. Can we propose archiving them all and imposing some sort of talk-page interaction ban? SGGH ping! 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- That is just silly, I'm sorry to say. The problem is not Dragan's talk page (which is an attack page and should be deleted), but that he spills his sladners in every article talk page he visits. Over and over and over again. And you are right that nothing productive comes of it. Because you and other admins do not get involved in this clear case of personal attack violation by DP. Why is that? Simanos (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is overflowing everywhere, including on user talk pages (and my talk page unfortunately). Nothing productive is happening either there, here, or on the user talks. Can we propose archiving them all and imposing some sort of talk-page interaction ban? SGGH ping! 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would you please read our last edits on my talk page and Cyril and Methodius page, and see my permanent and recent efforts to calm the spirits – and insatiable desire to have me out of the discussion of exactly 4-6 very well defined users, with very well defined concept. Without examining these edits you can not, I am afraid, have realistic impression. Look at that vocabulary please, even here. In addition, the users Simanos and GK (GK1973) are insulting me not in any oblique way but concretely using straight forward insulting words (layer, paranoid, etc. even on YOUR talk page!?). How about warning them to avoid hard words at least?Draganparis (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your efforts to calm the spirits are always accompanied by your inflamatory baseless accusations and slander. Even in this message here you again mention (read: spam) the same nonsense about 4-6 "very well defined users" and you other conspiracy theory cabal stuff. Our desire is not to have you out of the discussion. Our desire is to have you stop slandering people and spamming and trolling. Every time you do not get your way you start complaining again about the world being out to get you. Or at least the secret evil cabal of Greeks. We are not insulting you by showing evidence that you are a sock-puppeter (confirmed twice), troll (blocked once for disruptive editing), or by complaining about your obvious slander attemp (and spam) that you haven't been banned for yet. Nor when we point out the conspiracy theory nature of your complains and spam. We're merely calling a spade a spade. Or would you prefer it if we shut up? You've tried to do that to others with threatening messages, even to admins! Need I remind you what you posted on Future Perfect's talk page? Simanos (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Message to admins: Can you please pay some attention to this issue of constant slander? It's not related to Macedonia or other controversial articles you may not want to get involved in. It's a simple clear cut case. Don't settle into inaction please because you fear you will get bogged down into a frustrating situation. Simanos (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Implementing possible solution
Unfortunately this thread hasn't received too much attention from other admins, though I know the user(s) above have in the past. Would another admin weigh in here on the proposal of some sort of talk page/interaction ban between the three, or some other less heavy-handed solution? The growing disruption on article and user talks between the three groups is beginning to tread on WP:BATTLE. SGGH ping! 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I must thank to the volunteer administrators who are spending their time to solve the situation for which I certainly have important responsibility. However, the presumed “culprits” know my identity and I have been openly defamed. This gives a new, serious dimension to the problem, I am afraid. The protection of anonymity has been removed and we have now the case of direct responsibility reaching beyond Wikipedia frame of a priory assumed anonymity protective belt. If a serious and consequent effort would be made to prevent open insults of a kind that I have been exposed, and if Wikipedia would operate by the standards that are valid for a civilized community, I will greatly appreciate. Difference must be made between on one hand sarcasm, conditional accusation, metaphoric expressions and allusions, which could be permitted, and on the other hand use of straight insulting and indecent words, which must be forbiden and use sanctioned. I will now withdraw from the discussion and observe the developments for couple of months, thereby permitting that Wikipedia introduces appropriate retributive measures, finds the means to assure civilized communication, and that the aggressive spirits lose their impetus. Thank you very much for making efforts to solve this unpleasant situation. To help calm the situation and from formal reason I would now appreciate if Wikipedia and administrators would communicate with me only over my e-mail. Thank you very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As Simanos also said, this is NOT some Macedonia-related issue. This is an issue of open and admitted slander. DP has shown that he chose to spam slanders regarding my person and a number of other accounts. I have offered a very logical way out (a plain and without innuendos, puns, irony, sarcasm, humor etc apology here)and apparently he has dismissed it. All this situation has absolutely no ethnical or racial aspects, it is direct misconduct. So, please, take a look at the evidence and administer this complaint. Either I am wrong and parading self made warnings about users who "might be collaboratng and who might be socks of each other" all around Wikipedia is a good intended practise we all should use, since the use of "may" is not definite and thus such a sentence cannot be used as an accusation or I am right and user DP should face the consequences administered (warnings, bans, a at on the back, whatever...) GK (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I support an interaction ban, at the very least DP is not allowed to make these sockpuppet accusations any further. Canvassing in multiple locations by leaving "notices" and then warning people who remove them, that is completely unacceptable. I'd say that one more such accusation, or attempt to reapply such "notices" or warning people against removing them, would be grounds for a block (not sure how long a duration is appropriate). -- Atama頭 18:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I also support that the administrators block me for some time. A WP:ANI procedure has been initiated to examine whether I should be punished for „disruptive editing, trolling and insulting” some editors like GK (GK1973), Simanos and Anothroskon (this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Under: user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct; see also my talk page). It was caused by the difference in opinion about the interpretation of history in principle, editing method and validation of evidence (sources), all centered around various Ancient Macedonia pages which were, in my opinion, systematically changed to give an integral part of continuous “Greek” history by either removing the word “Macedonia” or other historically used words, and by introducing, in my opinion inappropriately, the word “Greek”.
- In response to the above accusations, I removed from my talk page a report of the administrator investigation about sockpuppeting of the mentioned editors, (the verdict was in fact that the sockpuppeting could not be explicitly demonstrated (this is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Athenean/Archive …).
- The central point has been my insistence on proper HISTORY writing, and not a specific point. The example of my neutral efforts to establish proper history writing was my opposing the replacement of the terms like “Macedonia” (ancient), Slav, Byzantine, or other corresponding terms, by the term “Greek” on the ancient history pages. More precisely, as disturbing was found to be my insistence on the use of historical method; and then disturbing was taken to be my protesting against the open and concrete insults by the mentioned editors (in spite of my NOT BEING ANONYMOUS, consequences of which may have legal aspects). These protests were interpreted as insults against them (mentioned editors). I maintained that my “insults” consisted exclusively not in the use of the explicit insulting words, but, if at all, of use of obliquely insulting “style”: may be some form of “disruptive editing”, insistence on some from them subjectively taken as “irrelevant details”. For example my qualification of their sources as invalid - the use of propaganda pages as sources, etc. was not accepted and was characterized as disruptive.
- Indeed, I expressed a conviction that “difference must be made between on one hand sarcasm, conditional accusation, metaphoric expressions and allusions, which could be permitted, and on the other hand the use of straight insulting and indecent words, which must be forbidden and eventual use should be sanctioned". Nevertheless, I decided, for the sake of termination of the “editors war” on these pages and constructive editing, not to further object on the pages of Wikipedia (but elsewhere I will) for their calling me “layer”, “paranoid”, various mockery and other insults.
- I will temporarily restrain from disputes about history and will not oppose their replacement of the terms like “Macedonia” (ancient), Slav, Byzantine, or other corresponding terms, by the term “Greek” on the ancient history pages. I hope that this will help promote yet the Objective history pages on Wikipedia. Therefore I support the intention to block me for some time. This will further prove my point. Draganparis (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Pedophilia advocacy on Lolicon
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the current ArbCom ruling about pedophilia advocacy on Wikipedia, I would like to bring this edit to the attention of the administrators. The edit by Despondent2 (talk · contribs) advocates for the legalization of cartoon pornography depicting minors. —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I hope that a warning will be sufficient; I've added this user's talk page to my watchlist, too, in hopes that I'll notice if there's an ongoing problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I hope so, but admitting to being a paedophile here (or almost anywhere) seems to be an invitation to "string me up from the nearest lamppost"; arguing for the legality of certain images (which in general are not illegal) is not necessarily "pedophilia advocacy", since the status and effect of these images is moot. However, I will also watch this editor (who hasn't been advised of this thread). Neither should we rule out a journalist testing us, or just plain trolling. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good lord. "I am an actual pedophile but I have never harmed a child." It's probably a troll, so block them. But if it's not a troll, it's a self-admitted pedophile let lose in a playground filled with children. Perhaps wikipedia will help him get started? Where's the block? (If he needs graphic cartoon pornography involving children, he can get it elsewhere.) This is block on site stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any "block pedophiles on sight" policy. Equazcion (talk) 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently there is one, as Draconian as it sounds. With arbcom, anything is possible. I'd rather have him blocked for trolling or severe POV pushing (which are both applicable here) than his sexual orientation in itself. ThemFromSpace 23:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Right -- let him hang around, befriend a few kids, get their emails, suggest a meatup over coffee somewhere after school where they can discuss the kids interesting ideas. Is that what you have in mind themfromspace?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Too much moral outrage in that argument for me, and not enough substance. There is such a policy? Where? I'm not seeing any advocacy here or POV pushing. That would be one thing, but all I see here is a sexual deviant (maybe) who happened to speak a little too much of their mind for comfort, and I'm not too fond of the idea of blocking people on that basis. If we are to block admitted pedophiles on sight even when they haven't advocated it or pushed article content in that direction, I think that should be written down in some policy. If there already is such a policy please point us to it. Equazcion (talk) 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- It's probably just a troll, but he's indef'd now anyway, courtesy of FloNight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Right -- let him hang around, befriend a few kids, get their emails, suggest a meatup over coffee somewhere after school where they can discuss the kids interesting ideas. Is that what you have in mind themfromspace?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently there is one, as Draconian as it sounds. With arbcom, anything is possible. I'd rather have him blocked for trolling or severe POV pushing (which are both applicable here) than his sexual orientation in itself. ThemFromSpace 23:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any "block pedophiles on sight" policy. Equazcion (talk) 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Good lord. "I am an actual pedophile but I have never harmed a child." It's probably a troll, so block them. But if it's not a troll, it's a self-admitted pedophile let lose in a playground filled with children. Perhaps wikipedia will help him get started? Where's the block? (If he needs graphic cartoon pornography involving children, he can get it elsewhere.) This is block on site stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I hope so, but admitting to being a paedophile here (or almost anywhere) seems to be an invitation to "string me up from the nearest lamppost"; arguing for the legality of certain images (which in general are not illegal) is not necessarily "pedophilia advocacy", since the status and effect of these images is moot. However, I will also watch this editor (who hasn't been advised of this thread). Neither should we rule out a journalist testing us, or just plain trolling. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I blocked the account and referred the user to contact ArbCom. For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked. Any questions about the block can be taken up with ArbCom on the mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Makes my intended comments somewhat redundant. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, and I'm also not too fond of the cloak-and-dagger ArbCom practices with regard to any mention of pedophilia. The whole "it's too sensitive to discuss in public" thing is all wrong, IMO. Taking things out of the public eye does not ensure that they get handled correctly. When a group can do things without accountability to open criticism, it's never good. Equazcion (talk) 23:49, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Right -- screw protecting innocent children! It's a fundamental human right to edit wikipedia! Jesus.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Equazcion. In this case we are really dealing with a troll. But if convicted criminals can contribute to Wikipedia (from jail or after release), then why not people with politically incorrect sexual orientations? If we have information that someone is a dangerous person who is about to commit a crime, then we are obliged to inform the police about this. Banning from Wikipedia can never be an effective reaction to a perceived threat to society. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've already said my piece about self-identified pedophiles before. However, so long as some admins interpret the ArbCom case in such a way, then we are going to have to live with it. —Farix (t | c) 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let's try not to get bogged down in too much philosophy. The fact is we're dealing with someone who fantasizes about doing something that's a crime. If anyone else described themselves thusly with regard to some other action they wouldn't get banned. FloNight has done this before, and rest assured it's not to protect the children. It's to protect the reputation of Wikipedia in the press, specifically in publications that would take pedophilia-related discussion and twist it into some statement that Wikipedia condones pedophilia. As strange as it may sound, a discussion regarding someone who fantasizes about murder would not have resulted similarly. Pedophilia is simply too taboo a subject to even hint that we are comfortable talking about it, lest people judge Wikipedia for it. That's the only concern here, and it frankly disgusts me. Equazcion (talk) 00:00, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't give one runny shit for wikipedia's reputation. I don't know Flonight. But the right thing was done here. As for disgust. Well, you disgust me frankly. Why? Well, start here: Child grooming (i'm assuming the wikipedia article is a relatively sane explanation of the problem, though i haven't read it).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This is taking outside Wikipedia what is our province, and ours alone. ArbCom has decided that pedophile advocacy should be forbidden from here, and that is to my mind correct for here. That is quite a different proposition from deciding that a "pedophile advocate" is necessarily a criminal worthy of investigation, and actually I'm more or less aware that such edits here are already supervised by law enforcement authorities, and although we will help them, the chances would be that those people are already under surveillance due to other activities. Let's face it, if you are a criminal pedophile, advertising it here just isn't smart, because we do have Checkusers, and the WMF Office, who deal with this sort of thing. And if there were any child grooming on Wikipedia, it would be spotted he more quickly than on, say, Windows Messenger. That's why this is an unlikely forum for such. Some reality would assist here. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Realizing you weren't responding to me, I just want to clarify that the only thing I see actually being advocated in this person's comment was the legalization of lolicon images. Pedophilia wasn't being advocated, even if he states his own desires regarding that. Equazcion (talk) 00:18, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Also his argument implicitely assumes that pedophilia (in the sense of sex with children) is a bad thing. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I understand that; I saw no advocacy beyond perhaps a criticism of the law wherever he is. However, it seems to be enough here to state "I am a pedophile" to ensure an indefinite block. It is not up to me to evaluate that here, beyond offering an opinion that it's a foolish thing to state in a very public forum. However, the strength of public, and journalistic, opinion is that pedophiles do not deserve the oxygen of publicity, or even the oxygen of oxygen, and I note that Pete Townshend has not produced much in the way of memorable music of late. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- But that would suggest that Alan Turing would not have been allowed to contribute to Wikipedia had it existed in the 1950s. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- We could throw up our hands thusly and say that's just how society works and we must obey, but traditionally Wikipedia has played by its own rules in that department. No matter how many complaints we keep getting and how different it makes us from other websites, we're still uncensored to an unprecedented degree. I would've liked to think that those ideals were in effect no matter how taboo the subject matter. Equazcion (talk) 00:47, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Turing was never "out", because in those days homosexual activities were criminal, although simply being a homosexual wasn't. Similar argument here. Being a pedophile doesn't imply that one commits criminal offences, although you'd be hard put to discern the difference these days. And that's the problem we have, in discriminating between the desire and the practice. Most people don't recognise that, as far as I have seen in my research in criminology. Turing would have been perfectly capable of contributing here on computability and cryptanalytical issues, but would not have exposed his sexuality, because he was perfectly aware that it was a social taboo. Certainly he would not have used such a publicly-viewable website to try to make sexual liaisons, because he would have know beyond doubt that his activities would have been visible. And how ironic it is that he chose to take his life with a cyanide-laced apple, the very symbol of man's original fall, according to the Bible. Rodhullandemu 00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- But that would suggest that Alan Turing would not have been allowed to contribute to Wikipedia had it existed in the 1950s. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The original report appears to have been resolved (for good or ill) by Despondent2's blocking. Could this thread be taken elsewehere, as it seems now to be a general discussion outwith the AN/I remit? Tonywalton Talk 00:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)Editing Wikipedia isn't a right. Espousing pedophiliac views are frowned upon by the community here at large and by those in charge at WMF. Why do we have this discussion every time a pedo shows his head around here? Does anyone really think the concensus on this matter is ever gonna change? He popped up his head, got whacked and referred to ARBCOM. End of story, someone close this dram fueled thread and let it die. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The weird thing to me is that the article in question has a picture, but when someone say "I like this picture," it's a block? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Per ArbCom User:Flo Night: "For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked"; we don't have the full information here, but we do, perhaps, need to trust the people we elected there. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that logic. I don't inherently get behind the decisions of people just because they were elected (even if I was involved in getting them elected, which in this case I wasn't). I judge each action individually, and criticize it if necessary, which I think is my right. Equazcion (talk) 01:15, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Well I can't actually disagree with that, but we all know that Checkuser actions and WMF Office actions are not open to general scrutiny- they just happen. The lack of an effective public review of such actions may be open to criticism, but the reality is that that is the way it works, and we cannot collectively enforce openness without a major change in the structure of governance/control/review of higher-level decisions, and until we do so (although that would take a major sea-change in philosophy here) we are stuck with what we have. ArbCom/Checkuser/Oversight appointments are not made lightly and are less of a beauty contest than admin appointments have become. Some surrender of individual responsibility and understanding appears to me to be a necessary result of having these functions, although I doubt that we are so closed that individual decisions cannot be met by a appropriate explanation. I vote for functionaries I trust, and that is on the basis of their prevailing record, as far as I can see it. But if they go beyond their remit, believe me, I will question that, but perhaps not here. I've have many discussions in private that have allayed my fears. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that logic. I don't inherently get behind the decisions of people just because they were elected (even if I was involved in getting them elected, which in this case I wasn't). I judge each action individually, and criticize it if necessary, which I think is my right. Equazcion (talk) 01:15, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Just because this is driving me crazy: the repeated reference in this discussion to pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" is a very poor and inaccurate choice of words. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that, if acted upon, is a criminal act. It is not a sexual orientation. jæs (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. You should distinguish between the DSM-IV definition and the popular definition; they are not necessarily congruent. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
What arbcom ruling are people referencing above? Does someone have a link? Buddy431 (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is not advertised (not that I can recall), but the general rule is that all instances of paedophile advocacy should be referred to ArbCom by email - in much the same way as requests for oversight, and for similar reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- And one of these days, we're going to do a Pornish Pixies, and whoever labelled the account holder a paedophile is going to get the ass sued off them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, there has been no formal, public ruling. In practice, what happens is that every time a discussion similar to the one above takes place, an ArbCom member will come along, close the discussion, and inform the participants that if they want to say anything, they should submit it to the ArbCom mailing list. --Carnildo (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- There was an official ANI comment by Fred Bauder back while he was on Arbcom, to the effect that admins should handle cases of apparent pedophile participation by blocking on sight on their judgement and referring the case to the Arbitration Committee for review and if necessary overturning.
- This policy has been repeated in statements made by other Arbcom members at regular intervals since then.
- It's not written down as official policy anywhere, but that's what they've asked us to do.
- Part of the reason here is that any pedophilia activity is especially damaging to the encyclopedia reputation and separately to the community here, which has quite a number of minors. Jimmy originally established the policy, I believe that Arbcom and the Foundation have requested that it be treated that way.
- Another part is that even false accusations or honest mistaken identifications will require relatively frank and open discussion regarding an appeal, which is not likely to be successful on-wiki because of onslaughts of both vehement anti-pedophile activists and vehement free speech advocates who disagree with the protective principle established by Arbcom, the Foundation, and Jimmy on this subject. The particulars of a given case get lost either way.
- This is part of why we have Arbcom - we know that some issues, including personal identification, checkuser related stuff, and other topics, require special and careful handling. They can handle the issues in confidence.
- I dug up Fred's original post when this question came up mid-last year-ish and linked to it, but I lost the reference since then. Someone else can probably find it searching on ANI and Pedophilia in the history.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where's the appropriate place to discuss this type of thing (i.e. blocking suspected pedophiles and referring them to Arbcom even if they haven't violated any of our written policies)? Because I'm not sure I agree with it, and I certainly don't like all this cloak and dagger/unwritten rules/arbitrary block mode of operation. If it is policy, I'd like it written down somewhere Buddy431 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The obvious originating locale for us is perhaps WP:RFC. In the absence of a documented ArbCom decision or policy, there seems to be no scope for a request for clarification. Unhelpful, perhaps, but perhaps some sort of statement of principles would be better than what we have now. * Addendum: perhaps this is better addressed as a WMF issue across all umbrella projects than just here; it's an issue that clearly also impacts on Commons. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Foundation (Board) have quietly supported this when asked.
- Though it's controversial, meta-discussions about this have revealed that a majority of editors agree with blocking preventively given reasonable suspicion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The obvious originating locale for us is perhaps WP:RFC. In the absence of a documented ArbCom decision or policy, there seems to be no scope for a request for clarification. Unhelpful, perhaps, but perhaps some sort of statement of principles would be better than what we have now. * Addendum: perhaps this is better addressed as a WMF issue across all umbrella projects than just here; it's an issue that clearly also impacts on Commons. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where's the appropriate place to discuss this type of thing (i.e. blocking suspected pedophiles and referring them to Arbcom even if they haven't violated any of our written policies)? Because I'm not sure I agree with it, and I certainly don't like all this cloak and dagger/unwritten rules/arbitrary block mode of operation. If it is policy, I'd like it written down somewhere Buddy431 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Not commenting on the merits of such a policy at all, I will say that if this is the standard practice (and it appears to be), there's no need to be so damn coy about it. Wikipedia:Pedophilia --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the first rule of pedophile blocking club is "you don't talk about pedophile blocking club". :-O 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the document has been started now so we'll have to wait and see if it is accepted by WMF, ArbCom and the rest of WP --Jubilee♫clipman 09:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- So, how exactly does hebephilia and ephebophilia fit under this unspoken rule? Are those automatic blockable offenses as well, if someone self-describes themselves as one? Or, heaven forbid (sarcasm), creates a template userbox for it? SilverserenC 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The current discussion is actually at Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia. Buddy431 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - all of the new discussion should be added to the above archive and any further discussion should either take place at Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia or the VP (or via email...) Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Fox News gets a word in edgewise on pedophilia
see here 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
FOX News article
{{hat|collapsed per WP:DENY HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)}}
I would have brought this to Commons, however I feel a mass deletion of this material would impact Wikipedia articles and it should be discussed here. I hope I made the right choice. Equazcion (talk) 23:47, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-04-12/Sanger_allegations. AniMate 23:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sorry, wasn't aware. The "updated" date on the article says April 27, so I thought it was new. Is/was this being discussed somewhere? Equazcion (talk) 23:56, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we have anything to worry about here, The FBI can see for themselves what is child porn and what is not, I doubt Mr. Sanger's ridiculous accusations will get much more than a few mentions in the press, which is probably exactly what he wanted to begin with since Citizendium is so much smaller and less well known than WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would notify Erik Möller, if he has not already been made aware, that he is quoted (and pictured) in that FoxNews article. I would also consider blocking any and all accounts by Mr. Sanger since he is going to the FBI over this (could that be considered a violation of WP:NLT). I would also recommend that Commons admins actually do a check of the categories listed in the article to make sure we don't have anything in them we shouldn't. That is a duty we should uphold. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would pay it no further mind. Fox News is to News what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is to Democracy. They are in the business of selling outrage for the purpose of boosting ad revenue. Larry Sanger personal issues with Wikimedia have long been documented. This particular story adds nothing of value to the general impression of either subject, and as such, it should be treated as a non-issue. By giving a story like this airtime, we give it credence. If we ignore it, we give it the treatment it deserves. --Jayron32 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just have to say: "Lilicon"? Really? Yup. "The second, 'Lilicon,' provides cartoons similar in detail and depiction. " That's some prime fact-checking there. Go Foxnews. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. Or should that be LIL? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just have to say: "Lilicon"? Really? Yup. "The second, 'Lilicon,' provides cartoons similar in detail and depiction. " That's some prime fact-checking there. Go Foxnews. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest we do not waste time on this non-issue. Most of us perhaps have better things to be doing. Rodhullandemu 00:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- (after ECs so basically redundant to Rodhullandemu!) This is just attention seeking and I think WP:DENY applies, besides FOX News like a good scandal- regardless of whether it's actually true! That said, I agree with NeutralHomer- Commons admins should double check those cats and blocking the accounts seems reasonable- I think it violates the spirit, if not the letter of NLT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Official WMF response. NW (Talk) 11:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy
- Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- David.Kane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Distributivejustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Varoon Arya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
These editors are attempting to use autobiographical writings by one of the main subjects of this article, Arthur Jensen, to write a severly biased version of a period in the 1970s. This is well recorded in secondary sources, which are published mostly by university presses. Captain Occam has given spurious reasons for removing material by Adrian Wooldridge, because it is 4 pages long and therefore too short. The views of these editors favour a minoritarian point of view and contradict what most historians of psychology, eg Franz Samelson, have written about Jensen's varying point of view over the years. Please could adminitsrators step in to sort out this tag-teaming and disruption on what was a neutral article. Captain Occam , by editng as part of a team, is attempting to impose a heavily biased and unacceptable version by force of numbers, in this case several WP:SPAs. I did suggest that they could write a separate section Jensen on "Jensenism" to include these autobiographical views, provided it was clearly labelled as such and separate from the history written relying on solid secondary sources and not written by the subject of the history himself. Captain Occam's finger was fast on the revert button. Note that he has been blocked three times before for revert warring on Race and intelligence. I would also note that the point of view of the tag-team on the sources seems similar to that of a review in The Occidental Quarterly. This looks like very agressive POV-pushing based on numbers, rather than arguments based on the readings of WP:RS. Possibly Captain Occam should be blocked. My temporary wifi link will unfortunately not permit me either to inform the above editors or to respond in the near future, Apologies about that. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Arbitration. The dispute is not being resolved, positions are increasingly entrenched. No way of untangling it here, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think I should point out that Mathsci has another currently open AN/I complaint about this same issue here. The linked thread is a request that I be banned for tag-team editing on the same article about which he's making his current accusations. Aren't we supposed to avoid multiple simultaneous AN/I threads about the same issue? At the very least what Mathsci is doing here is forum shopping, and having two simultaneously open AN/I complaints about the same issue might be a violation of other policies also. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Or perhaps "forum flooding". --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- MathSci claims that books written by Jensen may not be used in an article that mentions Jensen. He claims that this is Wikipedia policy but fails to specifically cite any such wording. If writings by Ghandi may be used in the article about Ghandi, then writings by Jensen may be used in an article that mentions Jensen. (They do not have to be used and we need to evaluate them in the context of other sources.) Or am I missing something? David.Kane (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- History of the race and intelligence controversy is not about Jensen, it's about the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, obviously. The issue: Is there a general Wikipedia policy against using work written by person X in an article that touches on person X? MathSci asserts that there is, that in the paragraph or two in this article which discusses Jensen, we may not use work written by Jensen. But there is no such policy. MathSci is just making things up, hoping to bully people into getting his way. Could an experienced administrator at least tell us if there is anything wrong with the article on Ghandi using Ghandi's autobiography as a source? David.Kane (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Those sources are primary, so using them must be consistent with WP:PSTS. One could also argue that such sources are not WP:Reliable Sources, and that using them excessively is providing WP:UNDUE weighting to a particular POV, thus running afoul of WP:NPOV. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that all the (attempted) uses of Jensen's work has been consistent with WP:PSTS. And MathSci has not, to my knowledge, asserted otherwise. He simply claims that any use of work by Jensen is unacceptable in this article because they were written by Jensen. That is complaints about WP:UNDUE are secondary. David.Kane (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Those sources are primary, so using them must be consistent with WP:PSTS. One could also argue that such sources are not WP:Reliable Sources, and that using them excessively is providing WP:UNDUE weighting to a particular POV, thus running afoul of WP:NPOV. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I second the vote for arbitration. Or at the very least mediation. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Around two weeks ago, we finished a five-month-long mediation case for the main Race and intelligence article, which also covered the way we’d be describing this controversy’s history. Our mediator was user:Ludwigs2. Mathsci refused to participate in the mediation for most of the time that it was underway, despite multiple attempts from Ludwigs2 to engage him in it, instead posting multiple AN/I threads trying to get Ludwig banned for allegedly mishandling the mediation case. Mathsci also refused to accept the outcome we agreed on during mediation after the mediation case was finished, which is what’s causing the current conflict. Since he voluntarily excluded himself from the first mediation case and refused to accept its results, I don’t think a second mediation case is likely to solve this. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Then off to the arbitration committee! If it's been going on for that long and it's still not going away I can't see any other way to solve it. Unless Mathsci was willing to engage in some sort of talks with other editors. I'd like to see some evidence from them for the accusations of sock puppetry too, because if that is happening, that should be addressed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Around two weeks ago, we finished a five-month-long mediation case for the main Race and intelligence article, which also covered the way we’d be describing this controversy’s history. Our mediator was user:Ludwigs2. Mathsci refused to participate in the mediation for most of the time that it was underway, despite multiple attempts from Ludwigs2 to engage him in it, instead posting multiple AN/I threads trying to get Ludwig banned for allegedly mishandling the mediation case. Mathsci also refused to accept the outcome we agreed on during mediation after the mediation case was finished, which is what’s causing the current conflict. Since he voluntarily excluded himself from the first mediation case and refused to accept its results, I don’t think a second mediation case is likely to solve this. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- It really doesn’t seem like arbitration should be necessary here. Of the seven users who are involved in the Race and intelligence history article, six of us are able to work together without any problems. (These are the six users about whom Mathsci is filing his complaint here—his complaint is against every user other than himself who’s involved in this article.) The only user involved in the article who hasn’t been able to work cooperatively on it is Mathsci. When the consensus of other users disagrees with him, rather than accepting what consensus has determined, he either edit wars over it or files complaints about it at AN/I like this one. Is it really appropriate to start an ArbCom case because of a single user who’s unwilling to accept consensus? --Captain Occam (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't a democracy - and for that, you should count your lucky stars. If we did a quickpoll with only "topic ban MathSci" or "topic ban Captain Occam" as the only choices, I will personally guaranty that you would be banned from this topic. The same with every other name on the list of 7. If you care to dispute this, then I suspect that we could, in fact, host said quickpoll with your agreement. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- We already have hosted a poll about this, when Mathsci tried to get me topic banned two weeks ago in the thread I linked to. Of the 15 or so people who voted in the poll, around five supported a topic ban for me, and the other ten opposed it. (We didn't vote on this in Mathsci's case.)
- In any case, when I say that Mathsci has been refusing to accept consensus, I'm not just referring to what the majority opinion is. I'm also referring to the fact that when other users have addressed the arguments Mathsci was making for his preferred version of the article, Mathsci has only ever done one of three things in response: ignored us altogether (as he has towards the end of this thread and this one), made the exact same claims he's made before without addressing any of the earlier responses (as he has in this thread), or answered our rebuttals with snide comments or threats that have nothing to do with the arguments being made (as in this comment and this one). The real reason why consensus opposes Mathsci about this article isn't because the ratio of opinions is six to one (although that fact still makes some amount of difference)--it's because Mathsci apparently has very little interest in trying to justify the changes he wants to make. Not only does every other user involved in the article disagree with him about this; he also consistently evades our efforts to discuss it with him. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I support arbitration. This needs to be dealt with sooner than later. Auntie E. (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I also support Arbitration, but then a process that looks also beyond the issues specific to this case. So, instead of just looking at editor conduct here and perhaps imposing topic bans, it is high time that it is recognized that there exist a class of topics like this, where you can just wait until editors with an agenda arrive who will edit in a tendentious way, interpeting RS in a way that suits them etc. etc.
Clearly what would help is if the policies are rewritten so that NPOV becomes SPOV. Not that we don't want NPOV, but rather that achieving NPOV is best done by sticking to SPOV. Now, there is no consensus to modify the wiki-policies in this direction. But then that's why we have an ArbCom. ArbCom can impose new policies for the benefit of Wikipedia, regardless of consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I request that my name be removed from the above list, as the complaint is in regards to editors allegedly "attempting to use autobiographical writings by one of the main subjects of this article, Arthur Jensen, to write a severly biased version of a period in the 1970s", which simply does not apply to me. My only involvement in this issue - which spanned all of two comments on the talkpage - was a suggestion to consider the use of a secondary source on the topic of Jensenism which was not written by Jensen. Other than that, I've decided to leave this article alone, and have done for some time now, as Mathsci's antics literally turn my stomach. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, crap. I’d been wondering whether Mathsci’s behavior was the reason why you’ve mostly stopped contributing to Wikipedia, and it looks like my suspicion was right.
- I consider you to be the most neutral and talented editor we’ve had involved in these articles in at least a year, so it bothers me a lot to see Mathsci driving you off the way he’s apparently doing. Is there no way you’ll be willing to resume participating in these articles as long as his behavior doesn’t change? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Aryaman neutral, lol. Maybe an uncivil civil POV pusher. The analogy he left on Occam's page and many others clearly demonstrate a POV. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have any of Varoon Arya’s actual contributions demonstrated non-compliance with NPOV policy? During the time since he became involved in race-related articles last fall, my observation has been that he’s adhered to NPOV policy pretty strictly. If you disagree, I’d like to see diffs to support your claim about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- So you admit that Aryaman has a POV but that his actual contributions comply with NPOV. The difference between civil POV pushers and regular POV pushers is that civil POV pushers understand wikipedia's policies well, and are thus able to avoid any blatant violations of policy. Despite the lack of blatant violations, CPPs may violate the spirit of wikipedia by cleverly advocating certain POVs. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, thought crime already. mikemikev (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Muntuwandi, everybody has a point of view, including you. The only thing that matters at Wikipedia is whether we can avoid introducing our personal biases into articles when we edit them. If Varoon Arya is able to do this—and you seem to be admitting that he is—then he hasn’t done anything wrong.
- Wow, thought crime already. mikemikev (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- So you admit that Aryaman has a POV but that his actual contributions comply with NPOV. The difference between civil POV pushers and regular POV pushers is that civil POV pushers understand wikipedia's policies well, and are thus able to avoid any blatant violations of policy. Despite the lack of blatant violations, CPPs may violate the spirit of wikipedia by cleverly advocating certain POVs. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have any of Varoon Arya’s actual contributions demonstrated non-compliance with NPOV policy? During the time since he became involved in race-related articles last fall, my observation has been that he’s adhered to NPOV policy pretty strictly. If you disagree, I’d like to see diffs to support your claim about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Aryaman neutral, lol. Maybe an uncivil civil POV pusher. The analogy he left on Occam's page and many others clearly demonstrate a POV. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I consider you to be the most neutral and talented editor we’ve had involved in these articles in at least a year, so it bothers me a lot to see Mathsci driving you off the way he’s apparently doing. Is there no way you’ll be willing to resume participating in these articles as long as his behavior doesn’t change? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- The same goes for everyone else who’s a subject of Mathsci’s complaint here. This thread is really just a content dispute, although it’s being presented as a complaint about user conduct, so the only actual conduct issue on our part is the fact that a few of you disagree with us. That’s why none of the users making these accusations against us are able to provide any diffs of objectionable conduct on our part, although I’ve been able to provide diffs and links that demonstrate stonewalling from Mathsci. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone is entitled to have a point of view, and we all do. You are correct about introducing personal biases into articles. If Aryaman's edits were completely neutral, then many editors wouldn't have a problem with them. Other editors have complained about an atmosphere of resentment, undercurrents of hostility etc. regarding some race related topics. This demonstrates that some editors' POVs are spilling over into their edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- “Other editors have complained about an atmosphere of resentment, undercurrents of hostility etc. regarding some race related topics. This demonstrates that some editors' POVs are spilling over into their edits.”
- Yes, everyone is entitled to have a point of view, and we all do. You are correct about introducing personal biases into articles. If Aryaman's edits were completely neutral, then many editors wouldn't have a problem with them. Other editors have complained about an atmosphere of resentment, undercurrents of hostility etc. regarding some race related topics. This demonstrates that some editors' POVs are spilling over into their edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The same goes for everyone else who’s a subject of Mathsci’s complaint here. This thread is really just a content dispute, although it’s being presented as a complaint about user conduct, so the only actual conduct issue on our part is the fact that a few of you disagree with us. That’s why none of the users making these accusations against us are able to provide any diffs of objectionable conduct on our part, although I’ve been able to provide diffs and links that demonstrate stonewalling from Mathsci. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t think this is VA’s fault, or mine. If you read the talk page for the R & I history article, you’ll see that Mathsci is the one who keeps threatening other editors with bans or blocks when we disagree with him, and he’s obviously also the person who keeps complaining here at AN/I whenever he doesn’t get his way. The only example of something comparable to this from a user other than Mathsci is Mikemikev’s suggestion of starting an RFC/U about Mathsci, which was directly in response to Mathsci having continuously engaged in this antagonistic behavior for several weeks.
- As I pointed out in the diffs and links above, Mathsci is also the one who’s either unwilling or unable to justify his opinion based on any policies here. When he responds to the rest of us at all, it’s either with name-calling and threats, or by repeating himself in an endless loop without acknowledging any of the earlier responses to his points. Even if you disagree with the changes we’ve been making to the article in terms of content, I don’t think you can argue with the fact that nobody has raised any coherent objections to them, least of all Mathsci. Unless you’re going to suggest that we ought to submit to him just because of how much noise he’s been making, or out of fear because of his threats, there’s nothing that the rest of us could be doing differently in order to avoid this problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what the Jensen issue is that Mathsci is referring to. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I was involved in the mediation, so I am not an independent voice. But when ArbCom was created, it was specifically to deal with personal behavior violations and conflicts. I know its brief has been expanding a bit but we Wikipedians should resist that. For a long time I have argued that we need a separate panel or multiple panels (e.g. of experts) to mediate content disputes. This is really a content dispute and should not be handled by ArbCom (although i agree that mediation did not resolve all issues in a years-long problem article). If this does not provoke the community into creating a separate mechanism for dealing with content disputes, then I suggest some kind of task-force. Wasn't this how ethnic-conflict e.g. Israel-Palestine conflicts were handled? The core issue here of course is race and racism so I think it is analogous. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Request Could an uninvolved editor please move this thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Slrubenstein and leave a pointer here? Or if nobody objects, I'll do it. I'm not involved in the content dispute but I posted some outside commments to the earlier thread. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- A task force specifically for these types of articles seems like a great idea. I think this situation blurs the line a little between content disputes and behaviour conflicts, so it might be appropriate to send it to ArbCom. But something tailored to the specific situation would be a lot better. Who would be willing to sit in on that though? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why are we all "voting" on whether to take this to mediation or arbitration? If there's a conduct problem, present diffs illustrating the disruptive actions and myself or another administrator will slam a block on the guilty parties. AGK 01:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
(This comment by AGK went missing, pesumably after a wrongly corrected edit conflict by someone. It should be checked if more comments are missing elsewhere on this AN/I page. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) )
- AGK: This case is far too subtle for that approach because there have been lots of researchers interested in race and intelligence, so a POV editor can find plenty of material to support their POV, and can keep pushing until all related articles "prove" their point. As far as I can tell, Mathsci is one of the few remaining editors who is attempting to keep a neutral portrayal of the science. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps of only partial interest to this thread, but of considerable relevance to the actual issue of contention -- this is about history, not science. The NPOV issue surrounds the description of the motivations of various scholars 30+ years ago, but not their science per se. The science content is in the race and intelligence article, which is not at issue. --DJ (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
-> The Race and intelligence article has the problem that a number of largely single-purpose editors are trying to write the science themselves from primary sources. Not very much can be done about that as far as I can tell. But when it comes to history, they are now trying to play exactly the same game on the recently created History of the race and intelligence controversy. They want to write the history themselves using primary sources. They seem obsessive about their chosen subject and mostly edit very little else on wikipedia. So of course the game is to brush aside reliable secondary sources - in this case 4 pages from an account by Adrian Wooldridge, who is certainly not a Marxist historian (he lunches with conservative grandees and is Management Editor of The Economist) - and replace it with autobiographical statements by the person, Arthur Jensen, about whom the history is being written. They then spend time comparing that person to Gandhi and Winston Churchill. In this case, a fairer comparison would be to Enoch Powell, who sparked similar controversy to Jensen and produced copious amounts of primary autobiographical material, none of which is used directly in his wikipedia article. Fortunately, now that this has been reported here, several more widely experienced editors are now participating in the article and restoring some sense of normality to editing. If administrators want to look at the kind of edits I make, they can look at the carefully sourced material I added this morning [17] on Cyril Burt and the newly created biography of Otto Klineberg, a social psychologist whose career followed a slightly different path from that of Arthur Jensen. Or then again, they can look at Handel concerti grossi Op.6 or Christopher Jencks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The comparison to the bio of Enoch Powell is close, but not quite analogous. A better comparison would be to Powellism, the discussion of the controversial ideas and views attributed to Powell. That article quotes him extensively, and includes quotes taken from both primary (written by Powell himself) as well as secondary sources. I don't think the editors involved here are requesting anything other than balancing what secondary sources attribute to Jensen with what Jensen himself has said. In light of NPOV, this would seem imperative, particularly given the fact that Jensen himself has noted on several occasions that his views are more often than not misrepresented in such secondary sources.
- And, for the second time, I request that my name be removed from this list. I do not plan on participating in this any further. --Aryaman (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
<- Unfortunately in the case of Jensen, it is well documented that he kept changing his mind on various issues, eg the "Burt affair". In the early 1970s Jensen was one of the stauchest defenders of Burt. In 1983 he accepted that Burt's results were probably fabricated. In 1992 he reversed his decision. Plenty of neutral secondary sources give long quotations from Jensen - they are easy to find. I'm not sure what exactly is needed. Certainly no long presentations of the "science" in his paper or his replies to criticisms 30 years later. Anyway, now that Captain Occam has spuriously removed any summary of what Jensen's critics wrote (as reported by Adrian Wooldridge), it seems even less relevant to include any material directly by Jensen. By favouring Jensen over his critics, that would appear to be a move by you and the others to skew the reporting of the history in favour of the hereditarian viewpoint. That doesn't seem very neutral to me and I haven't seen it done in any of the sources. Wooldridge carefully summarises what both Jensen and his critics said. Mathsci (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Aryman - I've redacted your name from the list, unilaterally. If mathsci wants to raise a stink about it, he can bring it up at ANI - LMFAO --Ludwigs2 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- "LMFAO" - So, you find this funny in some way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
proposed topic ban for Mathsci
I think it's time to raise the issue of a topic ban for Mathsci, much as I hate to suggest it. Mathsci has gotten so lost in his own personal perspective on this topic that he is no longer responding to reason or trying to edit cooperatively at all - he's simply engaging in procedural warfare against a half-dozen editors (starting or hijacking multiple ANI threads to pursue it), without even a minimal assumption of good faith for anyone. a short enforced break from any page related to the topic (two months or so) should give him an opportunity to regain some perspective.
and Hipocrite, save your breath - threatening me isn't going to do you any good, and you've never given me a reason to give a shit about what you think. --Ludwigs2 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Mathsci is not the problem here. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? I think Mathsci is a fairly decent editor, all things considered, but in this case we are talking about a lot of ANI time he's monopolized trying to get people banned, blocked or otherwise in trouble. Further, his behavior on the articles and in article talk has been outrageous: He threatens people, reverts without credible explanation, indulges in name-calling and personal insults, demands that people accept his edits because he's a more experienced editor, and otherwise acts like a spoiled child. Don't believe half the hype he's been spouting here - I don't personally agree with Occam's or Mikemikev's perspective, but I can reason with them and start creating a balanced outcome. Mathsci simply refuses to listen to anything that he thinks is wrong, and starts ANI proceedings if anyone contradicts him. In my view he is the main and biggest obstacle to creating a balanced article, because he is (as far as I can see) hell bent on making sure that no other perspective save the one he believes in is represented in the article. Can honestly read through the respctive talk pages and ANI threads and tell me that you think Mathsci is behaving like a calm, rational adult? If so, then please do so, so we can get down to a detail by detail analysis of his silliness. I'd appreciate you explaining his behavior to me. This isn't about choosing sides, this is about creating a workable editing environment. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ludwig, it might be helpful if you were to provide diffs of some of Mathsci’s more problematic behavior. I suspect that you’ve been paying closer attention to it than the rest of us have, especially during the mediation case. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will if anyone asks. If things are true to previous form, the first 8 or so responses will be (mostly) from people who would oppose a topic ban even if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you, on the grounds that that would somehow be your fault. Give it a day or two and some more level heads will weigh in. I doubt it will happen this time, but I will raise the issue again in each of the subsequent ANI threads that Mathsci starts or hijacks, and I figure somewhere around the fourth or fifth time (because you know there will be at least that many more ANI threads) even his die-hard supporters will will be developing some serious cognitive dissonance about him. I'm patient... --Ludwigs2 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I’m asking. I do think that Mathsci’s behavior in these articles warrants a topical ban, but I also don’t think you’re going to be able to convince anyone of this without providing specific evidence. With the exception of Slrubenstein, everyone who’s commented “oppose” thus far doesn’t have any firsthand experience with Mathsci in these articles, and as a result probably doesn’t believe either of us that he’s been doing all of the things that we’ve observed from him. Providing diffs is the way to solve that problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will if anyone asks. If things are true to previous form, the first 8 or so responses will be (mostly) from people who would oppose a topic ban even if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you, on the grounds that that would somehow be your fault. Give it a day or two and some more level heads will weigh in. I doubt it will happen this time, but I will raise the issue again in each of the subsequent ANI threads that Mathsci starts or hijacks, and I figure somewhere around the fourth or fifth time (because you know there will be at least that many more ANI threads) even his die-hard supporters will will be developing some serious cognitive dissonance about him. I'm patient... --Ludwigs2 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ludwig, it might be helpful if you were to provide diffs of some of Mathsci’s more problematic behavior. I suspect that you’ve been paying closer attention to it than the rest of us have, especially during the mediation case. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? I think Mathsci is a fairly decent editor, all things considered, but in this case we are talking about a lot of ANI time he's monopolized trying to get people banned, blocked or otherwise in trouble. Further, his behavior on the articles and in article talk has been outrageous: He threatens people, reverts without credible explanation, indulges in name-calling and personal insults, demands that people accept his edits because he's a more experienced editor, and otherwise acts like a spoiled child. Don't believe half the hype he's been spouting here - I don't personally agree with Occam's or Mikemikev's perspective, but I can reason with them and start creating a balanced outcome. Mathsci simply refuses to listen to anything that he thinks is wrong, and starts ANI proceedings if anyone contradicts him. In my view he is the main and biggest obstacle to creating a balanced article, because he is (as far as I can see) hell bent on making sure that no other perspective save the one he believes in is represented in the article. Can honestly read through the respctive talk pages and ANI threads and tell me that you think Mathsci is behaving like a calm, rational adult? If so, then please do so, so we can get down to a detail by detail analysis of his silliness. I'd appreciate you explaining his behavior to me. This isn't about choosing sides, this is about creating a workable editing environment. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose If there are candidates for topic ban, I would start looking at SPAs. Mathsci is definitely not that. He is an editor who generally works on articles in which he has genuine expertise, and where his knowledge is lacking it is clear he knows how to do real research, even if it involves physically walking to a library. He has demonstrated this at scores of other articles and his contribution to R&I is consistent with his contributions elsewhere. He is also clear about core content policy. I sometimes find his editing too aggressive but he same is true about me and th majority of wikipedians, and all of us know we sometimes need Wikibreaks, and I have seen mathsci take one periodically on his own accord. This - realistically speaking - is precisely the kind of editor we need more of, and should not be discouraging. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Mathsci is definitely not the problem here, I came out of retirement to say so. Justin talk 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't think either "side" is behaving well under our policies, but Mathsci isn't causing the situation here and is not the worst offender. No. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware my mainspace editing is without blemish, on a broad base of academic articles in the arts and sciences.
- By his silence on the matter, Ludwigs2 seems to be supporting a whole series of WP:SPAs. This is completely in line with his previous attempts to skew wikipedia editing policy to favour unduly representing minority views on fringe topics. His emotional and highly charged statements about me are no different from those of Abd (talk · contribs): they do not reflect my editing patterns in any way and are simply out-and-out personal attacks on an academic mainstream editor, unsupportable by diffs.
- Captain Occam is continuing slowly to push for inappropriate primary sources to be used by asking the same question over and over again here: Talk:History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#Primary sources - Jensen justifying himself 30 years after the event. These continued questions appear to have degenerated to trolling, Persumably when I tire of responding, this will give him the green light to reinsert material that several other editors have already removed. Isn't this just a slow version of edit warring on his part? I have no point of view to push in any of this, even if Captain Occam obviously has. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mathsci, please leave me out of your mudslinging. How can I support anything through silence? Frankly, I've been avoiding the page(s) because you are being such an inveterate ass it give me a headache dealing with you. I have better ways to spend my time at the moment than watching you run around shouting "Off With Their Heads!" like the frigging Queen of Hearts. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ahem. you wrote above: "if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you". Please could you explain to administrators what that kind of phrase was supposed to convey. Please could you also explain what anything you have written here has to do with me insisting on secondary sources for the history of a controversial event. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- It meant that there are a number of people who would willingly defend you well past the point of common sense. You command a decent amount of well-deserved respect, Mathsci, but you often receive respect beyond what you deserve, and I think it encourages you in your bad behavior. it's unfortunate that people resort to that kind of thing, and unfortunate that you let it turn your head, but it's not really a major issue. just something to be noticed. As to your second point: I don't have a problem with you insisting on secondary sources. I have a problem with you running your mouth off about how everyone else is a POV-pushing SPA who ought to be banned. I suspect that you're right, content-wise, but you're such an ass about it that you tick everyone else off, and so what could be simple, straight-forward discussions turn into knock-down, drag-out bitch-fests. frankly, if you were topic-banned it would leave me free to go in and make the same arguments you're making now, except nicely, and then the page would make some progress. sorry, but your arrogance gets in the way. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder whether you might please stop making these insulting remarks. I also hope that you are not acting on behalf of Captain Occam. [18] Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- And I wonder whether you will learn to treat people civilly in your own right. Somehow I suspect the answers to those questions will always be the same... Also, they have some marvelous new therapies available for clinical manifestations of paranoia. How frequently do you have these fears that people are conspiring against you? --Ludwigs2 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You have had a formal warning from an administrator on your talk page. Suggesting now that I have some form of "mental illness" is a personal attack. Please refactor the above immediately and apologize to me on my talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have I? where did you get that idea? and even if it were true, what business is that of yours anyway? again, you're being arrogant: I can handle handle my relations with other editors without your help, thank you, and I will do a far better job of it than you've managed to do with Occam. You'd best look to cleaning up your own house. --Ludwigs2 05:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You were warned by GWH and shortly afterwards wrote the above PERSONAL ATTACK. Your behaviour here has not been normal. I have privately contacted an administrator. Please redact the insults you have written and stop commenting like this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- C'mon guys. You're both good contributors. Let's take the rhetoric down a notch. Will Beback talk 06:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You were warned by GWH and shortly afterwards wrote the above PERSONAL ATTACK. Your behaviour here has not been normal. I have privately contacted an administrator. Please redact the insults you have written and stop commenting like this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have I? where did you get that idea? and even if it were true, what business is that of yours anyway? again, you're being arrogant: I can handle handle my relations with other editors without your help, thank you, and I will do a far better job of it than you've managed to do with Occam. You'd best look to cleaning up your own house. --Ludwigs2 05:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder whether you might please stop making these insulting remarks. I also hope that you are not acting on behalf of Captain Occam. [18] Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- It meant that there are a number of people who would willingly defend you well past the point of common sense. You command a decent amount of well-deserved respect, Mathsci, but you often receive respect beyond what you deserve, and I think it encourages you in your bad behavior. it's unfortunate that people resort to that kind of thing, and unfortunate that you let it turn your head, but it's not really a major issue. just something to be noticed. As to your second point: I don't have a problem with you insisting on secondary sources. I have a problem with you running your mouth off about how everyone else is a POV-pushing SPA who ought to be banned. I suspect that you're right, content-wise, but you're such an ass about it that you tick everyone else off, and so what could be simple, straight-forward discussions turn into knock-down, drag-out bitch-fests. frankly, if you were topic-banned it would leave me free to go in and make the same arguments you're making now, except nicely, and then the page would make some progress. sorry, but your arrogance gets in the way. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ahem. you wrote above: "if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you". Please could you explain to administrators what that kind of phrase was supposed to convey. Please could you also explain what anything you have written here has to do with me insisting on secondary sources for the history of a controversial event. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mathsci, please leave me out of your mudslinging. How can I support anything through silence? Frankly, I've been avoiding the page(s) because you are being such an inveterate ass it give me a headache dealing with you. I have better ways to spend my time at the moment than watching you run around shouting "Off With Their Heads!" like the frigging Queen of Hearts. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Slrubinsetin. This is the wrong party to be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- oppose Mathsci is certainly not more responsible for the content disputes at race and iq related articles than a number of other editors. Topic bans would have to be for all involved editors - SPA's first.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who has been passively watching the evolution of R&I and related articles for years, I have to agree with the "opposes": Mathsci is definitely not the problem here. Who or what may be the solution to this mess is a wholly different question, and given the history and unsettling attraction of this topic to multiple single purpose accounts, I for one am pessimistic. But to topic-ban Mathsci, as suggested by Ludwigs2, won't help this ill-fated topic one bit. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - If topic bans are needed this isn't the place to start. Will Beback talk 23:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support From what I've gathered Mathsci seems to be repeatedly inserting BLP violating material while attempting to get the consensus group of editors banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment on previous behaviour. In a another arbitration case Mathsci was reminded "not to edit war — especially not on arbitration pages — and to avoid personal attacks at all times". He was also blocked previously for "harassing other users, making threats". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
- Comment It's a bit stale to mention something that happened two years ago with Elonka (talk · contribs), when I was unblocked almost immediately. Elonka is due to visit me here in France with her father on Monday. It's a sort of French wiki-meetup.Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Mathsci is following all appropriate procedures and has a proper understanding of the relevant policies, particularly the use of secondary sources and the need to avoid cherry picking from primary sources. The problem comes from the SPA editors and their misguided supporters. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I suggest that Ludwigs2 find some other articles to spend their time on. Their involvement as mediator helped sink the mediation (due to partisanship), and their input into this thread has merely been disruptive, including swearing, hyperbole, and this proposal to ban a long-time respected editor while enabling the POV-pushing from a series of single-purpose accounts. Fences&Windows 01:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment In the earlier thread where Mathsci asked for a topic ban against Captain Occam, there seemed to be some chance of reaching an agreement where both of them would voluntarily quit the R&I topic. I couldn't support banning Mathsci from it involuntarily, but I wish he would lose interest in it and do something else, even if only because there's much more worthwhile subjects in Wikipedia that could use his help. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I remember - correct me if I'm wrong - I write articles when I feel like it and when I have time. Writing this article was much quicker than most, 3 days as opposed to 4 months for Handel concerti grossi Op.6. However, watching it is a different thing. If you successfully listed it for deletion that might solve that problem :) Of course the main point is not me - it's the tag team and in particular Captain Occam. Ludwigs2 has done his bast to divert attention from that fundamental problem by creating this section. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Mathsci has made some very important contributions to this subject. I think we should be discussing, what is now undisputed, the SPA editing of some users. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Close this section per WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Mathsci's Mike Tyson-like behavior helps break the monotony of Wikipedia. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. We need someone with a Marxist POV to provide some balance. But could someone stop him using ANI as his personal Gulag? mikemikev (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion to Captain Occam et al.
Closed by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) on the grounds that in his judgement this is an inappropriate suggestion as he explains here in more detail.
|
---|
This article needs a lot of work. Count Iblis (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Continued tag teaming
The team mentioned at the top of this thread have now apparently decided that the following carefully footnoted historical account by Adrian Wooldridge is biased:
- Wooldridge, Adrian (1995), Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990, Cambridge University Press, pp. 363–379, ISBN 0521395151, The revival of psychometric theory in England and America: 1969-1980
And that this 1998 two-page partisan opinion piece
by Linda Gottfredson at the end of a nine-page tribute article, without footnotes and possibly unrefereed, is balanced. I would assume that most experienced editors or administrators would be able to classify Gottfredson's personal statement as a primary source and that of Wooldridge, an unbiased writer and historian, as a reliable secondary source. Probably the best way to handle this now is through WP:RSN. Mathsci (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- A section was opened at WP:RSN#Jensen_1998_writing_about_Jensen_1969 by DJ. Opinion seems to be that keeping the BLP balanced is more important than using the 'most secondary' sources. mikemikev (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- “Opinion seems to be that keeping the BLP balanced is more important than using the 'most secondary' sources.”
- The important thing to understand here is that this is also the opinion of every editor involved in the article other than Mathsci. There were six of us who took this position—me, DJ, David.Kane, Mikemikev, 120 Volt Monkey, and Varoon Arya—until Varoon Arya abandoned the article out of disgust and frustration at Mathsci’s behavior, which may soon happen with some of the other editors also. The six of us tried to discuss this with Mathsci for around two weeks, and Mathsci stonewalled the entire time, as I described in more detail in this comment. Since he won’t accept consensus and he won’t engage in meaningful discussion, the only way for us to bring the article into compliance with WP:BLP has been by editing the article over his objections. The reason he now regards us as a “tag team” is because he edit wars against us whenever we try this—I previously reported this here, but the report was rejected because one of Mathsci’s ANI threads about this article was still active—so the only way to bring the article into compliance with BLP has been by having multiple users work together to enforce this policy. As Mathsci drives more and more other editors away from this article, though, complying with BLP becomes more and more difficult.
- Any one of the six users whom Mathsci reported here can verify that what I’m saying here is accurate, if the diffs posted in the linked comments aren’t enough to demonstrate this. There’s no end to this problem in sight, and Ludwig’s proposal for a topical ban as a solution obviously wasn’t effective either. Is there anything else that can be done about a user who is repeatedly violating BLP, won’t accept the consensus against this, and edit wars against any effort from other users to comply with this policy? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have you noticed how there has been very little support for your position expressed here? You point out how one editor (Mathsci) is interrupting the diligent work of six other editors, and yet people like me effectively say "good job Mathsci". The fundamental problem is that as well as SPA editors there are SPA researchers, and SPA editors can push their views into articles like these. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Any one of the six users whom Mathsci reported here can verify that what I’m saying here is accurate, if the diffs posted in the linked comments aren’t enough to demonstrate this. There’s no end to this problem in sight, and Ludwig’s proposal for a topical ban as a solution obviously wasn’t effective either. Is there anything else that can be done about a user who is repeatedly violating BLP, won’t accept the consensus against this, and edit wars against any effort from other users to comply with this policy? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- “Have you noticed how there has been very little support for your position expressed here?”
- And isn’t it obvious what the reason for that is? Look at Varoon Arya’s comments again. This is at least the sixth time in the past two months that Mathsci has come to AN/I about the fact that nobody on the talk pages for these articles agrees with him, framing his content disputes as a user conduct complaint, and most of the users involved in this article are so sick of this by now that they want nothing to do with it anymore. Varoon Arya had no interest in participating in this thread except to ask that his name not be mentioned here, Mikemikev and David.Kane have barely commented, and DJ has refused to participate in this thread except for a single comment. All of Mathsci’s support in this thread has been coming from people like you, who haven’t been watching his behavior on this article, and are probably just judging Mathsci based only on his past contributions.
- In order to effectively judge what’s going on here, you need to either directly observe Mathsci’s behavior on this article, or discuss it with other people who have. Mathsci’s past contributions aren’t relevant here, because at this point he’s developed an obsessive interest in this article and his viewpoint about it that surpass those of anyone else involved in it. If you look at the past week of his contributions, you’ll see that he appears to no longer have any interest in articles that aren’t directly related to race and intelligence. And if you look at the history of either the history of the race and intelligence controversy article or its talk page, you can see that for the past two weeks Mathsci has been as active there as all other users combined. Even if he wasn’t an SPA in the past, at this point he is now more of one than anyone else there.
- Let me ask again: given what’s going on currently, including the fact that at this point most other editors no longer have the patience to deal with Mathsci’s continuous stonewalling and AN/I complaints about content disputes, is there anything that can be done to bring this article into compliance with BLP? In this situation, does Mathsci get to put whatever he wants about living researchers into the article, by virtue of the fact that he’s in the process of driving away most of the other users away from it, and he has enough of a history of contributions to Wikipedia that nobody else is willing to examine the problems with his current behavior? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. After reading this very depressing discussion and the article and talk page that provoked it my conclusion is that the problem arose because Mathsci has been editing outside his area of expertise. Like many amateurs he has become carried away with his enthusiasms and is unable to view the subject with the balanced perspective that an experienced scholar of the field would have developed. It might be helpful to give him another rap over the knuckles to remind him to avoid edit wars, personal attacks and so forth and so forth and so forth. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
UPDATE Slrubenstein has invited several outside editors familiar with wikipedia policies to comment on the talk page of the article. The comments so far have been very helpful. Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This user was indefinitely topic-banned from all articles in the Israel/Palestine conflict area [21]. He was subsequently banned for 24 hours[22], 48 hours[23], six months[24] and eventually indefinitely[25], for using sockpuppets to circumvent this ban. Despite this, he continues to create socks, and to edit from IPs. I reported onre of these at SPI yesterday[26], but the user is still using this IP, and continues to edit-war from it: [27], [28]. Can steps be taken to deal with this glaring abuse, and to prevent Drork from continuing to hold up two fingers to Wikipedia? RolandR (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- RolandR tries to silence people who don't share his views. I'm sure other people on Wikipedia knows better. Am I wrong? 79.180.25.39 (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- PS - The complaining user uses his userpage for political propaganda. He writes he's anti-Zionist, supports the Palestinian "Right-of-Return" and plenty of other political, sometimes offensive slogans. His job here is to silence people who don't share his views. He edits articles which he obviously cannot be objective about. This is a North Korea-approach, that should be condemned. 79.180.25.39 (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I should have thought that the responses above were enough to gain a block, and it seems that Tim Song agrees with me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- PS - The complaining user uses his userpage for political propaganda. He writes he's anti-Zionist, supports the Palestinian "Right-of-Return" and plenty of other political, sometimes offensive slogans. His job here is to silence people who don't share his views. He edits articles which he obviously cannot be objective about. This is a North Korea-approach, that should be condemned. 79.180.25.39 (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
What we need is a range block on this clown's ISP, [29]. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- But Bezeq is Israel's main telecoms provider, and blocking it would block very many Israeli editors. Since, despite the comment above, I do not actually want to silence people who do not share my views, I do not think that we can go along with Tarc's proposal.RolandR (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- He's on too many different ranges, so there's too much collateral damage. Tim Song (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- How about blocking a few of the ranges anon-only. Yes, he can still create socks, but at least we can indef each one as it pops up... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- He's on too many different ranges, so there's too much collateral damage. Tim Song (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see here a group of Wikipedians. I see here people with a serious ego problem, and too much politics on their minds. Roland, it is nice of you to allow Israelis to edit. You will be monitoring their edits and revert them every time they say something in favor of Zionism (knock wood) or Israel. BTW, I'll be more fair and honest than you are willing to be. My name is Dror Kamir and I'm from Holon, Israel. Enjoy your anonymity and sense of power. 79.177.8.3 (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent. Now the folks at abuse@bezeqint.net will have something to work with. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this the guy who delivered a talk about "Cross-Cultural Dialog through Wikipedia", on Wikimania 2008? If so: Deep, deep sigh. Huldra (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not what AN/I is for. Go rant somewhere else. Breein1007 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think "rant" is a proper descriptive for Huldra's comment, though it certainly could be applied to some of DrorK's comments above. Care to rephrase? Tiamuttalk 09:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to mention how impressed I am with the degree of concern you're showing over a banned editor totally flouting his ban, though I have to agree, if you're going to tell somebody else to rant somewhere else, it would be better if she was actually ranting. ← ZScarpia 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive and tendentious editing rampage by User:Wtsao
Two day old User:Wtsao is on a rampage of disruptive and tendentious editing, having repeatedly declared an overt bias against cloud computing and related topics which they consider overzealous marketing hype before making sweeping changes without any discussion (for example, stripping the Template:Cloud computing article of the vast majority of its content and updating its documentation in support of their changes, making controversial edits en-masse, adding specific content despite acknowledging the existing consensus that it be excluded, promoting a criticism section to the top of the article despite consensus that it be integrated/removed "so that the reader is warned to read the rest of the entry with a generous portion of salt", "as in, read this before you drink the kool aid", removing diagrams as "wrong" and "unhelpful", tagging the article with {{COI}} without providing any supporting policy violations, edit warring with mass reversions here, here, here and here - which are borderline WP:3RR violations if you consider their earlier reversions the day before, removing an entire, well sourced section on research, etc.). Most of their edits are disruptive and their summaries and interactions abrasive - indeed I didn't see a single edit that wasn't controversial.
Rather than risk violating WP:3RR myself, I ask that you revert their mass changes here and here and encourage them to seek clear consensus on the talk pages before making edits that could be considered controversial. I suggest that a short cool down block may be in order (perhaps 24 hours), particularly in light of a long string of what I consider to be personal attacks and my repeated warnings ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]). My identity is no secret, nor is the fact that I very recently took a position at Google and thus need to tread carefully with controverial edits (I have since gone to great lengths to reach consensus where I might have been WP:BOLD previously). Nevertheless I have been accused of WP:COI without supporting policy violations, for edits that predates my employment by years, no less than TEN TIMES in the space of the last hour ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]). I've also been accused of vandalism for reverting their rampage and of "bad behaviour in a new section on an article talk page. I don't appreciate such accusations, particularly from a new user who is out to satisfy a clearly stated agenda. -- samj inout 11:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I see edit warring under the guise of "reverting vandalism" when you were restoring the template to its previous form. Not knowing the contributor, it's possible that he believes that your actions were vandalism, as there seems to be either unfamiliarity with or a profound misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS in this edit summary: "There is no excuse for bulk undoing my edits." To quote, "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." As a new contributor, it's possible that User:Wtsao is unfamiliar with the bold, revert, discuss cycle.
- I see that the Cloud computing article has already been reverted; I'll leave the template for interested contributors in the interest of staying WP:UNINVOLVED (in the spirit of WP:PREFER, though I'm not protecting). I personally think a strong caution and explanation might suffice at this point, though a block will be appropriate if the edit warring continues. I don't object if another admin feels stronger action is called for. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Now that I've left him a note, I have to say that it's possible that any confusion he has over the term of "vandalism" may arise from your note to him here. At least on casual review, he doesn't seem to have used it before you did. I see another user has already reminded you about WP:BOLD and WP:AGF. To that, I'll add Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Remember (per WP:VAND) that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." His edits may have been non-neutral (I do not know, not being familiar with the subject), but WP:VAND#NOT specifically excludes non-neutral text. The template you left him is not my major concern, although it can certainly be seen as dismissive and disrespectful to good faith efforts, but the header is rather more pointed. More from that policy: "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism." Besides being inaccurate and a policy violation in itself, calling somebody's good faith efforts vandalism is only likely to inflame the situation and make reaching consensus more difficult. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is it just me, or does this look like somebody may be logging out to avoid 3RR to anyone else? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- <edit conflict - my thoughts exactly> Section blanking here, here and here is arguably vandalism, particularly in the context of the other edits. In any case I would have reverted the "reminder" had they not already commented on it. I'm now more concerned about this edit "revert[ing an administrator's reversion] to a more neutral version by Wtsao [because] he has a point", this re-reversion by cluebot (as possible vandalism) and this edit re-re-reverting with the summary of who let this bot loose?? Note that User:79.181.50.218 is a WP:SPA has only ever made these two edits which would suggest to me that a WP:CHECKUSER is in order. -- samj inout 22:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can bring that up for at WP:SPI if you want, or perhaps an admin who works that area more will weigh in. In the meantime, I have in accordance with WP:PREFER reverted to the last version prior to the onset of the edit war (specifically this one) and fully protected for three days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- But just to clarify, as WP:VAND explains, blanking is vandalism when "[r]emoving all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason" (emphasis added); it isn't vandalism "where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Even if you think they aren't good reasons (and they may not be), the removal isn't vandalism if it's done in an effort to improve the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for clarifying. I've opened an WP:SPI and asked for WP:CHECKUSER at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wtsao. -- samj inout 00:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...which was declined so the ball's back in our court now. -- samj inout 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- But just to clarify, as WP:VAND explains, blanking is vandalism when "[r]emoving all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason" (emphasis added); it isn't vandalism "where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Even if you think they aren't good reasons (and they may not be), the removal isn't vandalism if it's done in an effort to improve the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can bring that up for at WP:SPI if you want, or perhaps an admin who works that area more will weigh in. In the meantime, I have in accordance with WP:PREFER reverted to the last version prior to the onset of the edit war (specifically this one) and fully protected for three days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- (←) Blocked 72h for quacking too loudly. Tim Song (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami and his Misuse of Admin Tools
- Methinks I spoke too soon. Evidence of similar problems is arising...-Jayron32 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kwamikagami, an admin, is involved in an edit war with myself over the pronunciation of the name of the town of Stephens City, Virginia. I previously had it as "ˈstē-vənz ˈsi-tē" in the {{pronEng}} template. Kwamikagami changed it to the incorrect "Steven's City". It is incorrect as there is no apostrophe in the name and putting it this way gives the reader the idea that the town has two names. We both broke 3RR (I will clearly admit that), but what made this ANI material was that Kwamikagami reverted to his perfered version and then locked the page. Clearly breaking a BIG admin rule that other admins have been blocked for.
I feel that Kwamikagami has misused his admin tools in an edit war of which he is clearly involved and broke 3RR. I do understand that if he is blocked it is only fair that I am as well, since I am over 3RR myself, but I feel that admins should be held to a higher standard and Kwamikagami should know better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified the user of this post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reverting vandalism does not count against 3RR, though perhaps it's debatable whether pointy blanking of an article counts as vandalism. I said I would unblock as soon as NH agrees to stop doing that. Meanwhile, I'm debating the inappropriate use of a pronunciation template, which he has not bothered to review, with s.o. who does not understand what 'X, pronounced "Y"' means. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was not warned for vandalism and only after I notified Kwamikagami that he was, himself, nearing 3RR, did he start calling this vandalism as an end-run around the rules. He also said this isn't "I See Sam" and were "weren't targeting idiots"...funny, but inappropriate. I have also been banned from Kwamikagami's talk page, so it would be impossible for me to discuss anything further with him other than here. He has simply painted himself into a corner. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please link to the dif where you were banned from Kwami's talk page, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Was doing that, but got edit conflicted. Diffs are in the updated above post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please link to the dif where you were banned from Kwami's talk page, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was not warned for vandalism and only after I notified Kwamikagami that he was, himself, nearing 3RR, did he start calling this vandalism as an end-run around the rules. He also said this isn't "I See Sam" and were "weren't targeting idiots"...funny, but inappropriate. I have also been banned from Kwamikagami's talk page, so it would be impossible for me to discuss anything further with him other than here. He has simply painted himself into a corner. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reverting vandalism does not count against 3RR, though perhaps it's debatable whether pointy blanking of an article counts as vandalism. I said I would unblock as soon as NH agrees to stop doing that. Meanwhile, I'm debating the inappropriate use of a pronunciation template, which he has not bothered to review, with s.o. who does not understand what 'X, pronounced "Y"' means. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have to concur with Neutralhomer - this was an edit war, and Kwamikagami protected his preferred version. What blanking and/or vandalism are you talking about? Removing the pronunciation that you two were edit warring over is hardly "blanking", and it is certainly not "vandalism" to edit war. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The edits are clearly not vandalism. This is a simple content dispute and protection was inappropriate. If these were both non-admin users, they would both be blocked for 3RR. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- And since they are both editors first and kwami is not only an admin second but one who actually not only broke 3RR but also misused the page protection, I would support that action. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...and I would not be against it either. Should have know better myself. Clearly, I screwed up. I would request a short block, of course, but I have no control over that...or could we say block use for time served and have the mark on our records and move on? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Blocking is fine for the 3RR but doesn't address the blatant misuse of admin tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- And since they are both editors first and kwami is not only an admin second but one who actually not only broke 3RR but also misused the page protection, I would support that action. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've unprotected the article. You both know WP:3RR, so any further edit warring will result in a block. No need for one now as it wouldn't be preventative. Please discuss on the talk page or elsewhere to come to a content resolution. — Scientizzle 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Er. I thought I was unprotecting, but Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) musta beat me to it. — Scientizzle 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2 I'm failing to see how this could be interpreted as vandalism. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- (multiple e/c) Actually, I've unprotected, as it was clearly inappropriate. I don't see a point to blocking for 3RR if they both stop (preventative not... you know). However, Kwami's inappropriate protection, and calling it vandalism, and refusal to discuss, is problematic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- As Cube lurker notes, there are two issues here, and the edit warring is the lesser of the two. Unfortunately, we don't really have any options to address the second issue, except to verbally chastise kawmi and remind him about what vandalism is not, as well as the clear injunction about protecting your preferred version. Kwami, I don't know why you have done this, but do realize that although it is difficult to de-admin, it is not impossible, and if you make a habit of abusing your buttons it will become an inevitability. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- (many ec's causing me to edit my initial point). I conquer with Floquenbeam on this. The unprotection is appropriate, and blocking would be pointless as neither user is engaged in the edit war. I also concur that the central problem here is a) Kwami's intentional mischaracterization of neutralhomer's edits as "vandalism" and b) his use of that characterization to protect his preferred version of the article and thus to "win" the edit war. This needs to be stopped immediately. Such behavior is unacceptable for an admin, and needs to be addressed. The best would be a statement from Kwami where he admits to his wrongdoing and assures us how it won't happen. Barring that, there should be something else done to ensure it does not happen again. --Jayron32 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- What did we conquer? Is there any looting and pillaging involved? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- *Puts on my Viking helmet to join in* - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to start "conquering" instead of "concurring" too! Its a much more interesting typo than my usual... are you suggesting an Rfc if Kwami fails to respond, Jayron? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- *Puts on my Viking helmet to join in* - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- What did we conquer? Is there any looting and pillaging involved? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note, I understand the "don't edit war" advice and will not on the page. I have left the pronunciation section in the hands of a gentleman I have been working on the page with. I left it up to his best judgement with my opinion (which of course could be ignored). I do feel that Kwamikagami should be properly admonished for his misuse of tools and such, but I don't have control over that and will feel fine with whatever is done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interestingly (to me), from looking at the edit summaries and Kwami's talk page, it appears part of the problem was they may have been talking past each other; I'm not convinced either one understands even now why the other thinks he is wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will honestly say, I don't understand the pronunciation templates, it confuses me. I pulled the pronunciation I used from another site. I can find it again, so you all can see my source is need be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's all the edit war, though, whcih we are not concerned with here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's all the edit war, though, whcih we are not concerned with here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will honestly say, I don't understand the pronunciation templates, it confuses me. I pulled the pronunciation I used from another site. I can find it again, so you all can see my source is need be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I agree I should have simply referred this to a third party. My excuse is that I am cleaning up over 10,000 articles which use the English IPA templates, and it's difficult to keep track of which ones get subsequently reverted by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Of course, I can always run AWB again to catch them, but each pre-parse run takes several hours.
NH did not blank because he thought the pronunciation was inappropriate. He blanked as a WP:point because I corrected him. It was, after all, the same pronunciation! I certainly did not refuse to explain; I pointed out how the template he was using was incorrect, as he would have seen if he'd bothered to look at it. I asked him to take it to ANI after a while because he didsn't seem to understand the difference between spelling and pronunciation, and I didn't have the patience to teach it to him. It would be different if he were a newbie, but he's not.
As for the blanking not being vandalism, that would depend on whether he was acting in good faith. I'm not one to take WP:pointy edits as being in good faith, but in any case I said it was close to vandalism, or debatable whether it was vandalism. I didn't simply call him a vandal. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- And what about your action of reverting the article to your version and then locking it? What is the rationale for that? SilverserenC 18:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] I reverted blanking and locked it. I didn't lock just for my preferred format: If it's worth including, then it's worth including, and pointy blanking goes beyond disputes over correct formatting. I also said I would unblock as soon as NH agreed to stop blanking the pronunciation, and didn't try to make that conditional on the formatting. And this wasn't a dispute over content: I agree with NH's pronunciation; his format was simply unsupported by the link he provided. For the majority of the world who have never seen that format before, the link would give them a pronunciation that NH would agree is incorrect: "stay-vəns see-tay", with tone. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that you think you're right. Using those tools in a content dispute is expressly forbidden. Cut and dry no excuses no defense. If you can't see that this problem has only one solution.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] I reverted blanking and locked it. I didn't lock just for my preferred format: If it's worth including, then it's worth including, and pointy blanking goes beyond disputes over correct formatting. I also said I would unblock as soon as NH agreed to stop blanking the pronunciation, and didn't try to make that conditional on the formatting. And this wasn't a dispute over content: I agree with NH's pronunciation; his format was simply unsupported by the link he provided. For the majority of the world who have never seen that format before, the link would give them a pronunciation that NH would agree is incorrect: "stay-vəns see-tay", with tone. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, no. None of that will wash, kwami. You're excusing your poor behavior. There is no way - none - that NH's edits could be considered vandalism. You edit warred, then you protected, and now you're arguing and trying to excuse and defend your actions. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I protected against blanking, and said I'd unprotect as soon as that stopped. That was regardless of the actual dispute. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't "blanking". This is blanking. This is partia blanking. Please examine the difference. It was an edit war, and you restored what you wanted, and protected. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I protected against blanking, and said I'd unprotect as soon as that stopped. That was regardless of the actual dispute. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- To explain my actions on the blanking. I removed it as neither him nor I were going to be happy with what the other one had, so removing it from the page seemed to be the best option. That way it was out of sight, out of mind, no worries. I did not do it to vandalize the page. Why would I vandalize a page, I am working so hard on (check the history). That is just silly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There was no vandalism. There was an edit war. Moreover, IMO protecting the page because a single account made 4 edits is wrong. It's interesting that I can't find any discussion in article's talk page or editor's talk page on the subject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't protect because of 3RR. I didn't protect because of the format dispute. I protected because of pointy blanking, which I took to be in bad faith (and blanking in bad faith is vandalism). I also said I'd unprotect if NH agreed to stop blanking.[53] That wasn't conditional on agreeing with me on anything else. — kwami (talk)
- Vandalism has a specific definition as far as Wikipedia goes, and I'm not seeing it here. I'm not entirely convinced that the template removal wasn't pointy, but that's still not vandalism -- and Kwami shouldn't have thought he was objective enough to decide on protection for an article that was the subject of his own content dispute. He seems to have admitted that much, albeit with the caveat that he had a valid excuse; too much on his plate or whatnot, which I have to roll my eyes at. Nevertheless I'm satisfied that this incident caused him enough trouble that he won't let it happen again any time soon. Equazcion (talk) 19:17, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied; kwami is still arguing that it was vandalism - page blanking, pointy, vandalism - and I have seen absolutely no evidence that any of these things took place at all - and neither has any other commenter here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless, this isn't the place to split hairs over the issue. We aren't a moot court, we aren't here to decide intent or the mindframe of Kwamikagami. The edit war has stopped, he's agreed to let other admins handle articles he is involved in. Behaviorally speaking, those are the ONLY two results we can expect here. There is nothing else for admins to do here. We aren't going to drag him over the coals for a single incident. If we begin to see a pattern of mischaracterizations and misuses of the term "vandalism" here, then we can revisit the issue. A single isolated incident isn't worth beating the horse over. I am marking this as resolved. --Jayron32 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, clearly. In my experience, if someone does not use the same standards as everyone else, there either are, or will be, other incidents. I see I am, sadly, correct. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break (User:Kwamikagami)
- I know this is marked as resolved, and I hope I don't get trout-slapped, but this might be relevant. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- You want a pattern? How about this, only going back 3 days. 99.247.250.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 6 month block to an IP with 5 edits and no more than a level 2 warning on the talk page? Highly excesive. No block notice. Note the contribution history on the article vandalized.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- With Mufka's diff, I was not an involved editor as I was today. Looking back several months, I'd only made minor edits to the article, and not on this topic. Here one editor made an appropriate edit (number of native speakers, which is what that cell in the infobox is for, plus 2ary speakers, with a long-discussed RS), and a second editor, who'd been engaged in low-level revert warring for days, deleted all but the high end of the estimates of 2ary speakers, and deleted the source for native speakers. That source had been extensively discussed on the talk page. Violated RS, blanking, and POV, and repeatedly insisted on it. While I agree that today's edit was a knee-jerk reaction on my part, I don't think that edit was problematic. And I don't recall any of the several other editors complaining.
- As for the other one, I blocked a vandalism-only account who had blanked the page twice, changed "those syllables" to "male genetailia [sic]", and changed "copulate" to "cockulate". Are you kidding me? — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- You blocked a dynamic IP without a block log for 6 months; see WP:Blocking IP addresses for further information on appropriate block lengths, &c. (Note: I've unblocked, as a more reasonable block length [imo] would have lapsed by now.) –xenotalk 20:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, if you don't know the difference between an account and a dynamic IP you need to resign the tools for the good of the project.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to agree, just on the fact that if you can't distinguish between them, you could cause a significant amount of damage by blocking an important dynamic IP and you'd never know you did. SilverserenC 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't read that page before, so thanks for the link. I don't know how to tell the diff between a dynamic and static IP; if you could point out that article, I would appreciate it. Normally I don't block an IP for long if it has a history of constructive edits prior to (or interspersed with) the vandalism, but have blocked for longer (though never indefinitely) when there is no history of WP edits other than vandalism, and the vandal comes back over several days, suggesting (or so I thought) that it is not a dynamic IP. Of course, there's always the off chance that an IP that hasn't been used for WP since the project started will pick up next week or next month, but I figured the risk was minimal. I remember a guideline suggesting that we not block school IPs for more than one school year, so that's the time line I had in mind. I see that this link suggests only blocking for a few hours, but what do we do about the vandal who returns every few days, and has already stopped for the day, so would be unaffected by a block that short? — kwami (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to agree, just on the fact that if you can't distinguish between them, you could cause a significant amount of damage by blocking an important dynamic IP and you'd never know you did. SilverserenC 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, if you don't know the difference between an account and a dynamic IP you need to resign the tools for the good of the project.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- You blocked a dynamic IP without a block log for 6 months; see WP:Blocking IP addresses for further information on appropriate block lengths, &c. (Note: I've unblocked, as a more reasonable block length [imo] would have lapsed by now.) –xenotalk 20:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- As for the other one, I blocked a vandalism-only account who had blanked the page twice, changed "those syllables" to "male genetailia [sic]", and changed "copulate" to "cockulate". Are you kidding me? — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding Mufka's dif, you state that you were "not an involved editor" Yet your actions exactly parallel today's, except you edit warred less before you abused the tools to preserve your desired version: You reverted twice[54][55] and then protected[56] your preferred version. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not at all parallel. Today I edited the page, got into an edit war, then protected when NH started blanking. That was a knee-jerk response, and I agree inappropriate. At Esperanto I did not edit the page. It wasn't my baby. I was restoring and then protecting an edit that had been made by another editor in accordance with the consensus on the talk page. How can you compare the two? — kwami (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, so you're implying that while the Esperanto article was not, the article this ANI discussion is about IS your baby? SilverserenC 21:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't mean that I feel I own the article at all. People have been objecting that I revert "to my version" and then protect. The implication is that I feel I "own" the article, that it is my baby. KC even said that these two cases were "exactly parallel". So I pointed out that in this case it wasn't my edit that I reverted to, so even assuming the KC's implication of ownership for the former article, how could I feel ownership about the latter? — kwami (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, so you're implying that while the Esperanto article was not, the article this ANI discussion is about IS your baby? SilverserenC 21:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Its exactly the same - you reverted edits which were no vandalism, they were content disputes, then you protected the version you'd reverted to. That's exactly the same, and its exactly not allowable. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not at all parallel. Today I edited the page, got into an edit war, then protected when NH started blanking. That was a knee-jerk response, and I agree inappropriate. At Esperanto I did not edit the page. It wasn't my baby. I was restoring and then protecting an edit that had been made by another editor in accordance with the consensus on the talk page. How can you compare the two? — kwami (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
On Serbo-Croatian language, kwami reverted to his version (without edit summary) and then protected the page claiming vandalism. No 3RR here as above, but these were good-faith edits by an IP, not POV or vandalism as described in the edit summary. Brad 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...and more of it comes out of the woodwork... SilverserenC 21:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- SC is one of several Balkans language articles with emotions running high. There are multiple editors of long standing debating various issues, some practically accusing others of cultural genocide, and anonymous IPs jumping making irresponsible edits do not help things. Many of these articles are semi-protected for this very reason. My semi-protection, which didn't affect any of the parties in the debate, was as much preventive as anything. The edit summary I gave was my motivation, not a description of any particular edit: "anon. IPs have been partisan POV or even vandals". Note "IPs", plural. "Have been", thus on-going. Left out was that I'm thinking of a cluster of articles that are similarly difficult. Note also that there was no discussion on the talk page, the IP never said they needed to edit, never objected to the protection, etc. Not that the immediately preceding IP had been a vandal, but even if it had, I'm generally willing to unprotect/unblock even unambiguous vandals if they say they want to edit constructively. (Also, when NH objected to the protection this morning, which I now agree was hasty and inappropriate on my part, I said I'd be happy to unprotect if he'd agree to stop blanking. I didn't demand that he agree with me or change his opinion.) — kwami (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The edits you reverted were not vandalism, and there had been no instances of vandalism since 10 days earlier. Blocking IPs from editing the page accomplished nothing but protecting your version of the page. You did not explain this to the IP in question, nor did you explain your actions on the talk page. Brad 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- On the article South Slavic languages he blatantly reverted to his version [57] (04:16, 24 April 2010). He deleted almost 2,000 bytes of basic linguist info on that matter. It seems that what goes beyond his linguist knowledge, doesn't exist for him. But worse part is: [58] (04:20, 24 April 2010), he threatened me with the block and etiquetted my (+2,000 bytes) contribution as "vandalism". I've warned him on that [59] (02:57, 25 April 2010), but his answer was [60] " If you make problematic edits I will revert them, even if they include some good material. I'm not going to re-write them for you to save the good stuff: That's your job."(??!!) My reaction was [61]. Kubura (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The edits you reverted were not vandalism, and there had been no instances of vandalism since 10 days earlier. Blocking IPs from editing the page accomplished nothing but protecting your version of the page. You did not explain this to the IP in question, nor did you explain your actions on the talk page. Brad 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- SC is one of several Balkans language articles with emotions running high. There are multiple editors of long standing debating various issues, some practically accusing others of cultural genocide, and anonymous IPs jumping making irresponsible edits do not help things. Many of these articles are semi-protected for this very reason. My semi-protection, which didn't affect any of the parties in the debate, was as much preventive as anything. The edit summary I gave was my motivation, not a description of any particular edit: "anon. IPs have been partisan POV or even vandals". Note "IPs", plural. "Have been", thus on-going. Left out was that I'm thinking of a cluster of articles that are similarly difficult. Note also that there was no discussion on the talk page, the IP never said they needed to edit, never objected to the protection, etc. Not that the immediately preceding IP had been a vandal, but even if it had, I'm generally willing to unprotect/unblock even unambiguous vandals if they say they want to edit constructively. (Also, when NH objected to the protection this morning, which I now agree was hasty and inappropriate on my part, I said I'd be happy to unprotect if he'd agree to stop blanking. I didn't demand that he agree with me or change his opinion.) — kwami (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mufka's diff is still a problem, I think. Firstly, as with today's incident, kwami protected an article to prevent a single editor from contributing to it. We generally block the user in that case, not protect the article. Secondly (again in Mufka's diff) it wasn't vandalism but a content dispute -- and in that case, admins should not make any reverts prior to protecting. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed; he reverts non-vandalistic edits then protects. This is the fist time I have ever seen an admin argue against protecting the m:The Wrong Version. This is extremely troubling. We now have three instances of this, and an admin arguing he has done nothing wrong. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I do not deny it. My edit this morning was wrong. I don't dispute that. If there is consensus that my other edits are also wrong, tell me which and why and I will modify my behaviour. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think we've just done that. Make sure you understand what vandalism really is -- WP:VANDAL. If it's not vandalism, it generally means a content dispute, and when protecting for that reason, you should never revert first. I don't know how to state this any more plainly, and am a bit unnerved that you're still asking. Equazcion (talk) 21:20, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- No, I do not deny it. My edit this morning was wrong. I don't dispute that. If there is consensus that my other edits are also wrong, tell me which and why and I will modify my behaviour. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this morning's incident - you said "I'd be happy to unprotect if he'd agree to stop blanking." It wasn't "blanking". This is blanking. This is partial blanking. Please examine the difference. It was an edit war, and you restored what you wanted, and protected. This is the core and the crux, and I'm not sure you quite see it yet. You're justifying that edit, as well as the Croation one, by claiming in the first instance vandalism, and in the second restoring consensus. I recently was editing an article where the consensus was 15:1, but I did n't violate 3RR nor did I protect. That would have been misuse of the tools. When it is a content dispute, you cannot justify protecting your version; that is completely unacceptable. And these examples are content disputes. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I get it that I should not have reverted to my preferred format before protecting. I could've reverted to his, then asked s.o. else to take care of it. That's my bad. But as for "blanking", he blanked the section under dispute. Should I call that "deletion" if under a certain %age of the article? I think you can follow the situation whichever word I use. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see any blanking. I saw him removing the pronunciation bit, but that was the bit that was disputed. It wasn't like he'd blanked a section, which is what blanking is. If you have something, else you're calling blanking, please link to the dif - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I get it that I should not have reverted to my preferred format before protecting. I could've reverted to his, then asked s.o. else to take care of it. That's my bad. But as for "blanking", he blanked the section under dispute. Should I call that "deletion" if under a certain %age of the article? I think you can follow the situation whichever word I use. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Should this story become the subject of an ArbCom? The 6 months block to a dynamic IP that was not sufficiently warned and with a clean block log is serious stuff. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- For heaven's sake, no. He didn't understand dynamic IPs, and while troubling, he has said he plans to give himself a refresher course, and has been made aware of the concerns. If he continues making these kinds of errors, the next step is to talk to him again, then Rfc. ArbCom is not indicated at this time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this a symptom?
I don't think it's a widespread problem, but every once in a while a question arises in relation to an "old guard" admin (RFA before about 2006). In this case the thing that made me think of it was kwami's response above where he said "I hadn't read that page before" in reference to WP:Blocking IP addresses. Granted the page was created after his RFA, but those types of pages are critical to consistent adminship across the board. I don't have anything to propose in regards to that but I wonder if it's worth discussing. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- [ec] Well, perhaps I could take a refresher course in admin policy. The principal objection at my RFA was that I had very few non-mainspace edits. And for a long time I did very little admin work. Mainly the tools just made my editing easier, and what admin stuff I did was mostly moving pages, using AWB, merging page histories, deleting orphaned stubs, etc. (I think you can get the tools w/o being an admin these days, but couldn't back then.) More recently I've gotten involved with pages that have more nationalism problems and serious POV disputes, and sometimes I've gotten rather short-tempered because of it. And here I thought that recently my temper was improving! — kwami (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps just review WP:INVOLVED and, in future if you feel administrative action is required on an article with which you are involved, report to WP:RFPP or WP:ANI rather than taking action yourself. –xenotalk 22:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- [ec] Well, perhaps I could take a refresher course in admin policy. The principal objection at my RFA was that I had very few non-mainspace edits. And for a long time I did very little admin work. Mainly the tools just made my editing easier, and what admin stuff I did was mostly moving pages, using AWB, merging page histories, deleting orphaned stubs, etc. (I think you can get the tools w/o being an admin these days, but couldn't back then.) More recently I've gotten involved with pages that have more nationalism problems and serious POV disputes, and sometimes I've gotten rather short-tempered because of it. And here I thought that recently my temper was improving! — kwami (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I've seen a very few similar instances myself - pls don't ask senile me to remember - and one of a post-2006 admin being completely out of step with what was acceptable as generally understood by most admins (he unblocked himself.) We don't have refresher courses; we dont' have tests. The Rfa process has become much more focused on asking policy questions, but there is not a lot of order to it, and this could be left out of 99% of all Rfa's so far as I know. The wiki way is probably to ignore it unless there is an actual incident, or problem, then address that specific with that individual admin, as we are doing here. I don't see that adding bureaucracy would help in any way. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Someone going for an RfA right now would have to be familiar with all of these policies, along with a pile of other things that haven't been mentioned here. I'm a little concerned about the lack of knowledge of protocol here. For one, anyone going for an RfA right now with your lack of edit summaries would fail. Furthermore, anyone using rollback in a content dispute as often as you have would fail as well. Interestingly, you claimed in your RfA that you wanted the tools in order to revert POV, which nowadays would fail even WP:RFR (rollback is only for vandalism). Curiously, no one said anything about that in your RfA, and it's obvious no-one has mentioned it since. I think spending some time in New Admin School or even Admin coaching would be terrific idea. Brad 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Responding to Mufka's point, & admitting that I'm clearly a pre-2006 Admin, I will admit that keeping up with policy changes is becoming increasingly more difficult. First, new policies & interpretations are created with a lack of publicity; sometimes a new policy or procedure is only discovered when someone stumbles over it. Second, almost every stated policy is little more than a description of what it should be, not what it is. I won't list which ones these are -- no need to indulge in WikiDrama -- but there's enough chaff there to deter anyone from reading systematically in a self-motivated attempt to keep up. As a result, any veteran Admin simply goes by the spirit of what Wikipedia are -- heavily relying on WP:IAR -- & common sense, which is dangerous for all. A guide to what is important & current in Wikipedia policy would be a great help to everyone. (Although that undoubtedly will lead to another round of nasty WikiLawyering. I just don't know if that can be avoided.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- To run with Llywrch's idea, I think a place where new policies and interpretations can be listed for all to see (as they are created) would be useful for not just admins but for regular ol' editors as well. The biggies we all know, but some of the lesser ones and the new ones would be good to have as they come out. Maybe a list by date and a list by topic, so it is easy to search. WP:POLICYLIST anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was just reading this page out of interest but the comment that kwami should resign the tools for the good of the project feels more than hypocritical. Ok, so maybe kwami was a little quick in protecting; point it out and let it rest. The good of the project, yeah, where IS that going these days when someone who spends many a happy our editing and policing pages gets such a roasting as opposed to someone who thought it appropriate to just delete something they didn't like. If you have the good of the project at heart, step back and think about where this explosion of rules and at times blind application of them is going to take Wikipedia... Over and out. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- What the hell is with calling me a hypocrite. First of all do you even know the definition? For the good of the project means that we should value competence over social standing. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia not a half-assed reality show. When an admin clearly doesn't understand the basic consequences of his tool use such as the difference between blocking a dynamic IP and a VOA account that person is a danger to the projects goals. The tools are here to serve the project, not as a status symbol. Think things out before you lob the next attack my way.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The longer one edits around here, the less important knowledge of policy intricacies becomes, I think. The wording of policy (especially fast-changing policy) just reflects whoever is winning the policy-page edit war that particular day, so it's more important to understand the policy's spirit, which changes much more slowly. The "policy is descriptive not prescriptive" principle means that the wording is a lagging indicator anyway. The main approach I'd suggest is: 1) accept that any admin action you're contemplating doing might be a mistake; and 2) don't worry too much about avoiding every mistake, but try to think ahead to the consequences of mistakes, and pick actions that can undone with minimal drama if it turns out they're wrong. If you're working in an area that does need detailed policy knowledge, then ask for assistance or coaching from another admin working in that area, join the relevant wikiproject, etc, and get more familiar with the relevant issues (some of which won't be written down). The idea of having some kind of "policy update RSS feed" that all admins are supposed to watch constantly is just nightmarish. Seek instead to live by WP:CLUE. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was just reading this page out of interest but the comment that kwami should resign the tools for the good of the project feels more than hypocritical. Ok, so maybe kwami was a little quick in protecting; point it out and let it rest. The good of the project, yeah, where IS that going these days when someone who spends many a happy our editing and policing pages gets such a roasting as opposed to someone who thought it appropriate to just delete something they didn't like. If you have the good of the project at heart, step back and think about where this explosion of rules and at times blind application of them is going to take Wikipedia... Over and out. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- To run with Llywrch's idea, I think a place where new policies and interpretations can be listed for all to see (as they are created) would be useful for not just admins but for regular ol' editors as well. The biggies we all know, but some of the lesser ones and the new ones would be good to have as they come out. Maybe a list by date and a list by topic, so it is easy to search. WP:POLICYLIST anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't call you a hypocrite, I said the statement was hypocritical. And funnily enough, your response beautifully illustrates my point. The good of the project - unless I've been on the wrong planet all this time - is to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge base (ideally) on sound sources in the spirit of cooperation. Nowhere do I recall any founding statement that calls primarily for the strict adherence to rules and regulations in the abandonment of common sense. Yes, the tools are there to serve the project. And yes, kwami probably did protect a bit earlier than the rules called for. But taking the wider view and bearing in mind the good of the project, you guys are blowing a minor point of administration out of all proportion, ignoring years of diligent work in adding to wikipedia and carrying out admin work that more than once has kept other diligent editors from quitting the project in frustration. If you want to prevent Wikipedia from becomong a (quote) "half-assed reality show" then you should spend more time chasing vandals and crusading POV pushers, rather than filling talk pages over an issue that should take less than 5 lines to be dealt with. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I feel more pity towards you than anger.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Kwamikagami still doesn't understand
After User:Taivo posted this comment on Kwamikagami's talk page (which really didn't help things), Kwamikagami responded with this, which says in part that "I never thought it would be because of s.o. who doesn't literally doesn't know the difference between spelling and pronunciation." This clearly shows that Kwamikagami feels he has done nothing wrong (regardless of the back-peddling he has done here on this thread) and feels that I am still wrong and he is still right. This kind of attitude of an admin who has been shown with a pattern of abusing tools is not needed. I regret to ask this, but should his adminship be pulled over this lack of "getting it". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Now you sound like you have an axe to grind. I've said several times that the page protection was "inappropriate", "hasty", and a "knee-jerk response", and that in the future I should pass on such issues to s.o. else. That isn't negated by my expression of surprise at being hauled in here over protecting a pronunciation key by someone who's admitted he doesn't know what he's talking about, rather than because I lost my cool and blocked some nationalist idiot screaming that a change in non-NPOV wording was cultural genocide. I once moved a name from one line in a list to another, where I though it fit better, and was accused of erasing a thousand years of history. That's the kind of thing I figured would eventually land me in trouble, as it has so many others. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do I have an axe to grind? No. Am I a little pissed at my edits being considered vandalism? Yes. But saying someone "doesn't literally doesn't know the difference between spelling and pronunciation" is just poking one with a stick as it can be taken in many ways. What you should have done was thanked User:Taivo for his views and moved on with nothing more than a "thank you". No comment, no nothing. Being in an ANI discussion about your behavior makes EVERYTHING you do, will do, and have done be put under a microscope and combed over with a fine tooth comb. Trust me, I know. But I also know when not to wave a red cloth in front of a bull....and your comment was essentially doing that (or poking one with a stick, whichever you would like to use). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Now you sound like you have an axe to grind. I've said several times that the page protection was "inappropriate", "hasty", and a "knee-jerk response", and that in the future I should pass on such issues to s.o. else. That isn't negated by my expression of surprise at being hauled in here over protecting a pronunciation key by someone who's admitted he doesn't know what he's talking about, rather than because I lost my cool and blocked some nationalist idiot screaming that a change in non-NPOV wording was cultural genocide. I once moved a name from one line in a list to another, where I though it fit better, and was accused of erasing a thousand years of history. That's the kind of thing I figured would eventually land me in trouble, as it has so many others. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- No. Why not actually give Kwami chance to adjust his use of admin tools in response to the discussion above, rather than pre-emptively second-guessing his future actions based on your interpretation of one talkpage comment?
- An admin able to convert constructive suggestion into positive change is valuable enough not to discard on a blunt prediction of future motives. I am sure that even the slightest mistake in the near-future will not escape your watchful gaze, but let him be judged on his actual deeds and not mere supposition. Knepflerle (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Neutralhomer doesn't understand phonetics and didn't understand what User:Kwamikagami was doing. Kwami didn't understand that NeutralHomer didn't understand. And so it went. Kwami put on the admin hat too fast in this case. He has repeatedly said that he understands his mistake and will be more careful in the future. I agree with User:Akerbeltz: "Move on, people, nothing more to see here". Of course, if the game of Wikipedia is more interesting to you than the encyclopedia, then by all means let the wikilawyering continue. (Taivo (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
- This would be true if this incident was the only one. This discussion revelaed that they are misunderstandings in at least 5 areas: what is vandalism, what is the 3RR rule about, what is page blanking, when we protect pages, when we block. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reality check? You're running a free encyclopedia, not MI5 so what's with the court marshall. Communicate your rules better to admins and move one. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- So I see two types of admins right now.
- The admin who gets down into the trenches and deals aggressively with vandals, POV-pushers, and rabid nationalists in the field which s/he knows best. They don't spend all their time reading the rapidly changing subtle policy pages. They're the practical ones who use their knowledge and common sense to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Sometimes they make mistakes. Ted Williams had a .400 batting average--that means he failed six times out of ten, but he is still considered the greatest batter of all time.
- The admin who spends his or her time eating other admins and treats Wikipedia like a game--or worse, a courtroom. These admins are experts on the constantly changing rulebook for their little MMORPG here, and get great pleasure in prosecuting any variation.
- Give me the first kind of admin any day of the week. Give them the tools and let them use their brains to sort out difficult situations. I'll take Kwami's common sense, intelligence, and subject matter expertise any day of the week over the wikilawyering admins who may know every tiny detail of "policy", but who won't get down in the mud to deal with an editor who is pushing a fringe or rabidly nationalistic POV. How many vandals have gone on a rampage while you've been conducting this witch hunt against a knowledgeable admin who made one mistake in judgment? (Taivo (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
- A single account vandalises a page or we think it does. We don't protect the page, we target the account. Common logic.
- An anonymous IP vandalises a page or we think it does. The IP has a clean block log. We don't block it forever, more than 1 person may be using it. Common logic.
- Someone removes a sentence from an article. This is not "blanking". If this is somewhere in Wikipedia described as blanking then the description is wrong! Hm... second thought: tenths of people contribute in Wikipolicy, it's impossible that the majority described this as "blanking". Common logic.
- I fail to see where wikilawyering comes into this. Anyway, I think I made my point. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- So I see two types of admins right now.
- Reality check? You're running a free encyclopedia, not MI5 so what's with the court marshall. Communicate your rules better to admins and move one. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This would be true if this incident was the only one. This discussion revelaed that they are misunderstandings in at least 5 areas: what is vandalism, what is the 3RR rule about, what is page blanking, when we protect pages, when we block. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Neutralhomer doesn't understand phonetics and didn't understand what User:Kwamikagami was doing. Kwami didn't understand that NeutralHomer didn't understand. And so it went. Kwami put on the admin hat too fast in this case. He has repeatedly said that he understands his mistake and will be more careful in the future. I agree with User:Akerbeltz: "Move on, people, nothing more to see here". Of course, if the game of Wikipedia is more interesting to you than the encyclopedia, then by all means let the wikilawyering continue. (Taivo (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
- Perhaps as a start Kwaimi could identify and correct the two improper IP blocks still standing.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I unblocked mr. "really dont give a fuck, its a shithole system", and the IP for supriya, who's bragged that no-one can stop her evading her ban. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you understand that length may or may not have been the issue? Do you understand what else was wrong with those? Please note I said correct, not unblock.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I unblocked mr. "really dont give a fuck, its a shithole system", and the IP for supriya, who's bragged that no-one can stop her evading her ban. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I really didn't want to get involved, but the issues here aren't really about staying on top of ever-changing policies (though as an admin you should probably be somewhat knowledgeable on basic policies); it's about using common sense and communicating better. If you're involved in a content dispute, you shouldn't be using your administrative tools to your advantage; that's not what they're for. There is a clear difference between vandalism and disagreeing over content. If someone is going to claim vandalism and blanking, they need to make sure they know what the definitions of them are, even more so if they are an admin. The definitions aren't hard to find. I think what happened to open this ANI in the first place was allowing an emotional response (being irritated with another editor) to dictate use of admin tools over logic and that seems to be a recurring problem. That's not to say this admin is a horrible person or should be banned or anything, but some changes need to be made in how he uses admin tools in relatively cut-and-dry situations where the issue isn't so much a violation as it is a difference of opinion. No amount of good deeds or good editing excuses misuse of admin tools. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wiki Cult Task-force and User:B9 hummingbird hovering Breaking Basic Academic and Wiki Rules
The user edits mainly Tibetan Buddhist pages. He claims to have gone beyond the need for teachers in TB tradition. Something even elderly Tibetan great lamas who have been brought up in over half a century of full-time monastic education and practice would never dream of saying. This basically amounts in the tradition to declaring oneself a saint which is in fact never done. The user of course does not even understand Tibetan, colloquial or classic, never mind his understanding of the subject which would be equivalent to a young teenager in a monastery. The actual problem with regards to Wikipedia is that he creates wild specuation in the name of inclusivity! When editors ask him for academic refernces or any inter-textual citations, he dismisses such basic standards which any academic or Wiki admin would require. Secondly he removes the edits the protesting editors have done and engages in editing wars. Thirdly he claims he has certain rights on article pages he has started. Fourthly he justifies his unfounded innovative speculations without citation or reference, which he does not deny, by saying he is a tantric! When told all of of TB followers opposing him are also tantrics, he merely states that unlike the rest and even elderly Tibetan high lamas who still have regular teachers and tuition, such as the 75 year old Dalai Lama, he has gone beyond such needs!
We now have hundreds of thousands non Tibetans following TB worldwide. Only less than ten westerners have set themselves up as teacherless and lineageless novelties. Interestingly unlike the hundreds of valid western teachers and lamas within lineages as well as hundreds of academic Tibetologists, these few self appointed saints do not even speak or read any Tibetan dialect are still beginners interms of education even after decades! A few of these have setup organizations, cults, in the USA and Europe and some have presence on Wiki via members. But they are few in number and almost everyone of the hundreds of thousands of followers in Asia, Europe and Americas follows one of the lineages of the five Tibtan schools. Even if there is occasional disagreements amongst them they all acknowledge each other. So basically the picture is very satisfactory.
The actual problem with B9 hummingbird hovering is that he gets into editing wars, claims ownership of articles, dismisses others' valid academic requirements for references and citations and justifies his self acknowledged wild speculations in the name of inclusivity and as a superior rare tantric who has gone beyond the others who are asking for references which has also been the norm in Tibetan shedras and monasteries for over a thosand years when the rest of the world hardly insisted on it. So we need an unbiased admin judgment in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zhitro). Also as he is extremely active in Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Wikisource we need to make a record of his behavior early on. So that he does not enforce his mere speculations with no background whatsoever inside articles. If the decision goes in his favor, it means his section entitled "Cross-cultural correlates and possible antecedents" which he also admits has assertions that have no refernce or background except his personal special tantric feelings, can be repeated across atciles within Wiki by anyone?
Finally apart from this lone editor, I think Wiki needs a special small admin section which co-operates with various cult watch-dog bodies, who deal with their victims daily, in order to combat their misuse of Wiki. The reason is that cults basically milk their victims financially and in terms of resources and logistics whch we simply can not match. And also are time-rich via members and can make their members have organized co-ordinated behind the scenes presence as you well know. Unlike big corporations, they do not fear such adverse pulicity by being uncovered since they indulge in worse actions and are used to much worse reputation than being accused of abusing Wiki.
The question of a special section on cult presence on Wiki really needs to be addressed as it already is too late. I'd suggest to recruit several new admins and relieve some more experienced admins of their usual duties to have time to setup such a special unit and task-force or at least a think-tank to start drawing up contingency plans and guidelines and strategies. I think this will be unavoidable and the sooner it is started the easier things will be as many lessons need to be learned early on which will take time. Thank you for you attention. Occasionaled (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- (1) Per the header for this page, new reports go on the bottom. I would have just moved it but after the 2nd or third edit conflict I gave up. If you erase this and paste it in again at the bottom successfully at some point feel free to recreate it without my comment here. (2) Per the header for this page, you are required to inform the editor that you are complaining about. Looking at your contributions, I don't see that you have. If it wasn't for (1) I would do (2) for you, but at this point I leave it up to you whether you really want to recreate this following the proper instructions. Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Now that the thread is at the bottom of the page, I've notified User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Equazcion (talk) 18:49, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
- B9 hummingbird is a long-term problem editor. I had a conflict with him some time ago regarding his addition of original research and absurdly flowery language to articles, which seems to have continued right up to today. I think a WP:RFC/U is probably long overdue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- This reflects my experience with B9 as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mine as well. Mitsube (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I remonstrated with this user regarding the titling of articles with additional Wylie transliteration. This user responded in a very strange way, and it took several other users to convince him/her that we should even be heard. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This reflects my experience with B9 as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- As to the original complaint above, I can't really see that we need a 'Cult taskforce' -- as to B9, the two problems (penchant for OR and purple-bordering-on-ultraviolet prose) could probably have at one time been handled with mentoring; the (in my opinion) more pernicious problem is B9's inability-cum-refusal to work in a collegial, collaborative manner [If you dare to disagree or edit one of 's/his' articles, you'll hear about it, believe me] and tendency to own articles (example: Talk:Seventeen_tantras). Also worrying is s/hir readiness to simply revert any edit without discussion if s/he finds it disagreeable. Compounding the problem is the fact that the subject area (Tibetan Buddhism) that s/he edits in is pretty rarefied and obscure so not many people are in a real position to challenge hir edits, even if they had the stomach to do so and gird their loins for the rain of flowers that would almost certainly follow. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Syrthiss, it is my first time on this board and someone had kindly reposted it at the Bottom. As for informing B9 hummingbird hovering. I only registered as an editor less than a week ago as a result of reading his bullying tone to others who had asked for citations, which I stated in the article talk page. I also immediately informed him on his talk page of my comments in the article talk page. I did not even edit the article to remove his fantasy projections and self confessed baseless conjectures. After a few days of receiving his now apparently obvious usual treatment I removed his wild sentences. At every stage I posted my reasons and replies to him in the article page and on his talk page which has been ongoing for the last several days with regular input from him. Before I posted here he had removed all our discussions on his talk page. So there was no point and I was sure he was reading the article talk daily as he was writing there daily. Furthermore I had informed him previously that I would state a complaint in the admin board. All this is obvious from the article talk page which I linked above. Also as to why there are not many Tibetan experts here, which I am not one of, is due to the fact they are usually educated to let things be and unfold by themselves unless matters are getting really serious and harming people. That is why many merely read and smile. I'll copy and paste this section in my talk page so that future users have a reference buried somewhere regarding B9 hummingbird hovering if they come into contact with his odd behavior. Now onto the serious matter.
CULTS: There are cults and highly dubious organizations discretely present on Wiki that have members assigned individually or as organized groups with their own private forums to coordinate regarding their presence, editing wars and regular input on Wiki. This is a serious problem that will get worse and will not go away by merely being ignored. People like me can see their work but we simply do not have the time or the ability to take them on. Some experienced admins should discretely organize a private forum and form a cult think-tank. They can do some basic research and then contact cult watch-dog bodies, not necessarily as Wiki admins initially. Then they can draw up a white-paper with their recommendations and strategies and working solutions for organizing a special unit. This initial stage can be done discretely before being made public. I suggest that two types of experts be included on this initial think-tank. Firstly a few who have legal backgrounds or are preferably legal professionals. Secondly people with a background in helping abused victims as they need specialist care and attention and are prone to known psychological problems and can recognize the hallmarks of the cults' presence on Wiki. Thirdly there is a lot of professional help and expertise out there with regards to cults both in the active support groups and also academia who would only be too glad to help in any way they can.
I hope some see the inevitability of this undertaking and that the sooner it is started the better it will be for Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Occasionaled (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. In my experience Anti-Cult groups are as detrimental to wikipedia as cultmembers in injecting POV and bias into articles about New Religious Movements. Most articles about New Religious Movements are fairly balanced and I don't know of any that are biased in favour of the movement. If anything the right solution is not not to insert more Anti-Cult (socalled Cult-watching groups) POV, but to enforce neutrality by using and applying sources by relevant scholars in the field of sociology of religion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mannus. Your message is addressing three parts. Firstly I have been reading the organized efforts of three western groups claiming to be new lineages in Tibetan Buddhism, self contradictory by definition, some of which have been on cult watch-dog bodies' lists and databases. I'm not naming them as there is no point in starting a long discussion here. I was informed last year by a former member of one of them who has setup a half-way house website on his site how they coordinate their efforts daily on Wikipedia in a private forum. It is going on and in great detail as many editors will know. This is just a few in the rather small area of TB not to mention other really large areas. We can only guesstimate what the overall extent is. They systematically patrol Wiki articles and remove links to websites by former members and edit out content they are ordered to. Also they inject their own propaganda patiently over time by wearing down individuals with their organized resources. Many can testify to such organized behavior.
Secondly it is not just about new religions or new beliefs as you state. It can involve groups who are pushing certain services and products in organizations which are pseudo families. Cult study is an academic area and is not related to content as such or a genre of beliefs. Rather it is a mode of organizational behavior which cuts off individuals from family and society by well known tactics and cocoons them inside the organization. There are many experts who teach and research the area in universities and also help groups. We can not dismiss this well established academic area f research by a few sentences of generalizations. Thirdly I did not advocate what the final cult task-force should do or even the initial think-tank should recommend in terms of guidelines. What you opposed were your own ideas.
I merely suggested what I thought would be helpful and is long overdue. The cult related problems will get worse if they continue to be ignored. In the meantime habitual tendencies in cults to covertly manipulate Wiki in an organized manner will only grow and it will be more difficult later if things continue as they are. This whole area needs to be researched by a select group of Wiki admins in private initially. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Occasionaled. The probvlem of POV pushing is not limited to "cult"s and there are well established procedures for dealing with it. I intentionally do not use the word "cult" because it is nothing but a pejorative description of New Religious Movements which shows that the person using the term is sympathetic to the Anti Cult movement and antipathetic to the groups themselves. There is no academic field of "Cult studies" as you sugggest - that academic field is Sociology of Religion and specifically the field of NRM studies. What you call "cult studies" is in fact the Anti Cult movement which is an interest organisation lobbying against certain religous or ideological groupings that they identify as "cults" usually supported by ex-members and family members of group members. What I am saying is that wikipedia should neither adopt a viewpoint in favour of any religious or ideological groups, but also not the viewpoint against them. Both vuiews should be presented fairly by using objective sources written by academic researchers of the groups - not by either "watch-dogs" or "members". Yopu should of course do what you can to keep NRM related pages objective and neutral - possibly supplying the anti-cult viewpoint when it is missing. I consider myself an admin working towards the same goal having worked towards improving and neutralizing pages about controversial groups such as Jehovah's Witnessdes, Falun Gong, Mormons and several others. This can all be handled within the normal editing guidelines of wikipedia (all though it is often difficult as is editing in any controversial topic) and does not need a particular taskforce or policy changes.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mannus. Thanks for your post. As I said I did not advocate what should be done by anyone or group here with regards to disciplinary action or modifying Wiki content. So much of your points is not what I advocated as you claim. You also dismiss any need for looking into this area. Secondly you limit cults to NRMs and ignore my point on this point in my previous post. Thirdly you also limit the opposition to the Anti-Cult movement when in fact it goes well beyond that. This caricaturization is often used by cults and has been exposed for decades now. Opposition to cults goes beyond activists and includes medical experts as well as researchers and legislatures and journalists and intellectuals and more. Fourthly you dismiss any Cult related research is taking place in academia and limit it to a few sociological studies. In fact they are researched in Psychology departments widely. You can read some papers here: http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_topic_collections/tpcol_research.asp. Fifthly you do not answer points on widespread coordinated cult manipulation of Wiki which I am sure many would testify to. I encourage those readers who have encountered this large growing problem to be informed of this discussion here. Just because you do not want to see it does not mean it is not there. The pattern that emerges from the above points is that you tend to simplify situations and issues into binary camps and then reduce them as much as possible further. This Manichean method is an old style early structuralist approach which has very limited use and blinkers one's worldview.
You also do not address points regarding the time-rich, resource and member rich and covert organized way these groups act here and how against these Goliaths an individual has no chance given enough time. They also justify any breaking of the rules. By ignoring these points and saying everything is as good as it gets and regulation abiding lone users are just fine you are showing a complete lack of empathy in not just action but by lack of understanding. Not all cults have organized covert presence here but some do and you are saying it is not happening and even if it is everything is fine. The groups should be identified and registered somewhere on Wiki and continually monitored until they stop. This is very basic logic. Opposing researching the issue by a think-tank by some admins and not doing anything yet by any task-force or other later body, is a very strange position that defies basic common sense in any organization under systematic attack by various groups. I would suggest some sort of quantifying how widespread these organized covert activities are is a necessary step. These organized activities, against the rules, also create extra work for admins and dealing with symptoms and illegal activities by individuals under order in the long run. As opposed to identifying the issues and patterns in a research group, as well as identifying the organizations targeting Wiki is ultimately much more effective and less exhaustive. The lessons learned will be very useful in other areas too as it will become obvious. This process will be undertaken eventually and the sooner the better for all admins and Wiki. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I also like to clarify as I stated before that unlike commercial organizations (and most political regimes/groups) cults do not care if they are branded as manipulating Wiki by breaking it's rules. They simply do not care as they face much worse adverse publicity anyway. The other benefits of looking into the issue I referred to in my last paragraph above that would become obvious later, was meant implicitly to apply to other organized efforts against Wiki.
It is crucial to cults to maintain a false perfect image of themselves and a black and white worldview in the mind of their followers. I just had a practical idea with regards to Wiki which I like to share and Mannus and other dear users are free to attack and dissect as it might not be a good idea in the final analysis. OK here it is:
Problem: Systematic Removal of external links specially those exposing misdeeds by various groups and persons. By reading various talk pages and histories I can see how various groups in general and some cults in particular remove links exposing their activities and if confronted they merely wait for some months and delete it time and again.
Solution: Protected External Links. These 'protected semi-permanent links' can be on top of the list of external links identifiable in kind by a mini icon next to them. The procedures for nominating, electing/placement and possible later removal of such protected links can be decided in any way that is optimum to Wikipedia.
This method will be extremely helpful to trapped cult victims. I think forming the research think-tank on organized attacks by cults, possibly other groups, is unavoidable. I really do not have any more to say on the subjects I raised on this page . Thank you and goodbye to all. Occasionaled (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The purpose of wikipedia is not to provide easy access for "cult victims" to websites "exposing misdeeds" about the organizations they are members of (or to whitewash any controversial organizations). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide neutral and objective information about organizations which does not pass judgement on or provide soapboxes to any particular viewpoint - but describes all notable views about a topic. I agree that there should be a stricter policy for the inclusion of external links in controversial articles - but I think the policy should be to link neither to positive or negatively biased sites unless they are of exceptional notability. Rather external links should be to objective reliable sources of neutral information. I personally routinely remove substandard external links from many articles including articles about controversial organizations - and I remove both positively and negatively biased links if they do not meet the standards of our policies about external links.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mannus. Again you are misrepresenting my points and/by reducing the issues to basic oppositional binaries and very simple dialectics. However modern science has moved towards complexity, non-linearity and emergence. Also, I find various points in your response contradictory. However I agree as you sum up: "I agree that there should be a stricter policy for the inclusion of external links in controversial articles". Well said. Occasionaled (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am not representing your opinion - I am representing my opinion. And my name is Maunus.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Maunus. I apologize about getting your name wrong. I never said you represented my ideas but misrepresented them as you can see in my first sentence above. I wonder how you can not see such basic things. You also like to reduce issues to basic sides, preferably good and evil, and have no qualms about pronouncing judgments and prejudgments such as the purpose of Wiki is this and not that by again misrepresenting the debate. But you do not stop there, you even go onto filter the two black and white sides of the debate by boiling them down further to suit yourself. For example if you said WWII was 'Italian Fascists fighting Russian Communists' it wouldn't be wrong but it is obviously misleading. It has been interesting. I wish you, B9Hummingbirdhovering and everyone all the best. I also apologize to user 65.46.253.42 who is quite right and everyone else as I should have split this section into two subjects originally. Occasionaled (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- My point is that I can not misrepresent your opinion when I am not even attempting to represent it. My comments reflect my own opinion. I wonder how you can not understand such basic comments. You however is misrepreseting my opinions and even claiming to know what I like and how I think. I am not booiling it down to two sides but to three - for, against and neutral. My statements about what the purposes of wikipedia is and isn't is not my judgment, but the statements of the basic policies that wikipedia work by and you would do well to read them and understand them before trying to establish taskforces to combat viewpoints that you dislike.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Maunus. I beg to differ. You claim to be neutral but you started to oppose the ideas I put forward. You also are quick in prejudging. My position was not to turn Wiki into a haven for cult victims as you misrepresented, you defend making it a haven for cults. My point was as stated that Wiki is systematically being attacked and abused. At first you said it is not happening and then that even so all is fine. I also pointed out many aspects and errors in your comments and arguments. Wiki's mission statement can not be reduced to the few choice words you decided upon either. I also explained a possible group to carry out any recommendations would be appropriate only after an initial research group. You misrepresent that too despite my pointing outs.
- You oppose any research group into organized covert attacks and/or manipulation against Wiki. This is very strange and illogical. You merely repeat that I want a group to do certain things, false as I proved, and you do not answer what is wrong about the preliminary research think-tank idea. I now think you might have motives you do not want to share with the rest of us by diverting attention away from any research into systematic covert manipulation. Carried out by various groups, not just cults, where research into the problem will have benefits in other areas too. I did not say what I recommend either.
- You are saying that Wiki as an evolving organism should allow various groups to continue to covertly attack and manipulate it against it's rules and that secondly everything is just fine and thirdly any research think-tank, not action orientated task-force yet, should be stopped at all costs. These positions are extremely strange. You are basically saying Wiki should not have any immunity mechanism whatsoever nor should be allowed to take any actions. But you go further and state Wiki should not even think about defending itself by researching the area. You divert the issue of research and think-tank by misrepresenting it as the later stage of task-force which might not be recommended by the research group anyway. I wonder why so many shifts from no threat to no need for action to diverting the idea of researching the threat. None of it adds up. I can only conclude you have other interests and/or ideas too.
- As ever, best wishes. Occasionaled (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try to make my self clearer then. Look, my problem with your suggestions is that in several aspects the problems are already handled by several existing processes or the venue of solution you propose is not in line with the fundamental principles, policies and philosophies of wikipedia. Below I will outline how some of your proposals seem to collide with policy:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. This means that everyone is allowed to edit regardless of which groups they belong to - Nazis, Cultmembers, Lobbyists. The requirement is that they edit in line with our policies of neutrality and verifiability. We have many editors who are in favour of controversial viewpoints but who manages to edit within the guidelines - and when they do that they improve wikipedia by adding coverance about minority viewpoints. However, when editors with minority viewpoints do not manage to edit within policy we already have many venues for adressing those problems: depending on the nature of the problems they could be resolved through a dispute resolution process or simple processes of keeping single editors in line with policiy by threatening with and using blocks or bans. This is the reason that I don't believe POV pushing from cultmembers represents a problem bigger than or different from normal POV-pushing by any other kind of interest organization. Wikipedia is geared to handle that.
- Now, it may be that the area of NRM's and other controversial organizations is so small that few editors edit there and that certain viewpoints are overrepresented. This is again the case in several other subareas of wikipedia, but it is of coure a problem. The solution is of course that the editors who are aware of the problem group together and direct their attention to those pages and use the normal editing procedures to establish neutrality in those areas where there isn't any. This is all within standard wikipedia practice. It is easier to catch POV-pushers and work against them when more editors have pages watchlisted and a more likely to notice harmful changes to those pages. One way to achieve a higher level of awareness about certain pages would be to make a wikiproject dedicated to a certain topic. There is already a wikipeoject about New Religious Movements - editors interested in monitoring pages about NRM's or implementing a watching strategy of NRM related pages could join that project and work through there.
- The reason I am saying that I don't think it is correct that wikipedia as a community should take any specific action towads cult related POV pushing is then that 1. we cannot single out any particular group whose edits we work against. As long as editors work within our policies everyone's edits are welcome. 2. We already have welfunctioning and well established process for monitoring and countering POV pushing by ideologically based groups. This being said you are of course more than welcome to bringin up specific problems with editors or with articles on ANI or on any of the wikiproject pages dedicated to resolving that kind of problem. And you are completely within you right to convene a think tank with editors of your own choosing to work on any issue or problem that you perceive to be pertinent. Having just laid out my reasons why I don't think it is the wikipedia community that should do this but rather any group of interested editors, I would like to express my interest in joining such a group. I work with articles on NRM's in Mexico and elsewhere and I have noticed POV pushing both by apologists and detractors of these groups and I would be interested in collaborating on maintaining neutrality in these areas. Dixi.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Maunus. Your post is much clearer in style and I welcome that. On the content of your paragraphs:
- You basically say everything is fine as it is. I explained before I don't think so.
- I explained communal cocooning in cults is not limited to NRM's nor is their opposition limited to activists as it has been proven for a while. Secondly my main point is not merely about POV pushers. It is about organized covert manipulation of Wiki content. Two different topics which should not be misrepresented or limited to each other.
- 1. I did not propose any such actions on POV pushing. My main proposal is to initially set up a group to research the issues of organized covert manipulation which is different in nature and methodology to what you claim I am saying. I am not saying what should or should not be done specifically or even laying out the ontology of any later possible processes. 2. Everything is not just fine as you say again. Secondly my point is not about specific articles or editors as you misrepresent again. On your last points in that paragraph I'm glad you finally say that such a research think-tank is a good idea. It was I myself who originally proposed a select group of experienced admins, preferably but not limited to those with legal academic psychological and support background, to form such a research group. I also disagree when you say "wikipedia community" should be excluded. Furthermore I think Wiki management should be involved with the ongoing secret research of this group. On the final statements: what I proposed was different. It is not about merely POV pushing by various NRM individuals, but organized covert ongoing campaigns against Wiki content. The aim could be two fold. Initially researching how covert organized campaigns are mounted. Secondly on drawing up proposals on how to deal with them. These will be merely proposals as any think-tank can only make recommendations and by definition does not have any executive or even legislative powers. So I am talking about a whole different set of processes.
- The subject can be cults in general which is a large problem but the results and the lessons learned will be immensely beneficial and possibly can be applied later to the larger area of covert organized manipulation by non-cults which is a much larger problem. Even if this research is not preferably initiated by Wiki community, it inevitably will be carried out by some academics in which case it won't be limited to cults as a sample case. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Two distinct issues
I think there are two issues being discussed here that are being conflated and therefore neither is being presented very clearly; the primary complaint was about the behavior of a particular user User:B9_hummingbird_hovering and a number of other editors have voiced similar difficulties; can we (someone) move forward with whatever the appropriate remedy is there (someone mentioned a User Request for Comment). The second, much broader issue about addressing cults at Wikipeida seems harder to tackle and I'm not sure how -- but regardless can that please be decoupled from what seems to be a more pressing (and longer-term) difficulty with this particular user? 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- True. I think a RFCU is in order about B9Hummingbirdhovering.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Then we need to start with the process as outlined Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance which indicates the starting point is two editors must try to resolve the conflict with B9 on that user's talk page. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Look2See1
Look2See1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- In his edits [62], [63] and [64] calls out a user (myself) in an (article's) talk page, even after I warned him not to over both talk and e-mail. Shouldn't he reserve that for his or my usertalk? Also accidentally deleted some redirects (then blamed me for it) and exhibited bad form in movereqs, not that that matters. FYI, the consensus for the type of moves I made is at Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles; though moves can be made without community imput. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Trails blazed) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- In addition, now he is apparently ignoring talk page suggestions and exhibiting a general lack of CLUE toward policies Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Trails blazed) 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
re: User:Purplebackpack89
Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Purplebackpack89. Thank you. Content issues Civility problems
- I am a newbie. I do not know what this process is yet. I take it seriously. My goodwill intent was for clarity of article linking and retrieval use.
- Re: Purplebackpack89's calls out a user (myself) in an (article's) talk page, even after I warned him not to over both talk and e-mail." - I'm sorry but do not understand problem and never received understanding that a user's wiki-i.d. is not ok to refer to as is on all history pages of all articles I tried to discuss with him. His message was not comprehendible. I hope this isn't repeating that mistake again - I'm terribly confused - so respectfully suggested; if one reads my note to User:Purplebackpack89 talk page a half-hour or so before this it may help show the shared problem. Purplebackpack89's Also accidentally deleted some redirects (then blamed me for it) and exhibited bad form in movereqs, not that that matters. I have already explained to him it was my mistake I couldn't fix, and did not 'blame' him - I was over my wiki-tools head. However unskillfully and incorrectly I regretfully attempted to do it by, the essence of my message to Purplebackpack89 was "please discuss this with me and others, it is causing disruption, difficulty and confusion (his unintended vandalism)." My putting a notice on article talk pages was not vandalism, but my best effort to share concern.
- I am a newbie. I do not know what this process is yet. I take it seriously. My goodwill intent was for clarity of article linking and retrieval use.
- A basic wiki-guideline seen is "be kind to newbies." That has not been my experience here with Purplebackpack89 yet. I feel attacked by a wiki-expert. Purplebackpack89 has erased my questions from articles' talk pages, may be wrong but thought it was not ok to delete non-vandal talk. Not knowing another route or how to use this page properly the best I can do it insert a ((vandal|Purplebackpack8)) above. The intention is not a struggle, game, or to be provocative ! - I've no idea what else to do. I've asked for his help before this note without success, and so will try this. Perhaps some messages from him are backed up while working on this, I'm not fast on a computer. Did not click on new wiki-message banner when have been in midst of writing concentration - not ignoring and can do no better as not tech-savvy. Very open to help resolve this and learn more about my mistakes, to not repeat them. I am not a vandal, please consider looking to my San Fernando Valley articles' edits to see sincere intent to be of service. I hope the ((subst:ANI-notice|Purplebackpack89)) above is the required notification to Purplebackpack89, the request is respected and will try a cut/paste to his talk page in case above isn't proper. If anyone reviews this please consider helping me to resolve it peacefully.
- Thank you, ___Look2See1 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, what the Sam Sheridan? This guy can hardly be classified as a "newbie"...he has over 1,000 edits (albeit very few on anything but article space). The guy at one point used broken links as part of a move justification; links he broke himself. Also, even newbies have to learn WP:CIVIL. I never accused him of vandalism; but incivility (hey Purplebackpack!), lack of CLUE, and bad form. And honestly, if you're over your wikitools head, just stop before you cause a major headache for some sysop Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Look2See1 guy still continues to be disruptive on my talk page and exhibit and general lack of CLUE, one that is inexcusable for a person with over 1,000 edits and three months on the city. There are things I've done that I've explained in an edit summary, on his talk page, AND on my talk page, and he STILL doesn't get it. I need some intervention here--look at his edits in Wikipedia space, User talk space, and article talk space to see why Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Editor Purplebackpack89, in my experience, is not honoring Assume Good Faith or WP:CIVIL protocol. To begin with expertise; this is my first computer (ever) and I am a 'newbie' - no argument from a stranger as they are is wise or appropriate. Family and friends are amazed 'the Luddite' is even able to correct spelling in a wikiarticle. The "1,000 edits" are primarily doing article and "[[ category:__]]" links. I'm recuperating from surgery and so have the time to do numerous simple little edits, probably nothing "sysop" (whatever that may mean). My understanding is that it is not a requirement to be facile in code-lingua or be a technophile to participate in wikipedia. I respect those abilities but do not have them.
- I'm not being disruptive on any of the talkpages, only trying to discuss, alone however without Purplebackpack89's comprehensible (or even direct now) responses in return. My phrasing is always polite (never in a "Look2See1 guy" gender presumptive and dismissive or "inexcusable" accusatory tone). Perhaps it's novices' questions that are disruptive to Purplebackpack89. Unfortunately with no help from Purplebackpack89, nonetheless I found on my own that the '3' to '2' names transition for the L.A. districts Name Template has been in discussion for some time, with consensus to begin. That is very acceptable (as if my sole opinion mattered). If Purplebackpack89 had calmly, clearly, and respectfully communicated that history and process (and not taken questioning personally) no misunderstandings would have arisen for any of us here.
- Quoting Purplebackpack89 about me; "he STILL doesn't get it" and "general lack of CLUE" - is so because his attempts were in a jargon I do not use or comprehend. No one is unintelligent here, just different dialects. Purplebackpack89 continues to misjudge, misinterpret, and misunderstand my intentions, words, and actions. Purplebackpack89 does not respond or initiate to discuss directly together, and they are free not to do. The last two Purplebackpack89 entries above had no notification to me, perhaps only a first one requires that? Nonetheless, since Purplebackpack89 has consistently chosen to not work this out together, I need some intervention and counsel here please. This conundrum is trivial in the scope of life and world issues. My goal is simple peaceful resolution. Thank you for any assistance with this.---Look2See1 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Edwin Black
I have a real problem with this edit, in which an SPA inserts into mainspace an opinion piece from Mr. Black that is (1) factually inaccurate; (2) non-notable; (3) an attack on Wikipedia; (4) along with a follow-up article, is dedicated to the "ongoing investigation" and attempted stalking/outing of me. While someone has questioned the addition in talk already, I think the situation deserves some administrative attention. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Read the first point made at WP:SPA#Handling and advice. How precisely does the edit of the second diff constitute an attempt at outing? This accounts edits are not block-worthy. An attempt at outing, on the other hand, would be. AGK 00:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The SPA isn't the point, and I guess you need to know the entire history of Mr. Black's recent adventure with Wikipedia. The two articles Mr. Black has now published clearly attempt to track me down, and I don't think they're of significant encyclopedic value to include in his Biography. I'm not asking for a block, I'm asking for an administrator (preferably one familiar with the recent events) to evaluate my position and remove the material (if warranted). I am obviously not able to do so myself, as I'm the subject of both articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also the question of whether Saxstudio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is somehow proxying for Black or a sockpuppet thereof, who is currently blocked for legal threats and block evasion using IPs.
- I am concerned enough to be reviewing, but it wasn't clearly evident what the right answer is to all this. You're not wrong to be concerned, Blaxthos, but I don't want to just do what you asked without thinking about it. Someone else might have a more concrete first impression, I will keep thinking about it if not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks George -- I wouldn't expect anyone to take my advice without contemplation and consensus. ;-) I generally bring matters here when I don't know what the proper answer is... My main concern is simply having that sort of content removed from Wikipedia. If the community feels that there may be more of the same from this user, then I leave it up to you guys to decide that and take whatever action is appropriate (and I think there's a good case to be made for both serving as a proxy/meat/sock of a banned editor, and for the likelihood of continued questionable activity). Thanks for reviewing, all! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- It seems I've been pulled into the Black's articles as well for deleting some of the article links Saxstudio has posted to Wikipedia, plus the spammy posts (of the SAME article!) on several pages. My impression is mostly positive - he's obviously intelligent, but seems to make odd mistakes and refuses to follow the policies of Wikipedia. His posts last week from his (now blocked) IP address have been helpful, and I think he'd be able to offer a fair amount to the articles in question. He is actively trying to ferret information about some users. *shrug* It's an interesting situation. Ravensfire (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The SPA isn't the point, and I guess you need to know the entire history of Mr. Black's recent adventure with Wikipedia. The two articles Mr. Black has now published clearly attempt to track me down, and I don't think they're of significant encyclopedic value to include in his Biography. I'm not asking for a block, I'm asking for an administrator (preferably one familiar with the recent events) to evaluate my position and remove the material (if warranted). I am obviously not able to do so myself, as I'm the subject of both articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why is Saxstudio not blocked? This is a blatant sock / meatpuppet. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Meatpuppet, I think. Looking at their contrib history, they seem to have an independent existence before becoming Black's acolyte. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Should you have a question of me, you may ask me directly at inquiry@edwinblack.com or you may phone me with your number not displaying. That said, I think is matter is resolved. If I was not allowed to comment here, I can withdraw the remark. Edwin Black Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I thought Black was blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did you have a question I can answer for you. I can be reached on email at the address above. Or you can phone me.Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I thought Black was blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Should you have a question of me, you may ask me directly at inquiry@edwinblack.com or you may phone me with your number not displaying. That said, I think is matter is resolved. If I was not allowed to comment here, I can withdraw the remark. Edwin Black Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Black was unblocked earlier today by User:Shell Kinney. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned over the talk page message posted at User talk:Edwin Black Washington DC. Especially the two sentences, "If you have a comment, don’t leave it here. I will erase it, until I can create a manageable and useful space. Instead email me at inquiry@edwinblack.com with your real name and your approximate location—country or state—and I will try to reply swiftly." Some editors may not wish, and do not have to, provide their real names or even their "...approximate location—country or state...". I'd also like to get some clarification from the "...senior Admin..." as to what their discussion was about and if there was any impact on Wikipedia. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- No one needs to ask me a question. But if you would like to, I am happy to answer offline and private. You may say Ireland, or Ohio, or LA, or Tel Aviv. I have received many notes and exchanges from Wikipedians in this fashion and they have been quite gracious. And if you CBW would like to ask me a question, or receive a book, you may send me an email as indicated, or phone me with your number blocked, you are welcome to do so. I am happy to help all. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not that I wanted to ask questions, as I think our areas of interest are a bit different. I'm just concerned that some editors may wish to ask but would be intimidated by the need to release their real names. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 23:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- CBW, from what I can see, I suspect you are interested in music. As am I--very much. We might have more in common than you think. I won't be checking the WP page for messages. My recent attentiveness is now over. Indeed, until recently, I did not check on Wikipedia much. I do not lodge on the net. I am hundreds of messages behind from readers asking questions on all manner of topics. I try to do a few reader emails each day--but I am months behind. I prefer to answer questions at a lot slower pace but I will try to prioritize emails from Wikipedians. Often I am in archives or events or lodged in my work--right now this minute turn of the century, 1902-1914 UK and Europe. Wikipedia has some good entries. Later I will be posting a notice for any who wish to be referred to my researchers page. However, that will be a bit down the way. I hope this helps. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This could be confusing ...
I had another user pointed out to me today that could cause confusion with my username. But, they've had their account since 2001, and mine was created in 2006, so that must make me the "imposter" ...
I wanted to ask about this, to see if others believed the risk of confusion was great enough to require one of us to need a new username (probably me, as the other account is older). The two accounts are:
The other user has been around longer - but has far fewer edits, and we're not active in the same areas on Wikipedia - which is probably why we hadn't come across each other until now.
Is general opinion that the risk of confusion high enough to require using WP:UNC, or can we leave the usernames for now? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- At the quickest glance, yeah, it could be confusing. But it people take the time to look at the names carefully, I see no problem. I actually seen the same name at first glance, but then again, I am Lysdexic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why not just use a {{distinguish}} template, the way users Mastcell and MastCell have done? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion. For now, I've added {{distinguish}} to my userpage. I left a note on Berek's talk page informing him about this discussion as well, so hopefully he'll also consider doing the same. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Berek looks to be a very low-volume editor (their talk page, never archived, has only 25 threads, and goes back to 2003!) that rarely involves themselves in talk pages or the "meta" spaces of Wikipedia. Doubt it will be an issue; {{distinguish}} would be best on both pages- just in case. –xenotalk 20:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Request for assistance regarding Muhammad Ali Jinnah
I've merged these two sections, are they are quite obviously about the same thing. That aside, it appears as if Paki copied Gimme's own thread, then changed a few minor things. No comment otherwise.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Paki90
Paki90 (talk · contribs · logs) is regularly removing sourced content from the Muhammad Ali Jinnah article. [65] [66] The user avoids 3RR but this has gone on for months, if not years, and user has not expressed any willingness to compromise. Would an uninvolved admin please intervene, blocking Paki90 if appropriate? Gimmetrow 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Gimmetrow
Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · logs) and his fellow Huon (talk · contribs · logs) are regularly removing sourced content from the Muhammad Ali Jinnah's article. [67] and old revision [68], both user edits are evident of being based on sectarian hate against Shia Muslim personalities and spreading confusion and misleading the readers. They have been doing this not just on articles related to Jinnah but they were repeatedly vandalizing articles related to other Shia personalities like, Asif Ali Zardari, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto. As per verifiability and reliable source are concerned many of their references are self-published and do not satisfy the Wiki criteria. These users are quoting sources that are void and biased. I have always tried to maintain the neutrality of the article but they are always removing the sourced content. I have repeatedly explained my case on my talk-page [69], [70] and on the discussion pages, but they aren't willing to understand and realize that they are repeatedly vandalizing the article, and when ever i revert the article to its genuine sourced originality they argue it and re-edit their old reverted version. They have failed to maintain the neutrality of Jinnah and are not willing to accept multiple sourced edits by me, based on genuine claims. Here by I'll request you to foresee both users, they too avoid 3RR and have been doing this again and again. They have no will to accept sourced facts regarding Jinnah being a Shia and are not willing to compromise at all. Hence would the respected Admin intervene, and block Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · logs) and Huon (talk · contribs · logs) from further editing on articles related to [Category:Pakistani Shi'a Muslims]. My contribution to Wikipedia is immense, and i have been following the rules and regulation as a proud Wikipedian.Thank You!Paki90 (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is calling yourself Paki90 not offensive to anyone else?
I know I am not involved in this issue and I know that I am not an administrator but I would like to point out that as a regular ordinary person from a working class background I find User:Paki90's account name offense. As would I find Gog90, N*gger90, etc offensive. I know its a seperate issue but since this is the page for administrators and his name has popped up I think it should be changed on the grounds of racism. The term "Paki" is offensive and degrading. Certainly if I saw it in an edit summary I'd be worried about potential racism. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I may be naive about this, and I'm sorry if I am, but I never knew that phrase to be offensive. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is a racial denonym, comes from the larg number of emigrants from Pakistan into the UK post WWII. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- See List of ethnic slurs#P. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked for the username violation (and only for that reason). Explained why the name is a violation and said that if the editor wishes to comment to do so on their talk page so that their comments may be copied over. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is this an over-reaction? The user claims to be a citizen of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
- I don't think that this is an over-reaction. Another editor has already stated that they find the name offensive, and the term "Paki" is on the list of ethnic slurs linked to above. It's not unreasonable that an editor with an offensive username is asked to change it to something else. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The thing about "Paki" is that it is not necessarily offensive when used within a community, but used by people outside that community it can be very offensive. It is certainly potentially offensive, and I think it's very reasonable that it is treated as such. (This article is interesting reading about the subject). --bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This looks like racial profiling to me. I would like to know the views of User:Paki90 about this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
- I have realized it is a racial slur, but certainly not when its is being used by a Pakistani, in Pakistan mostly people use this term to label themselves as Pakistanis. Many Ex-pats living in UK might consider this racial slur, but certainly it ain't racial when it is used by a Pakistani. For this very reason my account is now in jeopardy, i have requested a change in my username, but i worry all my contribution might get lost. Somebody help me out!Paki90 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your contributions won't be lost, don't worry. Although I understand your reasoning, I think changing your username is a wise idea! The notes at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple say If you want your edits from your old account to be reattributed to your new account, do NOT create the new account first. Rather, request a name change here. [...] The process responsible for reallocating your old contributions may take some time. This is perfectly normal. Updates should take at most a day to complete, although it may take longer if you have a lot of edits and/or the "job queue" mechanism is very busy - so your edits will be reallocated to your new name, with no loss of contributions! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have realized it is a racial slur, but certainly not when its is being used by a Pakistani, in Pakistan mostly people use this term to label themselves as Pakistanis. Many Ex-pats living in UK might consider this racial slur, but certainly it ain't racial when it is used by a Pakistani. For this very reason my account is now in jeopardy, i have requested a change in my username, but i worry all my contribution might get lost. Somebody help me out!Paki90 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This looks like racial profiling to me. I would like to know the views of User:Paki90 about this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
- The thing about "Paki" is that it is not necessarily offensive when used within a community, but used by people outside that community it can be very offensive. It is certainly potentially offensive, and I think it's very reasonable that it is treated as such. (This article is interesting reading about the subject). --bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that this is an over-reaction. Another editor has already stated that they find the name offensive, and the term "Paki" is on the list of ethnic slurs linked to above. It's not unreasonable that an editor with an offensive username is asked to change it to something else. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is this an over-reaction? The user claims to be a citizen of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
- I've blocked for the username violation (and only for that reason). Explained why the name is a violation and said that if the editor wishes to comment to do so on their talk page so that their comments may be copied over. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As a person of Pakistani origin i do believe the word "Paki" is generally racist although context does matter for example if you are having banter with friends or other Asian people. However on wikipedia my point is that anyone could come across the term User:Paki90 in editing an article and take it offensively or assume that he himself is a racist editor. It is sensible to a user account name change under those circumstances.Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also now that we've addressed that could admins please get back to addressing the issues for which the ANI was filed? (sorry steering the discussion away but it was a valid issue no personal feelings or anything purely objective).Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Paki90's claims are baseless, bordering on the absurd. The "sectarian hate" claim is a violation of WP:AGF. He did not provide any examples of Gimmetrow or me removing sourced content, and I don't think there are any to be found. I did remove some "sources" added by Paki90 here, because they didn't say what they were supposed to source. Similarly, Gimmetrow also removed irrelevant or duplicate "sources". Neither Gimmetrow nor I edited Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the past two years (and I didn't check further back). I'm also not a regular contributor to Benazir Bhutto, where Gimmetrow seems to have been engaged in combating anon vandalism. I do edit Asif Ali Zardari, but there ironically I tend to re-add the Shia denomination, because that's what the most reliable sources say about Zardari. See for example here or here. But for Jinnah, sources disagree about his religion. Vali Nasr, an American scholar, says that Jinnah belonged (or converted) to Twelver Shia Islam, and that's what the article reports. Yet his daughter is currently engaged in a court case where she argues that Jinnah was (when he died) a Khoja Shia muslim, which would imply a different distribution of his inheritance. Other relatives have sued and claimed that Jinnah had converted to Sunni Islam, which again would imply a different distribution of the inheritance. Any mention of (most of) these claims is routinely removed by Paki90, no matter that they have been reported in newspapers. Still other newspaper articles claim that Jinnah avoided any sectarian label at all, and the courts ruled him "neither Shia nor Sunni", but Paki90 again fights for the removal of all such mentions, as documented by Gimmetrow above. Note that when Paki90 actually did find a relevant source, an online excerpt of Vali Nasr's book we use as a reference, Gimmetrow readily incorporated it. Huon (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
user:Whitmore 8621 and MGS: Peace Walker Part II
Whitmore 8621 (talk · contribs) For the past few days, this user has been blatantly editing a talk page thread that I've already locked down by inserting the {{discussionbottom}} archive tag under a response he made after the thread was closed. He's conducting an edit war because of his defiance of the closing rules. Although he's sought Fogeltje's counsel on this matter, I don't think the admin considered that Whitmore was already blocked before for IP meatpuppetry. Judging by the language and the obvious lack of civility, he thinks I am guilty of owning the article (which I'm not) after I told him to stay away from further editing it, when his behavior over the past few months has resulted in a loss of good faith from me. When I closed down that thread, I believed the issue was closed as well, under the principles of WP:STICK. I do not even read the discussion on Fogeltje's talk page nor whitmore's post-closing response because it is not worth responding. His actions are just re-opening old wounds he inflicted on himself. I recommend a topic ban on him if it can help, as well as warning him against tampering closed threads. Any additional editors who can intervene in this matter please do so. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is the lamest edit war I have ever seen. If he wants to get a final word into a discussion sometime on, let him, what does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Additionally, you are also undoing him fixing his own typos, again something which doesn't really matter. Just let them respond to the comment in the closed thread which they didn't previously reply to, then move on. Whilst I understand the longer term context here, I don't understand why you want a topic ban on them because they want to respond to comments on a topic they are involved in. They stopped their edit warring on the article, and there are no signs of further abuses of IP editing, so I personally don't see a problem.
- If we are going to go all rules-must-be-followed on this, then unclose the discussion, let him reply, then reclose it as it will be concluded. If he was allowed to take one final comment, for all we know the scenario might be over, so why make it so complicated like this?
- Finally, as I observed this entire thing before noticing the ANI thread, I would like to point out that you hardly come across as civil. The fact you say you haven't even read what he typed because it is "not worth responding" to is also worrying. Just let him make the final comment to "conclude" the discussion on the talk page, then move any fresh things to a new section. --Taelus (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- User notified at this timestamp. In future, Eaglestorm, you should notify all editors involved in an ANI thread of its existance and link them to it. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Additionally, as another observation, the game was released in Japan today, thus the root of this entire debate between you and Whitmore should resolve itself, as reliable sources discussing the plot will be popping up over the next few days hopefully. May I recommend actively seeking out such sources and starting a new discussion on the talk page about them, thus moving on from the entire "crystal ball" and "original research" issues of the past? --Taelus (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- User notified at this timestamp. In future, Eaglestorm, you should notify all editors involved in an ANI thread of its existance and link them to it. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I never had a intention of causing trouble for Wikipedia with Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker Im sorry for the edit war a few months ago. I was not trying to abuse any users I just wanted to get the last word to end the discussion myself. So could I finish the discussion? --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621
Sharia article undergoing drastic restructuring, we need a time out to more fully discuss
Re: user Jayzames and sharia article
Hi, please protect the Sharia page (or help somehow) until I can figure out what the intentions are of a progressively persistent, rude, biased editor. I'm a newbie and I've been to the arbcom (declined, but one member expressed concern) and the editors advice (no response) and this problem is getting worse by the minute over here.
I am trying to work through my concerns with Jayzames and we are dialoguing but he is making progressively more drastic changes in the article and this evening sections are moving, new ones are appearing, and I can't see whether material may be missing.
I am not trying to stop Jayzames, I am trying to clear up some problems while there is still time. If he is sincere, he can take some time to work through these issues. I doubt his sincerity.
We need to take a deep breath here, but my concern is the article may get to a point where it will be difficult to recover, and not all his actions appear to be in good faith.
This article is of course a sensitive one and I see bias in the changes, POV centric changes, promotion of deleterious material to the lead of the article. Prior attempts at discussion have met with limited success, but he generally will not correct or change due to my objections beyond the typographical level.
We are talking maybe close to 100 changes to the article in the last couple of weeks, running about 10 a day now. No consensus on these changes. We are talking, but he's not stopping or correcting anything but typos.
Diff for last 5 days
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia&action=historysubmit&diff=358800967&oldid=357771399
More important recent talk topics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#Neutrality_in_doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#Removing_POV_from_head_of_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#How_can_testimony_from_women_carry_half_weight_if_only_men_can_testify.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#Misleading_assertion_regarding_codification_of_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#General_questions_on_Legal_and_court_proceedings_section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#Why_is_Criticism_of_revisionist_historiography_of_Islamic_law_placed_under_the_Definitions.3F
Thanks Aquib (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User_talk:Jayzames notified here Aquib (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see what an Admin can do here that can't be handled by a non-Admin. All an Admin could do is to block one or both of you, or prevent the page from being editted; & since you state the two of you are talking, any of those options would be inappropriate. On the other hand, any material Jayzames removes will still be in the article history & can be restored at any time. (If that isn't good enough, make a copy of the earlier version & save it in your own userspace, say at User:Aquib american muslim/scratch.) Second, seek one of the conflict resolution steps listed at the top of the page, like mediation or opening an RfC over certain points in the article. If none of those steps work to your satisfaction, yes, you can return here & open a thread, but the result may be one you are not at all happy with. -- llywrch (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
OK Thank you Aquib (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion Uighur house redux
On April 24th a thread was initiated here by a contributor who had tagged the redirect Uighur house with a {{db-g3}} -- the tag for pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. An administrator chose not to fulfill that speedy request, and the nominator raised that here for further discussion.
There is actually a deeper story than the nominator chose to reveal -- one that, IMO, concerns a deeper problem. I am bringing this up now, rather than on the 24th, as the nominator did not fulfill their obligation of giving all involved parties a heads-up of the WPANI discussion, and I didn't become aware of the discussion until after the thread had been archived.
I am sure many people who read the thread clicked on the what links here button for "Uighur house". I am sure they wondered why the redirect didn't have any incoming links from article space.
What they didn't know was that the nominator had previously removed the wikilinks to that redirect: [71], [72].
Late last fall the nominator removed these valid and useful wikilinks, and several thousand other valid and useful wikilinks, in a series of 250 edits, listed here. The only explanation offered for these excisions, at the time, was that offered in the edit summaries -- "clarify and unlink an interpretation of a questionable source".
I've explained, in more detail, my concerns over the excision of thesse several thousand valid and useful wikilinks, on Talk:Uighur house. I've explained, in more detail, on Talk:Uighur house, my frustration with trying to find a policy-based explanation in the nominator's replies to my requests for their use of the term "questionable source".
Recently I have told the nominator, several times, that I take at face value that they honestly believe they have offered a valid, policy-based explanation for this massive series of wikilink excisions. In return I have asked them to take at face value my assertion that I have done my best, and I can't find a policy based explanation for this series of excisions in any of their replies. I asked them to either paraphrase the key part of their argument, from memory, to cut and past the key part(s), or to provide diffs to the key part(s). I am sorry to report they declined to paraphrase, cut and paste, or provide diffs.
In my opinion the redirect should be restored to the status quo ante, and all of those excisions of valid and useful wikilinks should be restored.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Uighur house isn't mentioned on the Al-Qaeda safe house article.--Scott Mac 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I googled "Uighur House" (with quotes) and there were no Al-Qaeda references (except for those on Wikipedia) until the second page. While this doesn't necessarily mean anything, it does point towards the phrase being used more as meaning 'a house that Uighurs live in', and not anything terrorist related. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
None of the passages Geo Swan pointed out in the other articles needs a link through that redirect. If you really have a passage where you need to link the text string "Uighur house" to that Al-Qaeda safehouse article, you can easily do it through a pipe, there's no need for a redirect. But the passages you cited ([73], [74]) hardly qualify for even that: in the first, there actually was no such string to begin with, and in the second, it was inside a quote, and according to our style guidelines, we don't do links from inside quotes anyway. Apart from that, as a search term for a manual search the phrase is utterly implausible. I really can't see a need for this redirect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
And wouldn't the proper target for this redirect actually be yurt? That's the first thing which occurred to me, not that it was an al-Qaida safehouse or sanctuary. (In which case, we'd need to link it to Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & all of the other places where al-Qaida historically have found sanctuary.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not seeing any connection of Uigher (guest) house to mean an Al-Qaida safehouse, but rather an instance of a guest house with Uigher connections being used as a one. That would be like terming US Italian cuisine restaurants as "Mafia killing eatery" because of the number of mob assassinations carried out or planned in such places; what activities might be undertaken in a place, or for whatever purposes it may also serve, should not become a denominator for the term unless there is a reliable third party source that deprecates the original meaning; just because one source might use the term does not mean it is the usually understood one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Further, I do agree with Geo Swan that the particular speedy template was most certainly inappropriate, and likely violated WP:AGF in respect of a well regarded contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I noticed that in the two diffs where Iqinn allegedly delinked the Uighur house redirect, the delinked link in the first diff was actually to [[suspect guest house, Jalalabad|Uighur house]], so the actual link was to Suspect guest house, Jalalabad, which is a still-active redirect, that Geo Swan created, to Al-Qaeda safe house. I have since noticed that on 7 September 2009 (and maybe on other dates, too), Geo Swan apparently created a lot of weird redirects to articles about Al-Qaeda safe houses; these redirects include Arab guest house, Kabul; Algerian house, Jalalabad; Riad safe house, Karachi; Zacharia guest house, Jalalabad; Tunisian guesthouse, Jalalabad; and many others. (Maybe it has something to do with this.) Propaniac (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- No i did not act in bad faith. There is no basis to redirect Uighur house to Al-Qaeda safe house. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources but there are no sources at all that draw this connection.
- As well there are no sources that connect the Uighur guest house, Pakistan to Al-Qaeda nor are there sources for the redirect Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda. To link all these Uyghur related terms to Al-Qaeda safe house without sufficient WP:RS is by best not a good idea.
- User Geo Swan has written more than one thousand Guantanamo related articles and created about ten thousand Guantanamo related redirects. Good job! This is not a personal attack against him. I just do not think these three redirects are a good idea.
- I as other editors have searched for these sources but can not find them. I have specially ask User Geo Swan for these sources Talk:Uighur_guest_house,_Pakistan, Talk:Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad. Personal research and believe is not enough. He could not provide me with WP:RS sources that draw this connection and would justify these redirects.
- Wikipedia has a good reputation and i want that is stays like that. To link somebody or something to Al-Qaeda is a serious issue and we should take this serious.
- Exceptional claims need exceptional sources and we do not have these sources. Uighur house has been redirected to Uyghur people and i suggest it stays like this.
- For Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad and Uighur_guest_house,_Pakistan there are no sufficient sources either that would justify to link them to Al-Qaeda safe house. I suggest deletion for this two redirects unless we can find these sources or another article that would make sense to link to. IQinn (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated before, this redirect is an absolute no-go. Just as there is BLP, there is an (at least ethically) implied BEE ("...living ethnicities"). Should the redirect be restored, I will promptly take it to RfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where else to raise this, but I'm slightly concerned by someone whose first edit is to declare on their userpage that they want to destroy Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ask him if he has a viable plan.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe he's the reincarnation of User:Wiki Greek Basketball and/or his "cousin"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Bigoted woman incident
If we really need the dubious piece of fluff masquerading as an article at Bigoted woman incident, can someone at the very least fix Gillian Duffy so it's no longer a BLP violation disguised as a redirect? – iridescent 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Cheese and rice, I deleted Duffy this morning...the article, not the person. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Classic WP:NOTNEWS; this will be forgotten in day or two and would be better on Wikinews. Rodhullandemu 16:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have deleted the redirect per WP:BLP. If it is recreated, perhaps it should be salted, at least till after the election. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the time George H.W. Bush, not aware that a reporter had a parabolic microphone trained on him, referred to his nieces and nephews, who were part hispanic, as "the little brown ones over there". I can't find any mention of it on WP, but I recall it caused a bit of a stir at the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have deleted the redirect per WP:BLP. If it is recreated, perhaps it should be salted, at least till after the election. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Classic WP:NOTNEWS; this will be forgotten in day or two and would be better on Wikinews. Rodhullandemu 16:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident early. WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS early consensus + obvious WP:BLP concerns (with the title alone) = precautionary delete. — Scientizzle 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- There was a suggestion of a transwiki to Wikinews. I would be willing to undelete/userify should that be pursued... — Scientizzle 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suggested that, if you'd be willing to transwiki it or restore it to my userspace for 5 minutes, I'll work on it over there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Be right on it...I also note that most of the (now-deleted) content can be found at United Kingdom general election, 2010#Rochdale gaffe. — Scientizzle 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- If the deleted content was copied there, it must be attributed, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- On consideration of the BLP aspect, I have salted Gillian Duffy for two weeks, which takes us safely past the election. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- According to WP:Wikinews, transwiki to Wikinews is not possible for licensing reasons. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, we figured that out. Wikipedia:Wikinews has the info. Content has been re-deleted. — Scientizzle 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- According to WP:Wikinews, transwiki to Wikinews is not possible for licensing reasons. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Be right on it...I also note that most of the (now-deleted) content can be found at United Kingdom general election, 2010#Rochdale gaffe. — Scientizzle 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suggested that, if you'd be willing to transwiki it or restore it to my userspace for 5 minutes, I'll work on it over there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This is massive news. It shouldn't have been deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I stand by my AfD close and content deletion. You are welcome to try Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Scientizzle 18:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can't be bothered. I'll just bask in smug enjoyment when it's recreated in a few days time as unquestionably of importance, and some of the leftie trolls here (not including you in that, just some on the AFD) continue to squirm :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Kittybrewster, who nominated that article for deletion, is the brother of Michael Howard's Shadow Secretary of State for Trade; I very much doubt he's a "leftie" anything. – iridescent 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I never said he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- We are not a news site. The event has been documented appropriately in United Kingdom general election, 2010. Now please stop trying to attack people with bizarre accusations of "lefties". Aiken ♫ 18:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have been very careful not to attack anyone. The evidence is there for anyone who is interested. 86.176.111.239 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The reason it doesn't merit an article here is because we're an encyclopaedia. We're not a crystal ball, so we can't judge now whether this will have a lasting effect and we're not a news service, however, Wikinews is, and they's welcome this kind of thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that. My reasoning was that it would be better to keep the article for a couple of days, allow editors to work on it, and on Saturday it should be clear whether it is a flash in the pan or the day Gordon Brown finally completed his life work - The History of The Labour Party. Of course there is a duty of care to the poor lady involved, and I think keeping her name out of it until the situation became clear would be perfectly sensible. 86.176.111.239 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The reason it doesn't merit an article here is because we're an encyclopaedia. We're not a crystal ball, so we can't judge now whether this will have a lasting effect and we're not a news service, however, Wikinews is, and they's welcome this kind of thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have been very careful not to attack anyone. The evidence is there for anyone who is interested. 86.176.111.239 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- We are not a news site. The event has been documented appropriately in United Kingdom general election, 2010. Now please stop trying to attack people with bizarre accusations of "lefties". Aiken ♫ 18:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I never said he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Kittybrewster, who nominated that article for deletion, is the brother of Michael Howard's Shadow Secretary of State for Trade; I very much doubt he's a "leftie" anything. – iridescent 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can't be bothered. I'll just bask in smug enjoyment when it's recreated in a few days time as unquestionably of importance, and some of the leftie trolls here (not including you in that, just some on the AFD) continue to squirm :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- To those of us in the UK it is amusingly ironic that the one occasion in recent times when a politician has been both honest and right, he has come under fire from the very press that constantly castigates MPs for being a bunch of lying weasels. Check #bigotgate on twitter :-) (and #spookyposse for that matter). Guy (Help!) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This article has a problem with an editor continuing a slow edit war and refusing to engage in discussion, ever. I was originally drawn to the article with a conflict of interest noticeboard report made by Johnuniq. He suggested that there may be a conflict of interest, that the article's author, Gangleader1989, might be trying to promote the school.
You'll see the initial state of the article here, which was tagged as a copyvio. The copyright notice was removed by the author, and while some of the paraphrasing was cleaned up somewhat it wasn't completely fixed. Johnuniq then improved the article immensely, removing the last copyright violations, some excessive detail, inappropriate whitespace, redundant external links, peacock terms, and did some copyediting. A bot flagged the article as an orphan.
Since then, the author has repeatedly reverted the changes made by Johnuniq and the orphan tag from the bot: [75][76][77][78][79][80]
(Note that the author sometimes edits under their account, and sometimes as a dynamic IP.)
My original intent was to try to draw the editor into a discussion, but they won't communicate. You can see on their talk page that there are numerous warnings and two different requests to discuss the article but they have been ignored. I'd have brought this to the edit war noticeboard but I know from experience that unless the three revert rule has been broken that appeals there are generally ignored, and as far as I can tell this editor has never reverted more than once a day. But clearly, the attempt to own this article and the refusal to communicate is a problem.
I don't know if I would be considered "involved" now at the article, as my only edits to that page are to undo the continuous reverting back to the author's preferred version, but to be safe I'd rather open this up to other administrators. I'm not sure how to reach this person, and I'm afraid a block might be necessary.
I have notified both Johnuniq and Gangleader1989 about this discussion. -- Atama頭 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can block an editor for edit warring if there is a consistent low-grade edit war - and this does qualify as one. That said, I think the editor is acting in good faith (though misguided) so I'd suggest a specific warning ('such and such edit is not appropriate and you will be blocked if you do x again' sort of thing) first. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Technically, I'm engaged in the same edit war now, as I've reverted 3 times too (over the course of a week). I'll leave a warning about not engaging in an edit war though it seems a bit hypocritical. With the copyright concerns, though, I can't see how I could not revert. As you said, these look like good faith edits so I can't call it vandalism. I'll definitely leave a warning, and see if anyone else on this noticeboard suggests that I'm being too heavyhanded, then I'll rethink my approach with this editor. Thanks! -- Atama頭 18:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's not their only problem, User talk:Gangleader1989#Image problems. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Getting off-topic, but their edits appear to be introducing text copyvio in other articles too. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, I wouldn't consider that off-topic, I should probably have titled the topic "Gangleader1989" since my concerns are only with that editor, but I thought this topic header was more polite. :) I wasn't aware that the copyright violations extended beyond the one page, since the editor is not only adding information in violation of copyright, but reinserting it after warnings and refusing to communicate, I may take a wait-and-see approach and if they do so again it might be best to indefinitely block them until they show that they understand what is wrong with what they're doing. Unfortunately this editor does use dynamic IPs, so blocking the original account may not actually stop the disruption, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. -- Atama頭 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention they had uploaded some more images but I couldn't seem to find them anywhere but here. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, I wouldn't consider that off-topic, I should probably have titled the topic "Gangleader1989" since my concerns are only with that editor, but I thought this topic header was more polite. :) I wasn't aware that the copyright violations extended beyond the one page, since the editor is not only adding information in violation of copyright, but reinserting it after warnings and refusing to communicate, I may take a wait-and-see approach and if they do so again it might be best to indefinitely block them until they show that they understand what is wrong with what they're doing. Unfortunately this editor does use dynamic IPs, so blocking the original account may not actually stop the disruption, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. -- Atama頭 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Getting off-topic, but their edits appear to be introducing text copyvio in other articles too. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's not their only problem, User talk:Gangleader1989#Image problems. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Another article with the same problem is Padmasri Dr. B.V Raju Institute of Technology. At one time, that article and the Narayana Engineering College article were extremely similar, with similar promotional content and inappropriate external links. I stumbled across the Padmasri article while investigating the Narayana article, and I suspect the two organizations are related (or competitors?). It is likely that Gangleader1989 does not understand how Wikipedia works and imagines that endurance will triumph. I would not think any action is warranted yet (apart from the numerous warnings now added to their talk page). For the record: I removed another copyvio at Magadheera (added by this user). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
POV-pushing, against-consensus edits, edit warring, and failure to engage in discussion by Realwords101
User:Realwords101 has persisted in making edits to Dancehall that contradict sources used in the article, often with the addition of completely bogus citations of sources that in no way back up the changes being made. Of particular concern are this editors contributions to Dancehall, an article about the subgenre of reggae that emerged in the late 1970s, with several changes of the origin of the genre to be the 1950s ([81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]). I and two other editors (User:Spylab and User:Sabrebd) have reverted these changes, and at least 2 of us have asked Realwords101 to discuss this on the talk page. I have also pointed out the need for references to actually back up any changes being made, and that edit-warring is likely to get him blocked. Other edits by Realwords101 include this edit to Deejaying which is just nonsense, and these which claim one of the most notoriously homophobic songs is in fact a protest against child rape, again with a bogus citation that says nothing of the sort.
I am very much of the opinion that Realwords101 started out aiming (with some of his edits at least) to be constructive, but as all attempts over a 4-day period to get him to engage in discussion and follow consensus have failed, I am reluctantly bringing this here to find a solution. I am sure that any attempts to revert his edits on this article will be met with further reversion to his preferred version. I also strongly suspect that User:Rbeharrie is the same person from the pattern of edits. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's been a peculiar request at WP:RPP by requesting 'full control' of the article. The request was their first edit. I'll have a look around, but I think I hear ducks. GedUK 09:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Off-topic incivility at Chopin talk page
Could an admin have a look at the thread here (this diff is my second attempt to delete the thread as off-topic and generally unpleasant; I don't know if it will stand). Did I do right? Is there anything we can do about these people? (I presume many admins will be familiar with them and their unending personal attacks and counterattacks.) Can they be prevented from interacting somehow?--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say that you very much did indeed do the right thing. I'd also like to say that I regret my part in the affair and that I allowed myself to be wound up enough to react, I should not have done so. The idea of Loosmark being prevented from interacting with me is a hugely attractive one but not one I fear which is actually workable, unfortunately. Varsovian (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The topic of discussion was Chopin nationality and as everybody can see my posts were actually about that. On the other hand none of Varsovian's posts were about Chopin, in fact his first comment [93] clearly tries to re-fuel previous arguments from the London Parade article and transfer them to the Chopin article. Not happy with that he started to repeat that I accuse people of racism, something I have not done. I've asked in the past if he has any problems with anything I have done to either fill a report on me or stop defaming but to no avail. Dr. Loosmark 18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- "[your suggestion] can be vied as a bit racist." [94], "[your suggestion] can be viewed as a bit racist" [95], "I will repeat it for the third time: that comment can be viewed as a bit racist. So what are going to do now?"[96] "Dan please, it's well know that you like to provoke Polish editors" [97]. I point these out purely to prevent anybody from thinking that I am actually defaming Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nice manipulation but the diffs Varsovian provides above are not from the Chopin page, they are from a nearly 2 months old (!) discussion about renaming the Kazimierz Pułaski page into Casimir Pulaski where an editor suggested that everybody whois mother language is not English should not vote. I said that can be viewed as a bit racist. That's all that it was to it. As for Dan, he made a weird comparison of Chopin seeing himself as Pole to a person seeing himself as dog. In my opinion that was really bad taste but maybe I have misunderstood him as he later explained it was an analogy from a movie. I don't think at all Dan is racist, he is a nice guy, knowledgeable and in general a good wikipedia editor. Yes, sometimes me and Dan disagree and have discussions but usually wikipedia articles improve as a result so the idea that I think Dan is racist is beyond ridiculous. But I guess nowadays anything goes on wikipedia. Dr. Loosmark 18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- "[your suggestion] can be vied as a bit racist." [94], "[your suggestion] can be viewed as a bit racist" [95], "I will repeat it for the third time: that comment can be viewed as a bit racist. So what are going to do now?"[96] "Dan please, it's well know that you like to provoke Polish editors" [97]. I point these out purely to prevent anybody from thinking that I am actually defaming Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The topic of discussion was Chopin nationality and as everybody can see my posts were actually about that. On the other hand none of Varsovian's posts were about Chopin, in fact his first comment [93] clearly tries to re-fuel previous arguments from the London Parade article and transfer them to the Chopin article. Not happy with that he started to repeat that I accuse people of racism, something I have not done. I've asked in the past if he has any problems with anything I have done to either fill a report on me or stop defaming but to no avail. Dr. Loosmark 18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say that you very much did indeed do the right thing. I'd also like to say that I regret my part in the affair and that I allowed myself to be wound up enough to react, I should not have done so. The idea of Loosmark being prevented from interacting with me is a hugely attractive one but not one I fear which is actually workable, unfortunately. Varsovian (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kotniski, it is not for you to be the judge and jury of what is appropriate on these talk pages. Please immediately replace all of the information you removed and this attempt of yours to censor other people's opinions and statements. You are certainly within your rights to report anything you like and get an evaluation. This removed thread, and I'll agree with you that there is plenty of useless "fluff" interspersed within it, has a lot of good arguments concerning Chopin's heritage. If there is incivility or violations of Wikipedia policy taking place at the thread, the appropriate solution is not airbrushing them away. They are best evaluated where they were written and in their proper context. Again, you should not to take this matter into your own hands and pick and choose what stays on a talk page. You ask, "Did I do right"? No, what you did was not right. Next time ask that question before you unilaterally decide what goes and stays at a talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(od) I would like to point out that this latest round of bickering was fomented with Kotniski's removal of referenced information presented here [98] by User:THD3. This presumably was not done solely because of his dislike of the information, but because ostensibly a consensus had not been achieved concerning the matter. Sometimes consensus is reached easily and courteously, sometimes by what seems like pulling out teeth, or a least the similarity of having a root canal done. My main concern is Kotniski's assumption of some kind of authority giving him the unilateral carte blanche to remove my and other editors thoughts on any given subject. If you have a particular problem with something specifically said. Good, take it to the proper place to be evaluated. This project not dictated by some kind of totalitarian mentality where you can decide how a discussion needs to be conducted. And Kotniski let me remind you the article page and the talk page are two distinct entities with different requirements. If I remember correctly opinions are permitted on the talk pages. If they lead to an improvement of an article that is very good, but if they don't, then they don't. That's the way it goes. Same for the way those opinions are presented. If and when they cross the line, and that behavior his found to be actionable, it should be dealt with. Not with you arbitrarily deleting what you find either objectionable or inappropriate. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- We have policies against incivility and personal attacks. We have guidelines that say what belongs on talk pages. Removal of inappropriate content from talk pages is something that happens quite often, and rightly so (whether it was rightly so on this occasion I leave to the judgement of others). More importantly, what do you suggest can be done to stop the continual personalized squabbling?--Kotniski (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you see any posts by me which you consider to be inappropriate or in breach of any WP policy, please notify me of them by leaving a message on my talkpage. A outside opinion is almost always welcome. Varsovian (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kotniski, you might want to read WP:TPO. You shouldn't touch other editors' comments except in very specific circumstances. Specifically mentioned in the guideline is that you don't remove "messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial." In the future, don't delete messages that you don't like, or you may end up with sanctions against you. The kind of material you can remove are libel, personal details about an editor, copyright violations, personal attacks (which doesn't include any and all incivility), obvious trolling, and vandalism. Sometimes people remove completely off-topic discussions as well, or discussions not related to improving the article (such as asking someone's opinion about the article subject) but use discretion when doing so, it's usually best just to remind the person to not go off-topic. -- Atama頭 21:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you see any posts by me which you consider to be inappropriate or in breach of any WP policy, please notify me of them by leaving a message on my talkpage. A outside opinion is almost always welcome. Varsovian (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Strange/vandalous editing of User:Finger woman
Resolved– Finger woman given finger.I first began noticing Finger woman (talk · contribs) while doing new pages patrol. After encountering her handiwork I took a look at her contrib history, which mostly seems to be childish and/or sneaky vandalism and inserting inappropriate tags. He or she doesn't seem to respond to talk page warnings, but continues to muck about here, so I wanted to bring it to admins' attention. Some examples: adds a "no content" speedy to an article about a TV show, messes with pages in someone's user space, uploads a file tagged as vandalism, creates a hoax article (later speedied). There are other examples This person seems particularly fond of adding speedy tags to legitimate articles. — e. ripley\talk 17:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a simple case of vandalism. She's up to a level 3 from myself. Keeps it up it'll be an indef block soon enough. Canterbury Tail talk 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- All right. Glad someone's watching who's in a position to do something about it. Thanks. — e. ripley\talk 17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I saw this last night. Seems to have started right back up with the same thing today. Counting the numerous deleted contributions, I've had enough. blocking indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- All right. Glad someone's watching who's in a position to do something about it. Thanks. — e. ripley\talk 17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
threat of violence?
I came across (and reverted) this edit. "Death to..." a named person. Anybody want to try reporting that to law enforcement authorities? -- Why Not A Duck 17:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like typical juvenile nonsense. –xenotalk 17:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Xeno...see Zac Brown Band. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably the best thing to keep in mind when considering whether to contact authorities is that the police generally won't do anything if they can't identify the target of the threat; I occasionally report such situations myself, and learned from the police that without a clear target, it may not even be a crime. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Mwhs ban request
Resolved– Account indef blocked by User:Tnxman307I've been dealing with a rather disruptive account.
- The account exists to promote its own organization Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. as an WP:SPA with a WP:COI
- The account acknowledged in an AfD discussion that it won't add links to its organization, yet it repeatedly has [99] in a variety of articles [100](and more)
- The account name violates our user name policy in that it promotes its own group (MWHS = "Mami Wata Healers Society")[101]
- The account is operated as a group account[102] and edits as "we"[103] in violation of our sharing accounts policy.
- In retaliation for removing this organization's links, this account has been attempting to delete its previous edits to one of its articles [104].
- The account has accused Wikipedia of consisting of "racists" and "pedophilias" [sic] [105]
- The account is also likely editing under User:74.229.102.208 See edits [106] and [107]
I propose banning this account. Since I've been the only one (lately) to interact with this account, I thought it appropriate to seek additional opinions. Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- That account can be blocked as a role account and as a promotional username. See WP:UAA and WP:U. Brad 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination), several editors who should seriously know better (Milowent (talk · contribs) and MuZemike (talk · contribs) being the biggest offenders) have been calling the nominator, Biohazard388 (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet and automatically assuming bad faith from the moment the nomination began. Their only bases is that the AfD was Biohazard388's first edit. They have also accused two other SPAs, Rogueslade (talk · contribs) and Mandoman89 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets or meetpuppet without any evidence. This of course has erupted in a war of words between all the involved editors, and despite a warning to Milowent about assuming good faith and not biting the newbies, has shown any indication he will do so.[108] MuZemike has also indicated that he will not assume good faith either.[109] A sockpuppet case was opened and closed clear all three of the SPAs of the sockpuppetry charges[110] and there has been no evidence that any meetpuppetry is taking place. Now with the SPI closed, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), who filed the SPI case,[111] is calling for the AfD to be closed as no consensus even though the discussion has only been going on for two days.[112]
On the other end, I've warned Rogueslade about making personal attacks,[113] which he has since apologized for.[114]
What is needed is an admin to come in and start laying down the law about assumptions of bad faith accusations others of sock/meet puppetry without any evidence and to lay off the personal attacks on other editors. I've already attempted to move some of the comments about other editors to the AfD's talk page earlier, but things are still out of hand. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Even though I know I may be biased, as I am one of the "victims" of these users and this unusual suspect behavior, I must concur with Farix. I am a member on several other wikis, and in one case, an administrator. This is my first time attempting the "Big leagues" of Wikipedia.org, and I have been VERY surprised at the seeming amount of conspiracy-jockying that MuZemike and Milowent have brought to the table. They seem to assume Bad Faith, and have not slowed down since the beginning. Milowent has recently started to contribute to the discussion on the aforementioned AfD. This behavior has cause the discussion on the AfD in question to become somewhat diluted. Much of the discussion (contributed by these users) has seemed to be in attempt to draw attention away from the articles AfD, or at least to hinder the discussion. If possible, it would be nice to see an Admin clean up the AfD so that discussion can continue smoothly and on track.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Also, when the sockpuppet case WAS opened, the users seemingly protected the page, which did not allow the accused parties to add their defensive arguments and comments. This may be the norm, but not as far as I know. This seems to point to more Bad Faith. It might be nothing, but thought I'd add the idea for consideration.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Come on people. Yes I was suspicious (and am still though without evidence, but I shall hold my personal opinions henceforth), but you are making a mountain out of a molehill. However, I pledge to cease and desist the use of any insinuations humorous or otherwise any further in that AfD. Boba Phat will have to fend for himself. Biohazard388 et al, I apologize for any offense I have caused, I suggest you do not became a regular editor on Encyclopedia Dramatica or whatever its called.--Milowent (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Accusing a nominator and several persons in an AFD of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, even after they have been conclusively demonstrated to be innocent of these charges, is poisoning the well. Nor did it even cross my mind that you were attempting to merely be "humorous." I think your initial suspicions were well-founded, certainly, but don't poison an AfD with these accusations, and know to drop them once they've been shown to be unfounded. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Milowent, I graciously accept your apologize. Please make sure to note that I had mentioned your coming around in a previous post here in this section. I agree that things seem to be going more smoothly since the Sockpuppet case ended. However, I must also agree that Admin intervention to clean up the AfD would be a good idea. I agree with both Farix and Ginsengbomb that the discussion has been harmed by several users. The discussion has suffered so far, due in part to users continuing discussion where it maybe shouldn't have been. An official cleanup from the staff would be a much appreciated effort, as far as I'm concerned. I'm completely on the side of being fair to the article's creator and the community at large. I'd like to see the discussion cleaned up and focused so that a clear consensus can be reached.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
In their defense Bio, we did suspect something weird when you came and immediately nominated something for deletion. Although it is an odd first edit, there has been a sockpuppeter who has done exactly that. If you had mentioned that you are an admin on another Wikipedia, I'm sure we would have supported you. The page was protected because there was an attack by another user there and no one removed it because they didn't want to risk another attack. Personally, I was rooting for more socks to be bagged, and the checkuser actually changed the sockmaster of some of them to another user. All is well now and I'm sorry if we ever hurt you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Biohazard388 did not say he was an admin on another "Wikipedia", but on another "wiki", a generic term for any site which uses wiki software. If he's an admin on another Wikipedia, I'd suggest he should say what it is, because it's certainly not under this name, which is active only on en.wikipedia. [115]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Kevin, I completely understand where you are coming from. I realize the situation seemed fishy at the time, and probably would have taken similar action. However, the discussion should have been kept consolidated at the Sockpuppet case's page, instead of overflowing into the AfD page. It also should have ended when the case was closed. Instead, it continued most thoroughly. As an example,MuZemike posted this post-sockpuppet case on the AfD discussion page: "Speedy keep – This is a clear bad-faith nomination by User:Biohazard388. If this isn't sock puppetry by those involved in the SPI, then this is clear meatpuppetry orchestrated by someone on the outside who is recruiting someone to propose deletion on Star Wars-related material on the behalf of Dalejenkins. –MuZemike {timestamp removed to prevent confusion}" This comment can be found on the aforementioned AfD. This is why I feel an admin should clear the page up a bit and try and make sure that the conspiracy theories end so discussion can continue unhindered. I don't have any harsh feelings towards anyone. I just want to make sure that the policies are followed and that we can have a concise discussion in the appropriate section.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment – The SPI page was protected due to persistent vandalism by socks of GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) who was recently causing massive SPI disruption.
I have nothing else to say about this matter other than that I still reserve my suspicions as stated;nobody learns how to set up an AFD flawlessly upon their very first edits. –MuZemike 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)- Comment: The reasoning behind the SPI lock makes sense. Concerning the AFD suspicions, I'd like to make it a point to say again, that I am a member of other Wikimedia projects and am fluent in Wiki coding. I also am able to venture forth on the site and find articles such as Articles for Deletion which makes the process quite easy to understand. Wikipedia editing is not just for the advanced and experienced users. It is also there for the daring one's that take it upon themselves to begin working on the site and are willing to read a "how to" article. Don't assume every "newbie" is a "noob". That is why we have rules such as Assume Good Faith.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. There's AGF, and then there's not not making AGF into a suicide pact. That being said, I'm not infallible, and perhaps I have erred and was a bit biased since I thought I was so convinced since there were socks of this user up to two weeks ago who were still trying to nominate Star Wars-related stuff for deletion. Perhaps you came on at the wrong place at the wrong time, but that couldn't be helped. I'll just drop this right here and carry on. –MuZemike 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Thank you for your understanding, MuZemike. Would you be "for" having an admin come in and clean up the AfD so that we can proceed in discussing it thoroughly?Biohazard388 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Go ahead and have said admin hack away. I consider myself recused from the remainder of the deletion discussio here. –MuZemike 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Thank you for your understanding, MuZemike. Would you be "for" having an admin come in and clean up the AfD so that we can proceed in discussing it thoroughly?Biohazard388 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment above stricken as there's a little more background, now. –MuZemike 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. There's AGF, and then there's not not making AGF into a suicide pact. That being said, I'm not infallible, and perhaps I have erred and was a bit biased since I thought I was so convinced since there were socks of this user up to two weeks ago who were still trying to nominate Star Wars-related stuff for deletion. Perhaps you came on at the wrong place at the wrong time, but that couldn't be helped. I'll just drop this right here and carry on. –MuZemike 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The reasoning behind the SPI lock makes sense. Concerning the AFD suspicions, I'd like to make it a point to say again, that I am a member of other Wikimedia projects and am fluent in Wiki coding. I also am able to venture forth on the site and find articles such as Articles for Deletion which makes the process quite easy to understand. Wikipedia editing is not just for the advanced and experienced users. It is also there for the daring one's that take it upon themselves to begin working on the site and are willing to read a "how to" article. Don't assume every "newbie" is a "noob". That is why we have rules such as Assume Good Faith.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It's good to see that both editors have now appologize. However, I think it is imperative that they strike all sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry accusations as well as bad faith assumptions from their AfD comments. —Farix (t | c) 02:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Can I get some help with this article please? Some IP (who also seems to be User:Cillyness) keeps inserting false information. The information they are inserting goes against well documented information from JFK's funeral. I have left them messages but they don't respond. - Josette (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The part about Sardar appears to be true, if the History Channel site is correct; however, the editor copied-and-pasted from that article, which is not allowed, so I removed the paragraph. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sardar was a horse given to Jackie but he was not used in the funeral of JFK. That was a different horse named Black Jack [116]. It is all pretty clear if anyone wants to spend the time researching this. Thanks. - Josette (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- So the HIstory Channel got it wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sardar was a horse given to Jackie but he was not used in the funeral of JFK. That was a different horse named Black Jack [116]. It is all pretty clear if anyone wants to spend the time researching this. Thanks. - Josette (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sigh..., User:Cillyness is back again with the same copyright vios and false information. - Josette (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked for 12 hours and warned not to insert copyvio. ObDisclose: Josette informed me of this matter offWiki. Since no other admin (Thanks, Bugs, for your help) seems to have taken an interest, I figured I better in the interest of domestic tranquility, but it seemed pretty open and shut to me. I take no position on the content dispute except to note that I apparently paid for a LD call to the JFK library to validate that the History Channel indeed has it all wrong... the US Army site tells a different story. But that's not my concern. :) ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Zlykinskyja's actions on Murder of Meredith Kercher
Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is quite clearly an spa account, with whom I seem unable to have a calm and productive discussion. She apparently always starts assuming that those who do not agree with her are trying to censor her, or they are vandals who want to defame Knox and Sollecito. I would kindly ask you to read her latest edits, especially those here.
Here, by the way, you can see a sample of personal attacks and threats: edit summary, [117], [118], threat?, edit summary, edit summary, [119], threat, [120], edit summary, [121], [122], [123], edit summary, edit summary, [124], [125], [126], [127].
Could you please do something? We had a go at informal mediation, but she called it off, after being the one who had filed the request for it. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Salvio. I've tried (unsuccesfully) to explain our policies to the user but their view is quite clearly that "their" information must be included in the article regardless. Their view appears to be that mediation is fine as long as it reaches the same conclusion as them, and when it didn't, they said "fine, mediate with yourself". The article is already a horrible sprawling mess and the main issue is this user, for whom "NPOV" appears to equal "my POV". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Additional comment: I had not yet seen this edit... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, for goodness' sake - I hadn't seen that either. I'm not suggesting that's an NLT issue, but the language clearly indicates someone who's not here to edit collegially. I think we'd have to be looking at some sort of article restriction here? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Additional comment: I had not yet seen this edit... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Salvio please stop with this harassment by you and your cohorts (including Black Kite) of repeatedly filing complaints and making personal attacks against me. The bullying going on with this article is simply ridiculous. I have repeatedly raised the issue with the bullying on this article and it just gets ignored, unless it is directed at the pro-guilt side of the case. If the insults and bullying are directed at the non-pro-guilt side of the case it gets ignored. This harassment effort is clearly intended to drive me, the sole remaining non-pro-guilt editor, off of the article, along with these efforts to delete much of my work.
As for the issue with the mediator, I felt uncomfortable with his position that all statements by lawyers are untrustworthy and should not be included in the article. I felt that showed a bias against allowing the views of the lawyers into the article, which would interfere with the inclusion of the views of the defense attornies. That is a perfectly legitimate concern of mediator bias. So I decided that I did not want to use him as the mediator, but I was reconsidering that. In the meantime, I have been hit with all kinds of insults and personal attacks just because I said did not want to proceed with him as the mediator. Because the administrators on here have NOT helped at all, and the mediator did not seem unbiased, I have felt that my only recourse is to contact someone higher up at the Wikipedia Foundation. That is not my first choice, but SOMEONE has to help with these BLP and NPOV issues that could result in defamation against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
At the same time there is a focus on deleting my hard work on this article. The pro-guilt editors keep removing, reverting, deleting my work, as the sole remaining person on the other side. The other editor who was on my side apparently gave up on the article today, feeling completely defeated and driven out. I don't have time now to post diffs or further discussion, but can do so tomorrow.
This follows the recent incident where I was called a "cunt" and other foul language was used and nothing was done against that person. Also someone recently posted a false "BREAKING NEWS" report that Amanda Knox, the defendant they keep trying to paint in a bad light, committed suicide. That false report was left as a "breaking news" headline at the top of the article for two hours and no one did anything about it. The information spread to the Newsweek site, as well as Zimbio and other places on the Internet. Nothing was done to the person who posted the false report. Then the other non-pro-guilt person posted a minor joking remark and was blocked for a day. He is so discouraged he probably will not be back. So it is just me left as the sole person raising the issues of BLP and NPOV seeking to have the defense views included, and not just the pro-guilt/prosecution views. But I would say that facing all this deletion of my work as the sole remaining person on the other side of the case is an impossible situation. There needs to be an administrator who will please stop the bullying and one sided-deletions going on with this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Black Kite is NOT an impartial observer. He posts WITH the pro-guilt editors against me, so having me blocked or banned would help his cause. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think that sums the problems up well, though not in the way the user probably intended. They admit to pushing a particular POV "non-pro-guilt editor" and sums up anyone who disagrees with them as a "pro-guilt" editor, despite the fact that (as the talkpage and article history shows clearly) that those editors are merely trying to ensure that the article conforms to our policies. Incidentally, I have edited the article precisely once (to fix a factual error), and I am categorised as having a POV. So the question is, in which direction do we go? Dispute resolution is clearly going to be useless here, so we are left with article enforcement or WP:RFC/U. Thoughts? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Black Kite, you have made your bias clear on the Talk page, including posting a personal attack against me, which I had to ask another administrator to have you remove. You would just love to eliminate the only editor left on the other side. But that is just so unfair and detrimental to Wikipedia to allow harassment against a minority view editor to remove that contrary view from the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Saying that you were unable to be neutral on this article was hardly a personal attack (especially as it's clearly true, as you're proving here). Nevertheless, far better than "eliminating" an editor here would be for that editor to at least attempt to work collegially with everyone else. However, you are so adamant that everything you put into the article is necessary, correct and needs to stay, and most things that other editors do is wrong, that it is impossible to do so at the moment. The article would improve far quicker with reasonable input from all interested editors. At the moment you are preventing that from happening by attempting to argue against everything that is being suggested, even when it has consensus from many editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Black Kite, you have made your bias clear on the Talk page, including posting a personal attack against me, which I had to ask another administrator to have you remove. You would just love to eliminate the only editor left on the other side. But that is just so unfair and detrimental to Wikipedia to allow harassment against a minority view editor to remove that contrary view from the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, that isn't what you said. The administator asked you to remove the language where you said words to the effect: you are so emotional you are incapable of NPOV editing, along with other personal remarks directed at me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- That exactly what I said, and here's the diff - "It also appears clear from your emotive language that you aren't capable of taking a neutral viewpoint on this issue". Not a personal attack; I removed it only because it wasn't helpful. There weren't any other "personal remarks". Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, that isn't what you said. The administator asked you to remove the language where you said words to the effect: you are so emotional you are incapable of NPOV editing, along with other personal remarks directed at me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
To deny there are two camps on this article, and have been for a long while, is ridiculous. There are editors who consistently edit in a manner tending to paint Amanda Knox and Raffaele as guilty of sexual assault and murder and delete anything that does not agree with that view. I have tried to include the minority view that they might be innocent, as they claim, but I am vastly outnumbered. Now, you try to eliminate me entirely. Now, once you succeed in harassing me off the article or getting me banned, the hundreds of hours I have put into this article in research and writing will all be deleted. That is the goal. And that is so unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is pretty hard to be collegial when you are constantly harassed, insulted, attacked, sworn at, and these endless attempts by Salvio and crew to get me banned from the article. Yes, I am upset but how would you like being treated like this, and being all alone as the sole remaining minority editor. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- As for the mediation, to put me up on charges over objecting to mediator bias is utterly ridiculous. The proposed informal mediator (who had no prior experience mediating) made repeated statements that lawyers are untrustworthy, that they do not tell the truth, that they are not truthful even when they express their opinions, so the views and opinions of the lawyers should not be included in the article. This injected a major stumbling block to including the defense side of the story, since the defense view could only come through the lawyers for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I felt that the position taken by the mediator was extreme, since there is no rule at Wikipedia saying that lawyers are so untrustworthy or dishonest that their opinions cannot be included in the article. I felt that this was a bias that would interfere with NPOV, so I did not want to start mediation with him in a few days as scheduled. However, he asked me to reconsider and think it over and I was doing that. These statements by Salvio and Black Kite implying or suggesting that mediation was tried and failed are false. The mediation had not yet started. It was expressly agreed that it would not start till April 30. So, I had to give notice prior to that day if I did not want to go forward. Furthermore, this informal mediator had never done mediation before, so I only provisionally agreed to try him out with the understanding that nothing would officially start till April 30. Given his extreme views on lawyers, and the importance of the views of the defense lawyers in the article, he did not seem the best choice to me as a mediator, but I was reconsidering. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- You propose mediation, put it on hold, and then pull out, even though the mediator you balked at suggested a replacement mediator. Not very reasonable. You insist that all your edits stick and none of your wording be edited, in violation of WP:OWN. Not very reasonable. You extensively use non-English primary sources and you insist on including too much information, turning what should be a summary article of the information available in reliable secondary sources into an impenetrable blow-by-blow account. Every comment you leave on talk pages and noticeboards is a wall of text arguing that you are being persecuted and bullied, while providing scant support for this claim. Please stop this pattern. You cannot use Wikipedia to 'right great wrongs' - we are not investigative reporters and Wikipedia has no opinion. Your advocacy for Amanda Knox is appropriate for a blog or website, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. Continuing to disrupt the editing of this article in this manner will end with you being blocked. You can avoid this by altering how you approach editing. Please take the advice I give to any single-purpose editor: edit articles on something totally unrelated for a while, to get a break and to better learn what it is to be a Wikipedian rather than an activist. Fences&Windows 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- [ The main source is not a primary source; see subtopic below: #Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case. -Wikid77 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ]
- You propose mediation, put it on hold, and then pull out, even though the mediator you balked at suggested a replacement mediator. Not very reasonable. You insist that all your edits stick and none of your wording be edited, in violation of WP:OWN. Not very reasonable. You extensively use non-English primary sources and you insist on including too much information, turning what should be a summary article of the information available in reliable secondary sources into an impenetrable blow-by-blow account. Every comment you leave on talk pages and noticeboards is a wall of text arguing that you are being persecuted and bullied, while providing scant support for this claim. Please stop this pattern. You cannot use Wikipedia to 'right great wrongs' - we are not investigative reporters and Wikipedia has no opinion. Your advocacy for Amanda Knox is appropriate for a blog or website, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. Continuing to disrupt the editing of this article in this manner will end with you being blocked. You can avoid this by altering how you approach editing. Please take the advice I give to any single-purpose editor: edit articles on something totally unrelated for a while, to get a break and to better learn what it is to be a Wikipedian rather than an activist. Fences&Windows 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have asked for help and you attack me like this, including many false accusations. When have I ever used non-English sources, maybe one or two out of hundreds of sources that I have added? You accuse me of making up the claim that I am being treated badly, without even knowing the facts? You suggest that I refused a substitute mediator unreasonably, when I stated that I was reconsidering the first person? You say that I unreasonably refuse to allow my work to be edited, when many hundreds of my edits have been removed, likely more than any other editor on that article has ever been subjected to. Yet there is no help for me, only blame. Over and over I have asked for help and it is ignored. I guess the only real recourse left is indeed as I thought. I will write to the Wikipedia Foundation about how this is being handled. I will set the whole thing out in detail for them to look at, and maybe then I can get some help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you honestly where reconsidering the first person (Hipocrite), what exactly held you up to do so?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was very busy but trying to watch his edits. I saw that he defended me from a personal attack---the first person on this site ever to do that. I also saw that he wrote that he intended to demonstrate through his handling of issues that he and I really did not have major differences in views and that he in fact agreed with me on many things and we could work together well. So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind. But there has to be help somewhere, someone has to help with this distressing situation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- "I saw that he defended me from a personal attack"
- "So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind."
- And what changed your mind (since you stated "I was reconsidering the first person.")? What exactly did he say or do after you withdrew from mediation that led you to dismiss your reconsideration?
I.m.o., Zlykinskyja should take things less seriously. It is well known that Wikipedia is not so reliable when it comes to controversial non-scientific topics. So, spending a lot of much energy to make these types of articles better can be a complete waste of time. Let me give a typical example of this. Consider the case of Barry George. He was convicted for the murder of Jill Dando, but this conviction was later overturned. Now, all the relevant facts of this case that are known today were in the public domain many years ago.It was a BBC documentary a long time ago that brought to light the facts that proved that the conviction was unsafe. The BBC handed the information they had over to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commisions and Barry was eventually acquitted. Now, if you look back at the editing history of the Barry George article, you see that you always have an article that is very biased toward the prosecution POV, right until the moment a court actually makes a ruling in favor of the defense position, even though those rulings were pure formalities.
Had the editors been better at writing a truly NPOV article, they could have written the article as it is now way back in 2006 when the BBC had made the documentary (except for the fact that Barry would still be in prison, of course). What you see instead is that while the evidence from the BBC documentary is edited in the article at the time, some time later other editors edit in some of the by then completely irrelevant arguments in favor of the prosecution. So, you get a "false neutrality" effect that is hard for any single editor to correct. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing a little soothing comfort. I can use some. I will check out the article you suggest tomorrow. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why has no one pointed Zlykinskyja to the No Legal Threat policy, and blocked her? Woogee (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Because Zlykinskyja's explanations of the actions are not actually legal threats, but rather issues of policies such as WP:Wikihounding, or keeping the article neutral, per WP:NPOV. The basic intent was to establish some article-specific guidelines, as to how the suspects would be labeled (hint: not as "the 3 killers"), and include the Italian legal status that Knox/Sollecito are not jailed for the verdict (while on appeal still "presumed innocent") but perhaps as flight risks or such. Those would be "rules of procedure" for editing the article, as a more advanced issue than just following the British English spellings. Perhaps an attorney at the Wikimedia Foundation could help establish a policy that allows editors to set warnings, linked to an article tag-box, as to which "hot-button" phrases would be designated from exclusion in an article. I think it would be great to get some direct input, from Wikimedia, as to what wording to follow (or are the policies sufficient). For example, excluding the term "gang rapists" for 3 people not even proven to have met together previously. Such a list of ground rules would be documented, so that other editors, coming to an article, would get a summary of do-and-don't actions that apply. Perhaps this might become a common practice as subpage "/rules" for each affected article "Talk:ArticleX/rules". Please don't think that anyone is intending to sue Wikipedia, but just help to improve the rules about neutral wording. Does that seem clear? -Wikid77 06:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
collapse as off topic The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case
29-Apr-2010: The incident above has claimed excessive use of "non-English primary sources". However, this is a reminder that the huge Italian text, used as a reference for the Micheli Judgment, is a secondary source as merely a summary (though huge), at website www.Penale.it, of the Judge Paolo Micheli's court document, for the first trial. Several editors have mistakenly thought it was a primary source, because it is so large and contains many details from the original text. By extensively quoting from that one source, the article text avoids WP:SYNTH issues, because it includes both testimonies and forensic evidence, combined with the judge's conclusions (not WP:OR original research). The reference has been listed, in the article, as:
- "Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English) Translate.google.com, Italian webpage: Penale.it. Retrieved 2009-12-11.
In fact, I think that document provides the only clear explanation of the Kercher murder, concluded at trial: the first suspect, at trial, claimed that he did not stab Kercher, but rather emerged from a bathroom, crossed the house, and scuffled with the knifer. But he claimed that Kercher was near death, so he fled, leaving her bleeding, fully clothed, with the duvet bedspread and pillow on the bed. Forensic evidence (in same report) indicated that his blood palm print and Nike basketball shoe-prints where on that same pillow beneath the undressed body, while his DNA in large amounts was found on the removed bra (Italian: reggiseno) and severed bra strap found near the body. The report noted, in Italian, the suspect's claims versus the evidence: "senza tuttavia spiegare come mai una sua impronta si trovasse proprio sul cuscino sotto il cadavere, quando egli ricordava il cuscino regolarmente sopra il letto,..." ("without explaining why his footprint is just under the corpse on the pillow, when he remembered the regular pillow on the bed"). The crime was considered to be a stabbing, followed some time later (blood spots had dried), by returning and undressing the body, and moving it onto the bed pillow on the floor (with his blood palm print & shoe-prints there). The shoe package was found at the suspect's residence, and he admitted to wearing those shoes ("Nike Outbreak 2, size 11" - Italian: misura 11 ) during the murder. No other source (in English) has provided that level of detail to explain the pillow and shoes in the murder, which occurred, and was tried in Perugia, Italy. Hence, the use of that source written in Italian.
In that gigantic summary document, many sections have been abridged by indicating ellipsis by 2-dot marks "(..)" in many portions of the text. Some of the omitted details are forensic measurements that pinpoint items in a room. The copyright (at bottom) is:
- © 2006 Copyright Penale.it - SLM - Nyberg Srl 1999-2006
Tutti i diritti riservati (English: All rights reserved)
- © 2006 Copyright Penale.it - SLM - Nyberg Srl 1999-2006
The actual Micheli Judgment "Motivazioni sentenza per Rudy Guede" (the primary source) is not referenced in the article, as one of the many key details not yet included in the text (Note: in Italian titles, typically only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized). Again, the article uses a secondary source (not a primary source) summarizing, on an Italian website, the much larger Micheli Judgment document. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we please concentrate on the issue at hand (namely Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behaviour)? I think we really need someone to step in: take a look at her edits and her edit summaries. It's not a matter of content, it's a matter of uncollegial demeanour. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 09:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not at all appropriate for one of the feuding editor's, a non-administrator, to remove another editor's comments here as Quantpole did, by placing Wikid's comments in a hat. Wikid was responding to the erroneous claim that I had used non-English sources extensively and inappropriately. Only an administrator should remove or enclose an editor's comments on this Board. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- If an administrator believes that Wikid77's comments are relevant to the discussion here they are more than welcome to un-hat. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, looking at the editing page, Salvio has characterized me in his last edit as a "vandal". That could not be more untrue. I have spent hundreds of hours researching and writing and trying to do a good job, despite being subjected to a great deal of harassment while simply trying to participate as a minority editor. I have been attacked over and over, and my work has been deleted amd reverted over and over, even while I was simply in the act of typing my edits into the article. Literally, my very legitimate edits have been deleted as I was typing them! So, there needs to be a consideration of the actions of Salvio and his cohorts towards me, not just a consideration of my very distressed responses to the abuses that have been going on. To say my responses have not been "congenial", while not looking at how I have been treated, is unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Never written anywhere you're a vandal — which I do not think you are —. I used the only template I knew that would show your talk page and your contribs. It does not mean I think you're a vandal.
- My opinion is that you're a POV-pushing, self-righteous WP:SPA, but not a vandal: you honestly believe you're trying to make the article better. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Additional comment. Even the comment of an entirely uninvolved admin inviting her to refactor a comment was seen as biased [131]. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Salvio--you also push your POV that the prosecutor in this case could do no wrong. You allow no negative comments of him or the Italian legal system. You oppose any of my work that shows otherwise. Why is it wrongful POV for me to include doubts about the prosecution's case, but not inappropriate POV for you to oppose any material presenting such doubts? You paint me as a wrongdoer, but you are pushing a POV just as much. There are many questions and doubts about the behavior of the prosecutor presented in the US media. CBS News, 48 Hours TV Program, and others have repeatedly raised the issue that he has relied on a psychic, and has prosecuted over 20 people in the last two years for satanic or Black Mass type activities or efforts to cover that up. He is seriously doubted in the US media. He has been convicted of abuse of office, and has been barred for life from ever holding public office (pending appeal). But my efforts to include the views presented in the US media are opposed. You allow no questioning of his work. You want me silenced. I post as a minority editor, but the information I have tried to include is very much mainstream US media. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, no one should be typing comments in here in out of sequence--a type of refactoring-- and then failing to sign and date the post. That it very unfair because it makes it difficult for me to respond. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion on the article can de found here:
- My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- and
- No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's my only POV as far the article is concerned. I've already stated and iterate that, quite frankly, I do not really care whether or not Amanda Knox is guilty: I'll stick with whatever the Appellate Court will decide, since I think that they're in a better position than us to render a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is important to note that Zlykinskyja previously edited under a different username. I'm not quite sure why they did not get their old account renamed, but I do not think there is any impropriety going on, but it is relevant to see their full history of editing on this article. Please also note User talk:Zlykinskyja, which is full of bad faith characterisations from both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77. I agree with Salvio above in that the two users absolutely think they are the ones upholding NPOV, and cannot see any problems with their behaviour. I have only been involved in this subject for less than a week (after reviewing some images uploaded by Wikid77 that were up for deletion). It is very clear to me from that short time that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 are treating this subject as a battlefield and respond to disagreement with accusations of non-neutrality. Though both users have edited other articles they have effectively become single purpose accounts regarding this issue. As can be seen from the aborted mediation, this issue is not going to be solved through discussion. I suggest that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 be topic banned form this subject. Quantpole (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- If Zlykinskyja = PilgrimRose, they should definitely not be editing this article, as they were previously blocked for a month for edit-warring and sockpuppetry on this very article. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was trying to avoid mentioning their name specifically given what they say on their userpage. I didn't think they were particularly trying to hide the link, given they explain the whole situation on the userpage (without specifically mentioning the other account, but it is obvious that it is the one they are talking about). I don't know the situation regarding any previous blocks so I didn't comment on that. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
User:WhisperToMe Although this user is a hard working and tireless user who has done an abundance of good on wikipedia, it is my understanding from reading the policy on canvassing, that This post violates the votestaking portion of the policy. This is the second time that WhisperToMe has violated this policy. It seems that it is done to sway consensus, and therefore is disruptive.
I saw no other place but here to post this complaint. If there is a better page, please direct it there please.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't look like a violation of WP:CANVASS to me. He sent a fairly neutral message to a single editor that has an interest in the topic. The other one was an open message (to no particular editor) to members of a project.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that.....and I don't see where this violates it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would it help to know that these were not just random postings, but were selected by WhisperToMe, because he knew that these other users already agree with him on this topic?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- You provided 2 diffs. I looked at them and I don't see it. Posting to the projects talk page is hardly canvassing. And asking a single editor for assistance in explaining something doesn't seem very sinister. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- How is he 'votestacking'? Such content decisions are not votes. Talking to two other editors in the space of a month hardly constitutes a grand violation of WP:CANVASS that might require some admin intervention. What is this dispute even about, where is it being played out? If you expect others to take action against WhisperToMe you need to explain the situation much better. Fences&Windows 01:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- So let me get this right, just so I can add it to my brain housing group. Its Okay to post on another users talk page, whom you already know agrees with your POV, making them aware of a discussion, in order to sway consensus on that discussion? Is that correct--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#Portals_of_Los_Angeles_and_San_Diego. Although there seems to be 3 in favor of adding the portal and 3 against, the pro side seems to have claimed victory and moved on.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- This looks more like asking for a WP:THIRD opinion in a dispute between editors. There is nothing that violates WP:CANVASS here as the messages are limited in scope, fairly neutral in tone (though the April 28 comment could have been better), and open. Vote stacking does not apply as there is no !vote. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- The term "Votestacking" is confusing, since there doesn't really need to be a vote. (Although a vote is taking place). According to the policy, votestacking is:
- Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.
- Since WTM had a clear idea, that those other editors would side with him in this debate, leaving them messages, in order to sway favor, is disruptive. Remember, that canvassing is disruptive when they are done as:
- Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret
- Notice the "OR"s. That means that only one of these, violates the policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- The term "Votestacking" is confusing, since there doesn't really need to be a vote. (Although a vote is taking place). According to the policy, votestacking is:
- we see all the "or"'s.......we also understand that just a single one of them doesn't make is canvassing. It is a graduating scale. Would it be too obvious to mention that it's also a guideline (not a policy) that says common sense should apply. I think that's what everyone else here is trying to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Systematic destruction of the Sharia article
Hi,
Help please I'm a newbie.
I reported this incident yesterday outlining my concerns about the edits going on. Decided to try one more time to try to work through this with jayzames. I've also been to arbcom (declined with some level of concern expressed) and editor's advice (no response).
This evening, I noticed that almost the entire contents of "Classic Islamic law" section had been moved. Or deleted, I have no idea. The article has been so shuffled it is hard to say what's in there and what isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia&diff=next&oldid=358785968
This move was accomplished by user:j8079s while user:jayzames was in the process of making a ton of moves.
So a rude jayzames is pouring bias into this religious article, talking, but not compromising on any of his objectionable changes. Promising more changes. And suddenly j8079s pops in and makes a couple of moves interspersed with jayzames (titled move some stuff), lifting almost the entire contents of "Classic Islamic law" super-section out and dispersing it or doing who knows what to it.
This article is under systematic attack. It's going to take a lot of work to clean up this mess.
Can you stop this attack on the Sharia and restore the page? There is a lot of carelesness and systematic bias and this just looks like systematic vandalism to me.
I do not have the ability to stop this attack, I need help.
Thanks Aquib (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, nothing is lost, and I think you're overreacting. If when the dust has settled on this bout of editing people agree that the previous version was better, it can be reverted. I don't think coming to AN/I is the best approach - ask at relevant WikiProject and open a request for comment to get outside opinions. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, so please don't bandy that word around. Fences&Windows 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
OK Thanks Aquib (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Bot tag hacking?
Please see this diff, where a sockpuppet uses a bot tag. I hope there is a way to prevent this.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where are you seeing a bot tag in that diff? I can't see it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's a bot flag alright - you have to have it watchlisted with all recent changes shown. (screenshot) I seem to remember something like this from a couple of years ago, but I haven't the foggiest idea what the cause or resolution was. Maybe you should check WP:bugzilla or ask at WP:VP/T. —DoRD (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the tag? The edit included the string "!!!!!!!!!" which triggered the repeating characters filter. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the entire thread. I'm referring to the bot tag, also known as the b that appears on recent changes, or one's watchlist when a bot makes the edit. It is the same as the N for new pages, or the m for a minor edit, but only bots get the b, which can only be provided by admins. View the screenshot. This sockpuppet obviously found a way to hack the tag on, where it wasn't supposed to be.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Per BEANS perhaps it's best not to be too explicit, but I believe there is a simple addition to a URL to make an edit while marking it as if done by a bot. I have seen a suggestion to use this trick when reverting a vandal with an offensive name (that suggestion was on another Mediawiki wiki). Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have misremembered this. What I had heard is documented as step 3 at m:Vandalbot#Sysop response. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't work. Tried it on my userpage, no b on watchlist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have misremembered this. What I had heard is documented as step 3 at m:Vandalbot#Sysop response. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Per BEANS perhaps it's best not to be too explicit, but I believe there is a simple addition to a URL to make an edit while marking it as if done by a bot. I have seen a suggestion to use this trick when reverting a vandal with an offensive name (that suggestion was on another Mediawiki wiki). Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the entire thread. I'm referring to the bot tag, also known as the b that appears on recent changes, or one's watchlist when a bot makes the edit. It is the same as the N for new pages, or the m for a minor edit, but only bots get the b, which can only be provided by admins. View the screenshot. This sockpuppet obviously found a way to hack the tag on, where it wasn't supposed to be.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the tag? The edit included the string "!!!!!!!!!" which triggered the repeating characters filter. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's a bot flag alright - you have to have it watchlisted with all recent changes shown. (screenshot) I seem to remember something like this from a couple of years ago, but I haven't the foggiest idea what the cause or resolution was. Maybe you should check WP:bugzilla or ask at WP:VP/T. —DoRD (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any bot flag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Angelamuziotti and AfD tampering
Angelamuziotti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account who has been participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zamora (musician). Unfortunately, this user's conduct is out of line. They've been warned and persist in the following behaviours (links are diffs):
- Deleting other users' comments: [132] [133]
- Striking other users' !votes, when it was the only such !vote made by the user on the page: [134] [135]
- Moving other users' comments to other locations in the discussion and distorting the threading: [136] [137] [138]
The user was warned, specifically about the striking of remarks [139], but has persisted in the other behaviours, in spite of the edit summaries when the edits were reverted.
An account by the same name is also involved in a sockpuppet investigation at the Spanish Wikipedia [140]. There was also a sockpuppet investigation on en.wikipedia [141] the last time this article went through AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora), where the conclusion was that sockpuppetry had taken place but had not influenced the AfD.
So, my primary concern is the behaviour of User:Angelamuziotti. Secondarily and related is whether Katydelmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another single-purpose account, is a sockpuppet—although I was waiting on the sockpuppet/checkuser request there to see if the outcome of the AfD was affected. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I will follow the rules- I hope the same thing from the other side.
Angelamuziotti (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- If she weighs the same as a duck, she must be made of wood. And therefore... caknuck ° needs to be running more often 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've just left them a vandal-2 comment for this continued messing around--after they promised here not to do that anymore (if that's what they were saying above). Drmies (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse: is there a CU request? I have no doubt that these two quacking things have identical DNA. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing to hide:
My co-workers have tried to create the article in past ocassions in both es.wiki and en.wiki. Katydelmar works in my office and we share the same Internet connection. Angelamuziotti (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- That is called meatpuppetry and is treated exactly the same way as sockpuppetry. Updated Wikistalk report Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. You can treat us as one entity according to WP:MEAT.Angelamuziotti (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes one entity, allowed one !vote at AfDs, which cannot therefore speak as if with separate voices to create an illusion of consensus. Plus, those who have a conflict of interest in regard to subjects, such as articles about themselves or close associates, need to refer to WP:COI to understand how their editing needs to be limited in regard to those subjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No WP:COI. We don't have any relationship with the subject of the article. However, who assures us that other people who voted "delete" in this AfD (mostly admins) are not the same people, or there is a close relationship (between themselves, or the Wikipedia CEO, or the Arbitration Commitee per WP:ADM), if they all have admin privileges, and admins can change logs and everything as they want?
To summarize: It does not have sense to ask for the result of a poll, to the manufacturer of the voting machine.
Angelamuziotti (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- An administrator can't do any of those things. Also, the assumption that evil admins are tampering with the AFD to try to get your article deleted is quite ridiculous.
- To summarize: You're wrong and you haven't addressed any of the concerns raised in this thread.--Atlan (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it sounds like a joke for you, but I am starting to think that. and more to the point if the article gets deleted- I will take it to another level, because I proved that my article fulfilled WP:MUSIC Angelamuziotti (talk)
He's been warned, if he moves or refactors or strikes another editors remarks at that AFD he should be blocked immediately to prevent further disruption. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
At who are you referring? Angelamuziotti (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
You. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry. I am not going to touch any comment from other people. You have my word. Angelamuziotti (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yet that's exactly what you did right after that comment, [142]. It was probably an edit conflict, so pay more attention to those as well.--Atlan (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. That's right (edit conflict) I will be careful to avoid this in the future. Angelamuziotti (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Cluebat requested at Talk:Jimmy Wales
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved– Our very own scandal, eh? No specific administrative action is currently being requested, so the best place for further discussion is thattaway. jæs (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)A temporary outbreak of insanity [or surrealism] has gripped the diligent encyclopedians at Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Inconsistent_DOB, who revel in the article making directly opposing claims in successive sections about the benevolent dictator's date of birth.
Request a sane administrator who finds the direct contradiction of statements in the article on the founder of the project, which tens of thousands of readers have seen, slightly problematic.
Alternatively, if paraconsistent logic is the order of the day, kindly add to the Earth article after the statement "The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid, a sphere flattened along the axis from pole to pole such that there is a bulge around the equator.", that "The Earth is flat".
Pip-pip, 86.45.174.207 (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think that Jimbo was born outside of time, and just got his dates wrong trying to conceal that. It is to his benefit if we keep everyone confused. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- We have them surrounded in their tanks! 86.45.174.207 (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well it's quite obvious to me what caused the problem, so I have blocked Jimbo until such time as he provides a notarised (or a notarized) birth certificate to every person that has viewed the article. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 06:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- And please make sure that the verification is more than just a Certification of Live Birth. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well it's quite obvious to me what caused the problem, so I have blocked Jimbo until such time as he provides a notarised (or a notarized) birth certificate to every person that has viewed the article. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 06:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- We have them surrounded in their tanks! 86.45.174.207 (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.User:Traimb and issues raised at Template talk:Welfare state sidebar
This User Account User:Traimb was created yesterday. The user appears however to be an experienced user using a new account to shelter his or her other identity or identities.
Although at first glance this template look quite innocent, it soon became apparent to me that the editor could be initiating something more sinister. There are several legitimate ways of linking articles that are already established (wikilinks, See Also list, Categories), all of which are visible to the editing community.
So why the template? Had it been discussed with the editing comunity? It had not! This one seems to have been used to effect undue prominence to doubtful connections via the use of a template. Changes to templates are not visible to the majority of editors unless they also watch the template.
I got involved when the user put the sidebar in the article Universal health care thus prominently linking this concept to socialism via the template contents. This seemed to me to be the user engaging in politics. As far as I am aware most universal health care systems are in capitalist economies and there are some socialist countries such as China that do not have universal health care. The linkage via a template was, I believe, the purpose behind the creation of the template.
Templates have many good purposes, but linking articles to related articles is not one of them. I am aware that they are currently used in this way in some articles but even this is causing me to wonder whether the implications of this have really been thought through. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy on this. I have had a quick look for one but cannot find any.
But the immediate issue is this one editor and this template. I have tried raising the issue at some of the articles where the template was placed and have deleted the template from other articles where it was placed that seem to me to be inappropriate. I may have over reacted in doing this, but the POV implications seemed to me to be of greater concern.
The editor has not discussed the creation of this template with any other editors of articles associated with the Welfare State as would be a normal course of events for a sidebar. I have tried raising the issues I have with the user directly at both his/her talk page and the template talk page. The only response I have had is that more changes are to be expected "this is just the start" (an ominous use of words) and he or she has completly failed to address the issues I have raised and has not discussed this template with any other editors.
Am I just being paranoid or is there a legitimate concern here??
Hi
Hi all, here's the sidebar for everyone to see (if this other individual stops blanking it! :) ). Template:Welfare state sidebar
Welfare related topics are now a fairly large area, and having a template to link some of them seems quite logical. This is the initial creation of the welfare state/welfare topics sidebar, so of course it can be perfected and improved by others, made bigger, smaller, whatever. Thank you. Traimb (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- See also my recent post at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Use of templates to introduce inappropriate associations. This gives more information and raises the particular concern about the use and misuse of presentational links in Wikipedia. I am inclined to leave this issue for discussion here because clearly you are an experienced editor but you have chosen to hide behind a new identity. Why? You have also created a template of the kind typically used collaboratively as part of a development project. But you have consulted no one about this. Why not? And you have used this template to artificially link articles through the medium of the template that are not related. This is inappropriate. I know that your template looks innocent enough on the outside but you do not appear to have edited any of the articles nor consulted editors there. Which leads me to believe that there are other motives at work here. In addition to health care you also include articles on transfer payments and public education which are not really welfare state issues and have biased links to terms like "Nanny State" which are not encyclopedic as regards categorizing content. If you are really determined only to create a quick referencing page for the use of finding related articles, why did you not work with others to create a portal page like portal: socialism with an appropriate portal link? Changes made on the portal page will not transpose into the article page without other editors being aware of it as can happen with templates. The issue is not so much the way it looks now (though there are issues but you have ignored them) as to how it might look later. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hauskalainen. If you didn't like socialism being in there, why didn't you just take that out? It's no big deal. Look, I'll even do it for you, even though it robs socialism of due credit for building welfare institutions. And though publicly funded health care is perhaps the largest aspect of welfare based policies where I'm from (Australia) and other nations in the OECD, I'll take that out too. PS, I have used public education (all my schooling), have been to public health care, and have received government payments (transfer payments - for unemployment & during study) at times during my life. I am most certainly not against welfare. Traimb (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as I suspected, this unresolved issue has inspired Koavf to continue with his disruptive edits on the article which he both prodded for deletion and brought to Afd. The Afd resulted in Keep. But that doesn't seem to impress Koavf, as he is now again continuing to change the type of album from "studio" to "demo". He does not provide any proof and no sources to back up the change. For the second time I am now asking administrators on this board to please take time to thoroughly look into this issue. This is not a content dispute. This is an issue where an editor ignores the facts and ignores community consensus, by continually trying to push forth his own personal opinion about the 2007 album release 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. Koavf's continual editing of the type of album from "studio" to "demo" after the Afd resulted in Keep, is disruptive, and it appears as if he wants to engage me in an edit war. I have brought this issue up on RfC. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any consensus to specifically use "studio" anywhere. In the Afd or the article talk page. Wouldn't the page page have been a better place to bring this first? I don't think you can claim the last report as unresolved either, the afd has finished, as it seems to be it was decided not to be an admin issue, same for this in my eyes. Rehevkor ✉ 12:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)