Aiken drum (talk | contribs) |
Vrubel's Demons (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 659: | Line 659: | ||
Well I support some kind of restriction on User Vexorg, recently it is almost impossible to find an edit of his that has not been reverted, all of his edits are to a single issue and on some articles he is repeatedly labeling organisations as Zioninst when his additions are reverted by multiple editors he repeaterdly inserts them, causing disruption at multiple locations. He reported me as a sockpuppet, there was no evidence at all apart from he thought it was me and the report was closed with a ''looks like bad faith comment'', I would have more expected an apology under such circumstances but after the SPI was closed User Vexorg continued to question if I was the IP. He also posted messages in a canvassing manner at two editors talkpages, Umoni, who is here commenting and another editor. I don't see any sign that there will be any change at all in his editing pattern, without restriction the disruptive pattern will simply continue. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
Well I support some kind of restriction on User Vexorg, recently it is almost impossible to find an edit of his that has not been reverted, all of his edits are to a single issue and on some articles he is repeatedly labeling organisations as Zioninst when his additions are reverted by multiple editors he repeaterdly inserts them, causing disruption at multiple locations. He reported me as a sockpuppet, there was no evidence at all apart from he thought it was me and the report was closed with a ''looks like bad faith comment'', I would have more expected an apology under such circumstances but after the SPI was closed User Vexorg continued to question if I was the IP. He also posted messages in a canvassing manner at two editors talkpages, Umoni, who is here commenting and another editor. I don't see any sign that there will be any change at all in his editing pattern, without restriction the disruptive pattern will simply continue. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
: I concur. In fact this recent comment by Vexorg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vexorg&diff=prev&oldid=354602451] suggests that the Vexorg shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior. A preventive block or ban might be in order, in particular given the extensive block log of this account. [[User:Vrubel's Demons|Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons]] ([[User talk:Vrubel's Demons|talk]]) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:MarinaSapir|MarinaSapir]]'s defamatory edits of [[Nancy Scheper-Hughes]] == |
== [[User:MarinaSapir|MarinaSapir]]'s defamatory edits of [[Nancy Scheper-Hughes]] == |
Revision as of 22:03, 7 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) |
|
Inappropriate Extension of a Mediation
As agreed after an lengthy mediation among conflicting editors working on the Race and Intelligence article, David Kane revised the article. On the talk page of the article, he wrote "There are several other editors involved in this article (DJ, Aprock, Occam, MathSci) who could do a great job with those sections. I hope they will be bold!" I assume that the invitation extend to editors who were not involved in the mediation. This seems quite appropriate and fair to me.
User: Mustihussain was never involved in any edit conflict concerning this article. S/he was therefore not party to the mediation. Following David kane's announcement on the talk page, Mustihussain made a few edits to the article. User: Captain Occam reverted on the grounds that "This article is still under mediation ... if you think your own edits are necessary, you need to bring them up on the mediation page" [1].
I believe this was completely inappropriate. Mustihussain was not part of the mediation. Captain Occam's revert was basically thus based on the objection: I object to your edit because you are not in mediation ith me. Since when has this ever been a justification for a revert? The proper place to discuss improving the article is the article's talk page. In a stroke, Captain Occam is saying that we will no longer use the article's talk page to discuss improvements.
Mustihussain reverted the revert with this explaination: "this article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." She is right. It does say others are wlecome to edit as well. So how can Captain Occam unilaterally decide that Mustihussain is blocked from editing this page? In effect, Captain Occam has issued a page bluck. This seems wholely inappropriate.
But he did it again: [2]. And then User:Mikemikev reverted Mustihussain's edit: [3],.
I think that Captain Occam and Mikemikev should be reprimanded for having tried to bully a new user off the Race and IQ page with th argument that, boils down to "if you are not party to our mediation, you are not allowed to edit the page." The page does not have that level of protection; reverts should NOT be used to create what is in essence a page protection that dosn't exist.
Then, Ludwigs2, the mediator, told Mustuhussain that any proposed edits should be discussed at the mediation talk page.{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=353561143&oldid=353559433]. Here the mediator is abusing his power by basically saying he has authority to decide on any edit made to the article. But this is not a mediator's role! Mediation is meant to resolve conflict among specific editors. Since when does a mediator have the right to force anyone to participate in mediation? I thought participation in mediation is voluntary!! But by requiring Mustihussain to clear edits through him, Ludwigs2 is basically saying Mustihussain has to participate in the mediation. Or, Ludwigs2 is saying that the mediation page now replaces the article talk page, as the page to discuss improvements to the article. But this is wrong. The article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements. The mediation talk page is the place to resolve a specific dispute among editors who agreed to mediation. I think Ludwigs2 should be reprimanded for trying to compel another editor to join th mediation, and using his position as mediator of a specific conflict as a reason to control who can and cannot edit the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, this seems like a clear case of ownership and I notice Captain Occam was previously blocked for edit warring for inappropriate reasons. Someone with more knowledge of the situation and an admin should get involved here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think (given the numerous ANI threads that have been opened about this mediation so far) that there are plenty of administrator eyes on the page. The incident was unfortunate, but is resolved. Mustuhussain was being a bit pushy and not respecting BRD (three or four reverts without discussion), and so I asked him politely (check Slrubenstein's diff above if you doubt my politeness) to bring up his concerns at the mediation page so that we could discuss it. There has been no issue since.
- I suggest to all mediation participants to leave this thread alone unless an uninvolved administrator has a question for them, and to get back to the business of discussing the review notes we have so far, so that we can start making revisions to the page. Your choice, of course, but unless there are serious non-partisan administrative concerns, I don't see anything that needs to be addressed. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mediation is a voluntary process binding only on those who agree to the mediation. As such, the mediator and the participants can certainly invite someone to join the process, but no one, including the mediator, has the right to try to force decisions arrived at through mediation on non-participants. From what I've read in previous threads, it would seem that the task of working with the people who have agreed to mediation is daunting enough that the mediator would want to focus all his or her energy on those people, and not spend time bothering uninvolved editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Can folks please take all these AN/I threads to MedCab's talk page? You'll probably get better advice and sympathy from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you mean this page. Muntuwandi has questioned the procedures there. It's not clear whether he got good advice or sympathy from Ludwigs2. [4] "If you are not contributing to the development of the article, then I will not allow you to disrupt that development with an endless stream of meta-commentary." (later toned down [5]) Mathsci (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- ownership is an issue for administrators to look in to.--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I took this here, and not to Mediation Cabal, for a simple reason: I m not complaining with how Ludwigs2 has managed the mediation. My complaint is how he and others are treating people who are not participating in th mediation. What they are doing amounts to a back-door page protection of the article, when none is called for, or article-blocking a new user, which is not called for. Ludwigs2 is unfair to accuse Mustihussain of edit-warring. It was Captain Occam and Mikemikev who were edit warring. Why? Because they reverted an editor without providing a valid reason, and because thy did not open a discussion on what they considered a bad edit on the article talk page. BR means Bold, Revert, Discuss and the proper place to discuss is on the article talk page. Captain Occam and Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 are refusing to do that. This is an abuse of BRD. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, and this point was raised before and not satisfactorily addressed. This is basically a case of WP:OWN. Is two weeks up yet? Guy (Help!) 10:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
While all of this is dreadfully interesting, it may be worth noting that significant progress is currently being made on improving the article. The lead has been drafted with the input of at least half a dozen editors and edited directly into the article, and is unlikely to be the subject of dispute that it has been in the past. Say what you want about this mediation, it is producing tangible results. --Aryaman (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The mediation process is gradually being wound down and discussion moving to the talk page of the article itself. By introducing directly a possible new lede written from scratch, which Varoon Arya rejigged, an end has hopefully been put to the interminable discussions that have plagued the mediation pages. I'm not sure what that proves. I don't know what will happen with the main body of the article, but hopefully that too will be worked out on the talk page of the article. Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think the fact that you actively rejoined the mediation helped this latest batch of edits go much more smoothly. You are to be commended for actually proposing a text which other editors could comment upon and tweak. We've been stuck in criticising abstractions, as far too few have been willing to stick their necks out in making concrete suggestions, and that helped to break the rhythm sufficiently so that something resembling a normal editing cycle could take place. In my opinion, we can begin to phase out mediation and move discussions over to the talkpage as soon as the open topics wind up. I'd like to request that any admins with axe poised please consider allowing this to happen naturally rather than strictly enforcing an deadline from on high. --Aryaman (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
-> I spoke a little too soon. One user has attempted to WP:OUT me on the mediation pages. Ludwigs2 has condoned another editor saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT about a source by Richard Nisbett that satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. It looks as if Ludwigs2 is encouraging a poisonous editing environment just at the moment that progress is being made. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just for clarity's sake, here are diffs for Mathsci's comments above:
- the editor who tried to 'out' Mathsci here is a problematic SPA - Horse wiz (talk · contribs) - whom I warned myself here for the comment, along with a more protracted discussion on my talk page. He claims that Mathsci has volunteered that information elsewhere, so that it is not outing, but I let the warning stand because it was clearly intended to be a disruptive edit.
- what Mathsci has styled as my 'condoning another editor saying IDONTLIKEIT' refers to my redaction of the portion of this edit where Mathsci claims that user:Bpesta22's opinion carries no weight because Bpesta22's professional standing is somehow insufficient for him to render an opinion - a form of personal attack that is specifically prohibited by the mediation rules. (my redaction is here, along with an archival of an unproductive discussion between Mathsci and David.Kane on the issue.). The edit Mathsci is responding to is this edit.
- --Ludwigs2 06:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is acting more as a hindrance than a help at the moment.. The article is now being edited in mainspace: on several occasions now he has made inappropriate remarks/warnings which show that he is clueless about the way edits are being made at the moment. In the latest incident, Bpesta22 (talk · contribs) has challenged the use of a book written by Richard Nesbitt, a distinguished academic and member of the National Academy of Sciences. Bpesta22 has admitted that he is the real life assistant professor Bryan Pesta teaching in the Business Management School of Cleveland State University. In real life he supports the minoritarian hereditarian view of the article Race and intelligence. He has attempted to use his real life credentials to dismiss a book by Nesbitt, whom he claims is not qualified to comment on the subject. Assertions like this, particularly about such a distinguished academic, run completely contrary to core wikipedia policy. Bpesta22 is a recently arrived and inexperienced editor with a declared WP:COI. Ludwigs2, apparently continuing his crusade against the National Academy of Sciences started on Wikipedia talk:NPOV, has supported Bpesta22's unjustified attack on Richard Nesbitt. This is outlandish behaviour on the part of a mediator. Ludwigs2 seems at present to be stuck in some kind of rut, in which he is trying two or three times a day to pull rank in an entirely unconstructive way on much more established editors like Slrubenstein and myself with no apparent justification.. Constructive editing on the article is occurring nevertheless and in spite of Ludwigs2, who currently just seems to be wasting time and to be encouraging editors to break wikipedia core policies. Ludwigs2 shows no indication that he is concerned with building an encyclopedia. He is exercising WP:OWN on the talk page of mediation and commenting elsewhere on edits to the article which go beyond any remit as mediator. Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
5 more days. I don't think it's intentional, but Ludwigs is using a rather effective strategy ;-)
Has there been no progress? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Icesave referendum edit warring by disruptive user
This user Physchim62 just reverted a move of an article from a name that everyone agreed was not suitable to a name that isn't really endorsed by anyone. He also tanked a Request for move that I did on the article not long ago with personal attacks and incivility, you can see the attacks over on the talkpage. I also want to point out an example of other personal attacks that this user has made against me ANI discussions. I don't think that this can be tolorated any more and considering the request that this user made in his ANI request I request the very same that this user be blocked from editing Wikipedia permanently. Alternativly I asked that he be banned from editing that single article since it seems as if he has anything else than a NPOV going for him when editing it.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started about 5 years ago.
Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is about 3 or 4 weeks old and with an obviously single purpose. For what it's worth. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- 5 years of harrasing new users you say? I may be an SPA and I may only have used this site for some weeks but these name callings and disruptive behavior are inexcusable. Or are you saying that it's perfectly alright that this user destroy my diplomatic request for move with personal attacks and name calling just because he has been around longer than I have?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- The above user is an SPA with a specific political agenda, as his own comments[6] about the referendum in question reveal. He couldn't get his way with the page rename, so he's trying to get his opponents blocked. He's probably also still annoyed at being dragged here 3 weeks ago[7] when his being an SPA was perhaps less obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just so I'm clear on this at Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Requested move Ucucha (talk · contribs) closed the discussion as no consensus on 30 March. Then on 4 April you moved the page anyway. And now you want to complain because it was moved back? Even if everyone agreed the name was not suitable there was no consensus to move it to your preferred name, so don't be disruptive and don't accuse users of 5 years worth of harassment. something lame from CBW 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please be clear on this, View the request for move and view the previous ANI thread and then tell me that this user should not be banned from the article please?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've looked at it and I can see that there is no reason for banning that user from the article. Dispute resolution is thataway, I suggest you use it rather than raising pointless threads here. Black Kite 18:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please be clear on this, View the request for move and view the previous ANI thread and then tell me that this user should not be banned from the article please?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just so I'm clear on this at Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Requested move Ucucha (talk · contribs) closed the discussion as no consensus on 30 March. Then on 4 April you moved the page anyway. And now you want to complain because it was moved back? Even if everyone agreed the name was not suitable there was no consensus to move it to your preferred name, so don't be disruptive and don't accuse users of 5 years worth of harassment. something lame from CBW 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it really I that is being disruptive? Who would want to participate in a move discussion that Physcim62 made so unpleasant with accusations of trolling and criticism of me?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here a month and this is his second outing on the admin noticeboards, plus there are a couple of prior warnings on his talk page about WP:NPA and using racial epithets. The editor is a single-purpose or agenda account. I think some kind of warning might be in order. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The one that should be warned is Physicm62 he has called me a troll, an spa, a pov pusher, a vandal, an escalator and a soapboxer. Talked about non contributions of mine and such. Last thing he did was tank a Diplomatic Request for move that I made for an article with a clearly problematic name. And you're saying that I should be warned for something? I ask that action be taken against the user for disrupting my Request for move request.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Five days after his initial request failed due to no consensus, Viking has again requested a move of the article to the title of his choice. Is 5 days an acceptable waiting period for such a discussion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Seeing as the previous request was Tanked by incivility and personal attacks I should have done so much sooner or removed the editors personal attacks from the discussion since they were highly inapporpriate and harmfull to the discussion.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Um, that's not how its supposed to work and I strong advise you not to do that if you value your editing privileges. Spartaz Humbug! 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- IVP needs to back off from the move discussion on the article's talk page. His or her views are now well-documented, and their continued insertion of them, sometimes in new WP:POINTily titled sub-sections, is in danger of crossing the line from participation to disruption. This editor's attitude brings up the suspicion that he or she will not accept any outcome except the one they desire, and will act in an increasingly disruptive manner if they don't get their way. I hope that is not the case, but the time to start showing it is now. They should stop posting to the discussion cold-turkey unless they have something new and relevant to say, as opposed to more disruptive campaigning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the line between participation and disruption was crossed quite some time ago. IVP's repeated assertions in favour of his preferred title (which still has no consensus in favour) are now disrupting discussion of possible alternatives. Physchim62 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- IVP needs to back off from the move discussion on the article's talk page. His or her views are now well-documented, and their continued insertion of them, sometimes in new WP:POINTily titled sub-sections, is in danger of crossing the line from participation to disruption. This editor's attitude brings up the suspicion that he or she will not accept any outcome except the one they desire, and will act in an increasingly disruptive manner if they don't get their way. I hope that is not the case, but the time to start showing it is now. They should stop posting to the discussion cold-turkey unless they have something new and relevant to say, as opposed to more disruptive campaigning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Um, that's not how its supposed to work and I strong advise you not to do that if you value your editing privileges. Spartaz Humbug! 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Seeing as the previous request was Tanked by incivility and personal attacks I should have done so much sooner or removed the editors personal attacks from the discussion since they were highly inapporpriate and harmfull to the discussion.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
My last few edits to the article have only been to correct obviously incorrect information that other editors are inserting. How that can be considered disruptive is beyond me.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
Anyone for a one month topic ban for Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Guy (Help!) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given that he only has one topic, that might be redundant. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why not a simple block, given that this is an SPA? A topic ban assumes that the user has other useful contributions to make outside of the topic concerned, and there is no evidence of that to date (for whatever reason). Physchim62 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but a topic ban allows us to find out if he's at all interested in becoming a useful editor. While his past history would indeed indicate taht a topic ban is tantamount to a site ban, we should AGF and see what happens. If he screws up, he can always be blocked.
I support a topic ban, incidentally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but a topic ban allows us to find out if he's at all interested in becoming a useful editor. While his past history would indeed indicate taht a topic ban is tantamount to a site ban, we should AGF and see what happens. If he screws up, he can always be blocked.
- Why not a simple block, given that this is an SPA? A topic ban assumes that the user has other useful contributions to make outside of the topic concerned, and there is no evidence of that to date (for whatever reason). Physchim62 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Request to modify my topic ban
On October 23, 2009, the following restriction was placed on me:
"Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks."
I am asking that my topic ban be modified specifically and exclusively so that I may be allowed to make suggestions at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am only asking to be allowed to edit that article's talk page - not the article itself. And I am only asking to be allowed to edit that one particular talk page - not any other talk pages.
I believe that such a modification to my topic ban will give me a chance to prove that I am capable of making constructive suggestions at a talk page for this topic. This would give everyone a chance to see that I have become a better editor in this topic area, without putting any of the articles at risk.
By restricting this proposed modification to the talk page of just one article, it makes it extremely easy for administrators and other editors to keep track of my activities. In addition, if any administrator believes that, during the course of this proposed modification, I have not been a constructive editor, the modification can easily be reversed.
Grundle2600 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well written and reasoned request. I ordinarily think such trials are a good idea, but having read the discussion leading to the ban, I'm hesitant. I'd like to hear from others.--Chaser (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Grundle, your comments in this[8] thread, from just three days ago, make it clear that you still don't understand the reasons for your topic bans. As long as you think you're in trouble because you're being "censored by liberals", I don't think you'll ever be able to contribute to political articles or talk pages. Sorry. PhGustaf (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just want to be able to suggest things for inclusion, for one article, as a test case. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Grundle, your comments in this[8] thread, from just three days ago, make it clear that you still don't understand the reasons for your topic bans. As long as you think you're in trouble because you're being "censored by liberals", I don't think you'll ever be able to contribute to political articles or talk pages. Sorry. PhGustaf (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- If such a modification was to take place, I would be very reluctant to let the "test" page be such a controversial one. Black Kite 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I chose that one precisely because it is current, controversial, and very much within the subject of my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm almost tempted to say that in the goodwill and spirit of Zombie Jesus Day, sure, why the hell not? The problem though is that the proposal is bit flawed, logic-wise. You're asking for a trial run to edit the talk-page, and if you aren't disruptive during the trial period then that is proof that the editing restrictions should be removed? argumentum ad ignorantiam to a T, IMO, so I dunno... Tarc (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I thinking of doing it more gradually. If this request was accepted and I did well, then after some time, I would ask to be allowed to post on the talk pages of a few more political articles. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to post on the talk pages of all political articles. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to edit one political article. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to edit a few political articles. And finally, if I do well on all of that, I would eventually ask for my entire topic ban to be lifted. I was thinking the entire process could take six months or a year. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say no. The diff provided by PhGustaf shows you don't understand why you're topic banned, and the article you've picked is far too controversial. You've said you see it as a gradual thing - so why pick the hottest topic in the American media at the moment as a starting point? Ironholds (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose modification request. We as a community imposed the restriction indefinitely so that it stays in place for as long as it takes to sink in - it clearly still hasn't, even as of 4 days ago ("No one ever showed any diffs to justify banning me from talk pages. I halve always been civil and polite on talk pages"). PhGustaf's link to the April 1 2010 discussion reveals more than a severe lack of clue in vandalising an article. It demonstrates that Grundle2600's tendentious conduct that led to the topic ban has not changed (he refused to get the point when repeatedly told by Theresa Knott that the discussion was not about his topic ban), and then Grundle2600 made was the following comment which makes things quite clear: "The real reason for these bans and blocks is to censor the articles in question from my additions of well sourced, relevant content that is critical of the subjects. Everyone who favors banning and blocking me is on the political left, and wants to prevent me from adding relevant, well sourced information that is critical of politicians on the political left. That's why none of the people who favor my indefinite topic ban have ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions." We cannot suitably manage talk page disruption short of a ban, while an undue amount of time and effort would be needed to supervise him (which will not be productive) - Wikipedia is NOT therapy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per [9]. My minimum standard for these things is a three month drama-free period. Not even close with this one. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
A user named “Grundle”? Say ‘tain′t so! ―AoV² 10:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- As I explain on my userpage, it's a video game reference. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Quite strongly. First of all it's worth pointing out that Grundle again referred to his notorious "7 questions." Whilst he was indefinitely blocked (for the second time) back in December he agreed (see bottom of his post) to refrain from asking or referring to these questions again (this had been proposed on ANI, with the suggestion that if he did bring up the questions he would promptly be re-blocked). As far as I know no one has said, "Okay Grundle, it's okay for you to bring up those 7 questions about the Obama articles again." Technically he should probably be blocked for a lengthy period of time for even referring to them. Part of the problem here is that there have been so many restrictions, agreements, and unblocking with conditions of Grundle that people cannot keep track of them all, and while it may be a bit of WP:ABF on my part I think Grundle uses the passing of time to his advantage—only people who have been paying attention to this for a long time realize how long the disruption has gone on and how much time it has wasted. To this specific proposal to allow editing on one talk page, I am quite opposed. When Grundle was first topic banned from certain articles (implemented by User:Thatcher) he was allowed to post to article talk pages. The disruption did not stop. Grundle essentially took over (I know he contests this, but it's what happened) entire talk pages relating to Obama, posting dozens of suggestions (most of which were completely inappropriate/POV) which numerous editors wasted their time responding to. He even created sub sections of talk pages just for his suggestions, and article work largely ground to a halt. As far as I know this problem was never "fixed", and as such Grundle should never be allowed anywhere near political topics, be it in article or talk page space. It's been almost a year now (literally, I believe I first warned Grundle about his editing on 4/21/09) that this editor has been wasting our time with this nonsense, and the mistake we made was lifting the indefinite blocks placed back in November and December. This is an editor who has said repeatedly [10] [11] that everyone should get to add whatever bias they want to articles (as far as I know he has never rescinded this argument), suggesting that it will all come out of well in the end. It's a collective failure on our part that Grundle is still allowed to edit at all, and our inability to simply show editors like him the door wastes an extraordinary amount of time and community resources. Note that I am not one to lightly advocate what amounts to a ban of an editor (indeed I very, very rarely do so), but I've been watching/trying to forestall this train wreck for 12 months now and got completely sick of it at least 6 months ago. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa! Bigtimepeace, you're claim that I "took over" Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is false. I never prevented anyone else from posting there. As further proof that I never "took over" the talk page, since I was topic banned from political talk pages more than five months ago, there have been almost no posts at all at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Surely, if it really had been my fault that other people weren't posting there, then once I was banned from the talk page, more people would have posted there. But actually, since I was banned from the talk page, the number of posts on that talk page has approached zero. Hardly anything at all has been said there. Therefore, your claim that I "took over" the talk page is false.
- Your claim that it's because of me that "article work largely ground to a halt" is also false. I never, ever erased any well sourced material that anyone added to the page. I never, ever prevented anyone from adding anything to the article. Therefore, I never caused "article work largely ground to a halt." Furthermore, during the more than five months since I have been banned from the article, hardly any new info has been added to the article. How do you explain that?
- How do you explain that during the more than five months that I have been banned, hardly any new discussion has taken place at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and hardly any new info has been added to Presidency of Barack Obama? How can you blame me for this, when I haven't edited either of those pages in over five months? How can it possibly be my fault that hardly any changes have been made to that article or talk page in over five months, when I haven't made any edits there at all?
- How can you blame me for other people's lack of editing an article and talk page, when I have not edited them for over five months?
- What exactly have I done during the past five months to prevent other editors from editing that article and talk page?
- And even when I was allowed to edit those things, how did I ever prevent anyone else from adding content? I didn't. I never, ever erased any well sourced info that anyone added. And I never, ever erased anything from the talk page. So you accusations against me are false.
- Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but the above statements concern me. Comments such as "censored by liberals" show that you're still not quite to the point where even a test case, let alone a test case on such a controversial topic, could end well. This isn't to say that maybe a less controversial subject matter may be appropriate, but I don't see something like this ending well. You've been indef'd twice, take some time to do some non-controversial editing and show that you're really here at the project to help, not argue. I feel that after three or four months of positive editing, I would be more inclined to support at a later date. DustiInsert Sly Comments 16:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I was going to sit this one out and see what the rest of the community thought, but BTP reminds us that you brought up the "7 questions" again recently, which I'm pretty sure was explicitly covered in one of your restrictions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bigtimepeace. --John (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. I understand that the consensus is very much opposed to my suggested modification. I understand and accept that. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I still believe that I am being "censored by liberals," and as proof, I offer this. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per BTP, and others, above. And just above, Grundle links to the damn questions again? Why is he allowed here at all? Jack Merridew 18:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per all the reasons above. It seems he is definitely not ready to contribute to these types of articles. –Turian (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Grundle, Zombie Jesus is not happy. Isn't posting or referencing those insipid "7 questions" grounds for an indef? Tarc (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#Why, exactly, is Grundle2600 getting more last chances?:
Grundle2600 is requesting that his topic ban be lifted so he can disrupt Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.As an example of how my topic ban has made wikipedia worse, I'd like to point out that even though it was reported by the New York Times, the article on Obamacare does not say anything about how Henry Waxman is planning to hold a hearing to question companies about their statements claiming that the plan will increase, not decrease, their expenses. As another example, even though the Boston Heralrd reported that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents, the Obamacare articles does not mention it all all. If I had not been topic banned, I would have added both of those things to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Misattributing a claim "that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents" to a "report" by the Boston Herald—
which reprinted a story DeMint to Rock Hill: Government is to blame by Matt Garfield of The Herald in Rock Hill, South Carolina—
about a Tuesday, March 30, 2010 address by U.S. Sen. Jim "Waterloo" DeMint (R-SC) to a business audience of 300 people at a York County Regional Chamber of Commerce monthly membership luncheon at the City Club of Rock Hill:
The IRS claim was from a March 18, 2010 partisan report by Republicans on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee—During a Q&A portion of DeMint's address, an audience member stood up and said it was his understanding that the health care bill creates a "ready reserve army" in the surgeon general's office.
DeMint said he didn't know what the guy was talking about, but quickly added there would be thousands more IRS agents as a result of the health bill.
Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee warned that the bill could require the IRS to hire 16,000 additional agents to enforce the new rules.
that non-partisan fact-check organizations FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com found to be false and misleading. Newross (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- King Punisher?
Not sure who this is or how it ties in, but I'm a bit suspicious of a user whose account isn't even 1d old, already running around and adding indef tags to Grundle's user page and a rather unhelpful comment on the talk page. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Account has been blocked, also a sock report is up. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- That new bunch are User:John254/User:Pickbothmanlol. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Propose outright ban
Really, this entire situation has gone on long enough, and there's no sign of it stopping. Grundle is again referring to these so-called "seven questions" he brought in October and which, as mentioned above, he agreed not to mention anymore (I just reminded him of that in the thread above) with the knowledge that a long block could be the result if he broke that promise (Grundle had been posting these (already answered) questions over and over again to the point that he was about to, or maybe even did, get blocked for it). The fact that he is again bringing it up in the context of "liberals are censoring me" only makes it worse.
This comes on the heels of the recent April Fools' incident where Grundle made this edit to Guam (referring to a jokey or just plain dumb comment made by a Democrat in Congress), argued that it was well sourced when called on it (it was sourced to YouTube), then argued that he was obviously making a joke "mocking the fact that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth," then promised to stop. Please note that this cycle of: 1) do something disruptive; 2) defend it at first; 3) then apologize; 4) then promise not to do it again is standard procedure for Grundle—indeed it's exactly how he got out of his most recent indef block that arose from this situation which involved egregious WP:SYNTH to defame a biography of a living person (this version of Grundle's talk pages shows the first three failed attempts to get unblocked and the way in which he finally succeeded in doing so).
In the process of responding to the recent April 1st incident, Grundle made a wikilawyerish statement arguing the Guam edit had nothing to do with politics (it was based on a dumb statement by a Democratic congressman), technically violated his topic ban about politics by essentially saying "if I wasn't banned here's what I would be working on," and claimed he never really did anything wrong (while still managing to reference Obama, who I believe is a politician of some sort) and that he was being censored by liberals, a point he is now repeating with reference to 7 questions he asked back in October and agreed to stop asking while he was indef blocked and trying to be agreeable and get unblocked.
Can we please get a consensus that it's past time to put an end to this, and that User:Grundle2600 is banned from editing en.wikipedia, period? If someone has a better idea I'm all ears, but bear in mind that what I describe above is about 1/10th of the total disruption of the past year, that the editor has already been sanctioned by ArbCom, sanctioned twice by the community, indef blocked twice and then gotten the blocks lifted when he promised to improve, and discussed ad infinitum on noticeboards.
If someone feels this should technically be moved to WP:AN then feel free to do so as that is where we generally have ban discussions, but this seemed like the better place since there is a current thread. Sorry if my frustration comes through too strongly in this comment, but as I said it has been almost a year of this stuff at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- All I've ever waned to do here is add true, accurate, relevant, well sourced material to articles. Your suggestion is extreme and unwarranted. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would be open to a ban on me starting new discussions at ANI. That would solve the problems that you are complaining about. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that it would i'm afraid. What would solve everything would be for you to get a clue, but what are the chances if you haven't by now? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would very much like to get a clue and learn, which is why I would like for someone to please answer my seven questions. Please go ahead and teach me - help me to get a clue - and answer my questions. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)'
- OMG I can't teach you! I can't believe that you would bring up the 7 questions again immediately underneath a post proposing a total ban because you keep bringing the seven questions. There is nothing to work with. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. I believe we could recall every AN & AN/I topic on Grundle2600 and we would see that they invariably contain some variation of "All I've ever...". That is the heart of the matter; this user, like his good buddy ChildofMidnight, still feels himself to be the victim. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- OMG I can't teach you! I can't believe that you would bring up the 7 questions again immediately underneath a post proposing a total ban because you keep bringing the seven questions. There is nothing to work with. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would very much like to get a clue and learn, which is why I would like for someone to please answer my seven questions. Please go ahead and teach me - help me to get a clue - and answer my questions. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)'
- I don't think that it would i'm afraid. What would solve everything would be for you to get a clue, but what are the chances if you haven't by now? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support site ban per BTP. Clue ain't gonna happen, apparently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support per BTP. Victim card played too often. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You people keep saying that I'm ignorant and I don't understand wikipedia policy. But at the same time, you refuse to answer my seven questions. That's very hypocritical of you people to do that. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions
- [redacted]
- Grundle2600 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, shit. I'm frankly sympathetic to the idea that Grundle should be able to express his concerns about neutrality, because I think we should listen to concerns about the political neutrality of our articles on political topics - but he just can't stop shooting himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth. It's perfectly plain that every discussion he's involved with in the future will come down to the same issue above, and everyone is already out of tolerance for that. It's also perfectly plain that no attempt to have him edit under restrictions will ever work. There's no real alternative here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- As the user reneged on the promise that lead to his unblock ("please abide by this undertaking or I, or someone else will reimpose"), I have re-instated the indefinite block. Discussion may continue whether this will be considered or replaced with an 'outright ban'. –xenotalk 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Earlier I composed a post warning Grundle that if he mentioned his 7 questions again, I would block him for disruption for a week, but was neutral on the permaban. However, since I edit conflicted with him posting his 7 questions again, I Support a siteban. And since I edit conflicted again on Xeno's block note, I'll add "good block". Just doesn't get it, and apparently never will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The indef block notwithstanding, as Xeno says above the discussion should really continue as to whether we are imposing a formal community ban or not—that needs to be perfectly clear going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support — Put {{done}} on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support ban. Doesn't get it, too many last chances already given. --John (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Nothing will change if given more opportunities. –Turian (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment for the future - Keep an eye on any editor who uses "2600" in their username. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reluctant support - Given clear warning to stop editing disruptively in some topics, topic banned from them, and continued to return to them in the belief that they were doing no wrong. At this point, clearly doesn't agree with the reasons they were topic banned and doesn't believe that they have a problem. Until and unless they come to the point that they do understand the basis for this and agree to abide by lesser restrictions, a ban seems reluctantly necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support I was going to skip this incident but I am supporting a site ban after noticing that Grundle keeps referring to the misguided seven questions (example). The user has no understanding of what should happen here, and anything other than a site ban will lead to masses of more wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support If he thinks he is being "censored by liberals" he can go edit Conservapedia. An editor who is both disruptive and blinded by their POV should not be tolerated here. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support - History of POV pushing and tendentious behavior indicates Wikipedia would be better off without this editor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above discussion. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere, but how was this guy not blocked per WP:BADNAME? Are we not aware what that term means? Şłџğģő 03:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The name “Grundle” apparently comes from the video-game Adventure (Atari 2600)—a perineal favorite I′m sure. ―AoV² 03:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- So that's the lie he told when he decided "taint" might be too obvious. Huh. Şłџğģő 03:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Tarc (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- cf. Template:Nsfw Grundle. –xenotalk 12:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'm certainly no stranger to vaginas, but I've never heard that term before. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Who says wikipedia is not educational? However, this still leaves unanswered, the question of the significance of the 2600. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps he believes information wants to be free. –xenotalk 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- See also 2600 hertz, the frequency that AT&T once used to hold a circuit for a long distance call. Early phone phreaks used a whistle which came as a prize in Cap'n Crunch cereal to capture a circuit and make free calls, hence the nom de phreak of John Draper, "Captain Crunch". Whistles begat black boxes which begat blue boxes.... (Oh, it was a heady time, indeed.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was at HOPE, 1997, this Grundle is definitely not the type. The video game angle is far more likely. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps he believes information wants to be free. –xenotalk 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Who says wikipedia is not educational? However, this still leaves unanswered, the question of the significance of the 2600. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'm certainly no stranger to vaginas, but I've never heard that term before. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- cf. Template:Nsfw Grundle. –xenotalk 12:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Tarc (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- So that's the lie he told when he decided "taint" might be too obvious. Huh. Şłџğģő 03:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The name “Grundle” apparently comes from the video-game Adventure (Atari 2600)—a perineal favorite I′m sure. ―AoV² 03:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support per my earlier comments in response to his restriction modification request above and per above regarding repeatedly toeing the line and violating his unblock agreement. Sadly, I have to agree with Bigtimepeace's earlier comment also that it seems to be a collective failure on our part that he's been allowed to edit at all for as long as he has. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Grundle keeps coming back to this board with the same problems, like Theresa I don't think that we can have hope of improvement at this point. -- Atama頭 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support due to utter lack of clue, and lack of any evidence Grundle thinks he has anything to learn. Or am I being redundant? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- No personal attacks please. Dancing on people's graves is highly uncool. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Who are you talking to, George? I see no personal attacks above. I see many people wexpressing concern that this user simply does not get it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- No personal attacks please. Dancing on people's graves is highly uncool. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. If his topic ban was against editing articles about US politics or politicians, how is an edit to Guam a violation? Using a reference to a comical (sad, really) YouTube clip might deserve reversion, but it doesn't deserve a ban on all contributions. And some of these comments (e.g. "victim card") make it sound like you're holding it against him that he defends himself, and you don't care whether it might be justified. But the duty of any judge is to wade through such paper morasses and not to allow impatience to trump the law. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- How is an edit relating to a US politician's comments about a US territory not a violation? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Once the political comment is introduced, the article becomes political. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- If that's how you feel, wouldn't it be clearer to say "he is prohibited from any edit relating to US politics or politicians" instead of "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians"? People here really don't like repeat visitors, so you should be sure to say what you mean. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's redundant, and an unnecessary clarification. Any article that has political information added to it is by definition a political article, that's what Bugs was getting at. Take something innocuous, like doughnut. Currently there is nothing political about the article, but if someone were to include some political scandal involving a US senator, a doughnut, and a pair of underaged congressional interns, the article would from that point become political. Especially important is whether or not the topic-banned person were the person who added the info, or was editing that info. Getting past the wikilawyering of language, the intent of the ban was to stop Grundle from getting mixed up with political BLP information which he has abused in the past, and these edits were more of the same. -- Atama頭 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know this case and I'm not taking a side, but I think you do have a general problem, possibly with many topic-banned editors, when you say that users are banned from editing certain pages, but then it turns out what you mean by that is it's OK to edit some parts of certain pages but not other parts. I mean, whether you count doughnut as a political article or not, either it should be a political article or it isn't.
- I just don't see any way to get past wikilawyering when you're running a wikicourt, and when you're judging topic-banned editors not based on whether their contributions are accurate but simply based on whether they're following the ban you placed. Obviously you can place any ban with any wording that you want and editors will prefer it to being blocked outright - but you should take a moment to make sure it actually says exactly what you want, so you don't end up holding proceedings like this one based on differences in interpretation. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no holdup. People know exactly what this topic ban was about, which is why there has been practically unanimous support of the full ban. -- Atama頭 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's the trouble, isn't it? If the ban said "articles", then it was not precisely worded. It's supposed to be a "topic ban", right? But if it says "articles", wikilawyers would say Guam is not (primarily) a political article. So instead of just saying "articles", such a ban should say "political articles and/or political topics", and that should cover it. If they want to talk about the types of trees found on Guam, no problem. If they want to "coatrack" a political comment (a comment that really has nothing to do with Guam as such), then it would be a violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't. Read here, where the ban is listed. It says, "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians". It's explicit with the word "pages", which means that his restriction applies to places outside of article space (talk pages, deletion discussions, etc.). Also, the "type" of ban on the page is "topic", not "page", which means he is banned from the whole topic Again, these arguments are meaningless wikilawyering over semantics, the ban is pretty clear, and nobody has actually objected to the enforcement of this ban. -- Atama頭 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's the trouble, isn't it? If the ban said "articles", then it was not precisely worded. It's supposed to be a "topic ban", right? But if it says "articles", wikilawyers would say Guam is not (primarily) a political article. So instead of just saying "articles", such a ban should say "political articles and/or political topics", and that should cover it. If they want to talk about the types of trees found on Guam, no problem. If they want to "coatrack" a political comment (a comment that really has nothing to do with Guam as such), then it would be a violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no holdup. People know exactly what this topic ban was about, which is why there has been practically unanimous support of the full ban. -- Atama頭 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's redundant, and an unnecessary clarification. Any article that has political information added to it is by definition a political article, that's what Bugs was getting at. Take something innocuous, like doughnut. Currently there is nothing political about the article, but if someone were to include some political scandal involving a US senator, a doughnut, and a pair of underaged congressional interns, the article would from that point become political. Especially important is whether or not the topic-banned person were the person who added the info, or was editing that info. Getting past the wikilawyering of language, the intent of the ban was to stop Grundle from getting mixed up with political BLP information which he has abused in the past, and these edits were more of the same. -- Atama頭 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- If that's how you feel, wouldn't it be clearer to say "he is prohibited from any edit relating to US politics or politicians" instead of "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians"? People here really don't like repeat visitors, so you should be sure to say what you mean. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Once the political comment is introduced, the article becomes political. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- How is an edit relating to a US politician's comments about a US territory not a violation? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Joe job
I noticed a username that had the same four numbers at the end of his username as the guy that you are talking about and I filed a SPI case on him out of curiosity. The Syntax (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, the sock was already blocked. The Syntax (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked JzG to clarify what evidence there was that this was actually Grundle2600. I think it's more likely this is #King Punisher? continuing to troll. –xenotalk 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Contribs were not that innocent, in my view, but "2600" is an old meme for phone-phreakers and hackers, so should not necessarily be acted upon without supporting evidence. Rodhullandemu 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- 2600 Magazine is still around. I pick it up once in a while and it's generally lame. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Contribs were not that innocent, in my view, but "2600" is an old meme for phone-phreakers and hackers, so should not necessarily be acted upon without supporting evidence. Rodhullandemu 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked JzG to clarify what evidence there was that this was actually Grundle2600. I think it's more likely this is #King Punisher? continuing to troll. –xenotalk 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Confirmed, this was just an attempted joe job. I've deleted the SPI, changed the block reason for Wobble2600 and unblocked an apparently innocent party who got caught up in this. –xenotalk 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Levineps yet again in violation of his editing restrictions
Levineps (talk · contribs) has recently created categories and recategorized multiple articles, in direct violation of his editing restrictions (posted at User:Levineps); he is completely banned from making any such edits regardless of their merit. He was recently blocked for moving pages in violation of his editing restrictions (see AN/I post here), so he has a prior history of violations. I'll go ahead and revert/delete his category changes, as all such edits are to be undone on sight; someone else should block given my history of trying to address these issues with him. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I counted 56 edits in which he recategorized articles; 55 were from today, one was from March 29 (the day after his block expired) and had gone unnoticed until now. He created three categories today. All of this has now been reverted/deleted. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry my ban had been lifted, I thought I was free.--Levineps (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where does it say your ban was lifted? You just got off a week-long block for having violated it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't allowed to do edits at all for a week, so since that time was up and nothing was stopping me I thought it was fine. Suprised the technology hasn't caught up with wikipedia yet. If I am not suppposed to be doing certain editing, I believe theres enough technology in place not to allow me to do it.--Levineps (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- You were blocked from editing because you were violating the ban. The block expired, but the ban is still in place. Pull that shenanigan again, and the next block will likely be much longer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is a blatant violation of his restrictions right after a block. The excuse given is simply ridiculous. How could we technically enforce such a wide range of editing restrictions? Besides, how was this not your excuse when you were last blocked? You weren't technically restricted then either, hence the block for violating the ban. It is plainly obvious you are simply to refrain from any editing that you are banned for. This has been the case since December. Now all of the sudden you are surprised the ban isn't enforced on a technical level? Sorry, but I don't buy it.--Atlan (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh well, you guys can cry about my "abuse" but the truth of the matter if you look at the moves I made there was nothing malicious about it. Sorry if I offended you guys--Levineps (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is obvious from that statement Levineps doesn't take this ban at all seriously.--Atlan (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- And from his ironic "grow up" comment on his talk page, it's clear he is either in denial or has no clue as to what "ban" means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I came here supporting Levineps, but the whole defense of his actions does nothing to help him. A block seems to be in order here, but since I'm not familiar with him, I really don't know if this will be all that effective in changing his behavior. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- It has not been effective in the past, and it's highly unlikely that it will be effective this time, or at any time in the future. It seems inevitable that this editor is heading toward a total site ban, but I guess we have to let the string play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The sanctions in full detail have been posted on his user page, so he should have no doubt that they are in force. His "I don't care" comments in response to attempts to explain to him, are probably a good predictor of the endpoint of this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- He's cared enough to post several requests for the sanctions to be lifted here on AN/I and on user talk pages. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- But he doesn't care enough to actually follow the advice that he's been given on several occasions by multiple editors, which is that he should edit quietly, stay within his restrictions, not do anything to violate the spirit of those restrictions, show that he can be a useful Wikipedian, and then, after a significant period of time (measured in months) ask for the restrictions to be removed. Rather, he's chosen to push and pick at the restrictions, branch out into new kinds of editing similar to what he was restricted for, and outright violate them, with a series of feeble excuses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. The underlying problem has always been his complete failure to work with others, instead unilaterally making changes to many articles rapidly while ignoring the complaints from all sides. He has been banned from categories and page moves just because those are contexts in which that same behavior manifested, and particularly problematic kinds of edits to make without consensus. So if the problem is he has been unwilling to work with others, we should force him to only working with others if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia—ban him from any edits other than proposing and discussing changes to articles on talk pages or project pages. I think doing anything else is just going to be a further waste of everyone's time. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. The underlying problem has always been his complete failure to work with others, instead unilaterally making changes to many articles rapidly while ignoring the complaints from all sides. He has been banned from categories and page moves just because those are contexts in which that same behavior manifested, and particularly problematic kinds of edits to make without consensus. So if the problem is he has been unwilling to work with others, we should force him to only working with others if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia—ban him from any edits other than proposing and discussing changes to articles on talk pages or project pages. I think doing anything else is just going to be a further waste of everyone's time. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- But he doesn't care enough to actually follow the advice that he's been given on several occasions by multiple editors, which is that he should edit quietly, stay within his restrictions, not do anything to violate the spirit of those restrictions, show that he can be a useful Wikipedian, and then, after a significant period of time (measured in months) ask for the restrictions to be removed. Rather, he's chosen to push and pick at the restrictions, branch out into new kinds of editing similar to what he was restricted for, and outright violate them, with a series of feeble excuses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- He's cared enough to post several requests for the sanctions to be lifted here on AN/I and on user talk pages. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The sanctions in full detail have been posted on his user page, so he should have no doubt that they are in force. His "I don't care" comments in response to attempts to explain to him, are probably a good predictor of the endpoint of this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It has not been effective in the past, and it's highly unlikely that it will be effective this time, or at any time in the future. It seems inevitable that this editor is heading toward a total site ban, but I guess we have to let the string play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is obvious from that statement Levineps doesn't take this ban at all seriously.--Atlan (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh well, you guys can cry about my "abuse" but the truth of the matter if you look at the moves I made there was nothing malicious about it. Sorry if I offended you guys--Levineps (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is a blatant violation of his restrictions right after a block. The excuse given is simply ridiculous. How could we technically enforce such a wide range of editing restrictions? Besides, how was this not your excuse when you were last blocked? You weren't technically restricted then either, hence the block for violating the ban. It is plainly obvious you are simply to refrain from any editing that you are banned for. This has been the case since December. Now all of the sudden you are surprised the ban isn't enforced on a technical level? Sorry, but I don't buy it.--Atlan (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- You were blocked from editing because you were violating the ban. The block expired, but the ban is still in place. Pull that shenanigan again, and the next block will likely be much longer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't allowed to do edits at all for a week, so since that time was up and nothing was stopping me I thought it was fine. Suprised the technology hasn't caught up with wikipedia yet. If I am not suppposed to be doing certain editing, I believe theres enough technology in place not to allow me to do it.--Levineps (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where does it say your ban was lifted? You just got off a week-long block for having violated it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry my ban had been lifted, I thought I was free.--Levineps (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've never posted an inquiry on this incident board before, so I may be in the wrong place, but LonelyMarble and I have noticed a repeated misuse of whitespace by User:Mayumashu. On pages requiring hatnotes, Mayumashu will add two breaks between the hatnote and the beginning of the article, which creates a whole lot of undesirable and messy whitespace. LonelyMarble left Mayumashu a note about this, but Mayumashu never responded. Two days later, I also left Mayumashu a note, again to which there was an overt non-response. S/he has continued to incorporate superfluous/unnecessary, and frankly inconvenient whitespace after LonelyMarble and I raised our concerns. Many editors browse Wikipedia to condense/tiny it up; Mayumashu seems to be on a crusade to do the exact opposite. I would like other editors' thoughts and opinions on what, if any, action should be taken about this. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Condensing Wikipedia doesn't necessarily "tidy it up", since it can sometimes put elements so close to each other that it makes the page unsightly or more difficult for the reader's ease of use. Effective use of whitespace is important, but it doesn't mean eliminating all whitespace wherever it occurs, without discrimination, it means making sure that its selective use enhances the readability of the page, or deleting it where it creates unsightly blocks of empty space. A line or so of separation is not necessarily unwarranted, and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than with a blanket proscription. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that readers are looking at Wikipedia on so many different browsers, resolutions, operating systems, etc. that it is pretty hard to tell how the article will look to different people. One user's article may look better with an added line or other white space for whatever reason, while for other users it's just empty space. The norm or silent consensus (this has probably been discussed somewhere) seems to be that line breaks and other white space should not be added just for subjective aesthetic reasons. Adding line breaks after hatnotes is not accomplishing anything useful, and I'm pretty sure on high traffic articles, white space like that would be deleted fairly quickly. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Mayumashu responded on his talk page about this matter, so I'd say it is resolved. Further discussion could happen at WP:Hatnote or some other place. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can't believe someone took whitespace to ANI, but if there's consensus against it you really should add that to the WP:Hatnote guideline. Without at least a guideline to represent consensus, isn't this just an editing dispute? Wnt (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Mayumashu responded on his talk page about this matter, so I'd say it is resolved. Further discussion could happen at WP:Hatnote or some other place. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that readers are looking at Wikipedia on so many different browsers, resolutions, operating systems, etc. that it is pretty hard to tell how the article will look to different people. One user's article may look better with an added line or other white space for whatever reason, while for other users it's just empty space. The norm or silent consensus (this has probably been discussed somewhere) seems to be that line breaks and other white space should not be added just for subjective aesthetic reasons. Adding line breaks after hatnotes is not accomplishing anything useful, and I'm pretty sure on high traffic articles, white space like that would be deleted fairly quickly. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
User:ResignBen16
Please see User talk:ResignBen16. This user's edits relate primarily to revelations of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy. In this context, it seems obvious that the username is a call for Pope Benedict XVI to resign. On his or her talkpage, the user makes the claim that the username is a pure coincidence; I find this claim not to be credible. Bringing this here for a discussion of whether the username is acceptable under these circumstances. (Please do not refer this discussion to WP:RFC/NAME; that discussion board is moribund and little-watched, and I think whether this user should change his name should be decided promptly.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am not changing my name to pander to those who want to see something that isn't there. I have built a substantial watchlist on this username which I am entitled to and I am not going to throw away and nor am I going to go back to the beginning when I am patiently waiting to time-qualify in the editing of semi-protected articles which are also of interest of me and to accomplish page moves - for example, the template name. People start up campaigns to re-sign footballers and other sportsmen to sporting clubs all the time, and it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the management of the freakin' Catholic Church. Take a look in the mirror at what a disgraceful bully you are with this maneuver. It really is revolting, low and disgraceful what the sponsors and protectors of child abusers will descend to in order to attempt to exclude people from the fields of reporting and discourse whilst voicing denials about the effect of what they do all at the same time. Vows of silence, pontifical secrets, canon lawyers; I've seen it all before. And now this. May it also abide in contempt.ResignBen16 (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, it's possible to change your username while preserving your watchlist and editing history. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- If it's determined your username is an attack, and I think it is, it'll get changed whether you want it to or not. Lying about whether it's a call for the Pope to resign (you're really holding out hope that most people here are illiterate) will do a lot more harm than good. Calling Newyorkbrad, a well-liked user who's been an admin for years, "a disgraceful bully," "revolting, low and disgraceful," and one of a group of "sponsors and protectors of child abusers" is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. His apparent insistence on treating you with patience is really admirable, given what you just called him. Şłџğģő 03:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The user's name goes against Wikipedia policy because it is promotional -- it promotes a politico-religious cause. (Cf. what happened to User:Free Belarus), and his or her comments to NYB are unwarranted, uncollegial, uncivil and a personal attack. The user should be blocked for all these reasons, with a full unblock only after the name has been changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is obviously a call for the sitting Pope to resign, and as stated above does go against Wikipedia policy. That, coupled with his focus on the current sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church and his apparent belief that people are part of a group of "sponsors and protectors of child abusers" is questionable at best. The name should be changed. Onopearls (t/c) 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, this obviously isn't an acceptable name so this needs to be changed. If the user does not agree then they need to softblocked to ensure complicance with our policies. Also rather concerned by the POV pushing that they seem to be engaged in. Generally I worry about any editor who seems to edit to an agenda and I'm not entirely clear that this user is going to be an asset. Good thing I'm not holding a bit right now or I would block them myself. Spartaz Humbug! 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It is clear from the above discussion that the username is unacceptable. I have softblocked it indefinitely. Tim Song (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Contribs and User Name smack of a determined campaign on the project. RashersTierney (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Its obvious meaning is "Resign Benedict 16" and his seeming belief as expressed that the church's raison d'etre is child sexual abuse (I am diplomatically paraphrasing) doesn't really fit with any concept of neutral editing on this site. I'm sure our editor would probably be quite a successful blogger - he has the headline-grabbing language and impressive grammar/use of English - but what works there doesn't work here - we have to leave our baggage at the door. Orderinchaos 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever reason he wanted the Pope to resign, it's a problematic username. I don't care if he wanted the Pope to resign because he actually believes he's Palpatine, the name is disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Its obvious meaning is "Resign Benedict 16" and his seeming belief as expressed that the church's raison d'etre is child sexual abuse (I am diplomatically paraphrasing) doesn't really fit with any concept of neutral editing on this site. I'm sure our editor would probably be quite a successful blogger - he has the headline-grabbing language and impressive grammar/use of English - but what works there doesn't work here - we have to leave our baggage at the door. Orderinchaos 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Contribs and User Name smack of a determined campaign on the project. RashersTierney (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Block-evading sock
This editor seems to have returned as User:Ben16R esign. I've marked his userpage as a suspected sock, and struck-through his comment on a TfD discussion about a template created by ResignBen16, but the sock should probably be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The original block was a softblock, which means that the user is permitted to either change their username or create a new account. Nonetheless, the new username was as unacceptable as the old one, and suggests that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. I have therefore hardblocked both accounts indefinitely. Tim Song (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
User:TheClerksWell's inappropriate "prank"
User page unprotection request
User:TheClerksWell asked me to unprotect his user page, with the promise he won't add back the controversial stuff. I can't do that, as I am not an admin. I would like for an admin to review and decide what to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just as an FYI, Theresa has already declined to unprotect [14]. Personally I think the editor would do well to contribute to the mainspace for a while, rather than their userpage. –xenotalk 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- and he's already getting back into it with some wikilawyering an inappropriate edits (like fixing other people's comments) and hilarious jokes about kicking people in the testicles. So I wouldn't exactly reward him for that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I had missed his note to Theresa. And if he said something about kicking another user (diff, please?) then he has already used up his "New York second" and should be at least given a few days off. And then if he still doesn't "get it", indef him and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The kicking diff. — Scientizzle 16:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I had missed his note to Theresa. And if he said something about kicking another user (diff, please?) then he has already used up his "New York second" and should be at least given a few days off. And then if he still doesn't "get it", indef him and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- and he's already getting back into it with some wikilawyering an inappropriate edits (like fixing other people's comments) and hilarious jokes about kicking people in the testicles. So I wouldn't exactly reward him for that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Isabela Moreno
User:Isabela Moreno repeatedly edits the article Dulce María and her edits break the article code and translate the article into Spanish. See e.g. [15]. I think she uses some tool for automatic translation (probably Google Translate), that she is unaware that she translates the article and that she doesn't speak English properly (or at all?), based on her comments on User talk:Hamtechperson. She already received four warnings recently, but I think she acts in a good faith, so I don't think she should be blocked. I don't speak Spanish, so I didn't even try to explain it to her. Can somebody help? Thanks. Svick (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to have stopped. Perhaps the best way to avoid biting a user who is (presumably) acting in good faith, is to do nothing. If she does not make another edit like the others, perhaps your message has gotten across? SGGH ping! 16:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The last warning she received was 8 days ago, but since then she edited the article disruptively again yesterday. Svick (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since my Spanish is pretty rudimentary and nobody else seems to be picking up on this, I've asked User:Alexf if he can take a look. Mind you, the answer might be "no", so I surely wouldn't want to discourage anybody else from handling it in the meantime. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Warned user in Spanish. Politely told her her actions will be welcome in Spanish WP, but here it will have to stop or else she will be blocked. -- Alexf(talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- To continue: She answered in my Talk page that she's trying to correct inaccuracies, and in English. Go figure. She says the article contains much false information. I answered her I don't know the subject and wouldn't know what's true or false, but if she has a content dispute she should discuss it in the article's talk page, and preferably in English. -- Alexf(talk) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your involvement, Alexf. My little bit of Spanish suggests that she's grateful to you for talking to her about it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- To continue: She answered in my Talk page that she's trying to correct inaccuracies, and in English. Go figure. She says the article contains much false information. I answered her I don't know the subject and wouldn't know what's true or false, but if she has a content dispute she should discuss it in the article's talk page, and preferably in English. -- Alexf(talk) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Warned user in Spanish. Politely told her her actions will be welcome in Spanish WP, but here it will have to stop or else she will be blocked. -- Alexf(talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since my Spanish is pretty rudimentary and nobody else seems to be picking up on this, I've asked User:Alexf if he can take a look. Mind you, the answer might be "no", so I surely wouldn't want to discourage anybody else from handling it in the meantime. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The last warning she received was 8 days ago, but since then she edited the article disruptively again yesterday. Svick (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to have stopped. Perhaps the best way to avoid biting a user who is (presumably) acting in good faith, is to do nothing. If she does not make another edit like the others, perhaps your message has gotten across? SGGH ping! 16:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Writer's Cramp
Writer's Cramp is Green Squares is SirIssacBrock - see User_talk:Green_Squares#Ban_suspended. It appears that WC has fallen off the rails somewhat - he is describing reverts of his edits as vandalism again ([16], [17]), is actively edit warring over an article he owns - ([18] - reverts today [19], [20], [21]), and is placing bad vandalism warnings on pages of good editors he is in conflict with - [22]. He is supposed to be mentored by User:John Vandenberg, who has not edited for over a week. Could some admin provide him some helpful attention? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- His talk page is on my watchlist following a recent communication. I have responded to his request for administrator assistance but as I am unfamiliar with the background have e-mailed John Vandenberg in the hopes that he is not too busy elsewhere to chime in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- For reference sake: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Green Squares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), WritersCramp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Syrthiss (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just stumbled on this and feel like I should contribute. WC also posted an accusation of Vandalism against me on an AfD I started regarding one of his articles. The accusation is plainly off base, a bizarre violation of WP:AGF, demonstrative of a total lack of understanding of what vandalism is, and uncivil. WC has failed to respond to my request to have him either redact or explain his accusation. I am entirely unfamiliar with his being mentored status, background, or the other issues raised above, but insofar as I've noted similar activity directed against me by this editor, I feel compelled to contribute. That said, this probably isn't an ANI issue -- at least not yet -- but seeing as this conversation already exists here, and I have relevant experience, I'm contributing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified WC of this ANI. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- WC had already been notified of this ANI and removed it as "trolls nonsense". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Writer get a bit bitchy when their article is targeted for deletion. News at 11!
- I agree that WritersCramp needs a bit of an AGF tune-up, and have also inquired about a similar issue on his talk page.
- ps, WritersCramp official mentoring period is due to end in a week. If there are concerns after that, feel free to contact me. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- This may sound petty, and perhaps I'm unaware of some mitigating factor from WC's history, but an apparent pattern of an editor running amok describing any edit he disagrees with as "vandalism" or "troll's nonsense," that editors he has had problems with in the past need to be blocked indefinitely (per his talk page), seems a bit more than "a bit bitchy." Honestly, I don't normally even involve myself with disputes like this, but I was very bothered by someone throwing a boldfaced "VANDALISM" at me in an AfD, and I'm all the more bothered to see that it's apparently a well-established pattern. I have the utmost respect for you as someone attempting to mentor a troubled editor, but I just want to make sure you know that, at least from where I'm sitting, this isn't just the standard "author gets a bit bitchy when his/her article gets AfD'd". I have dealt with that type of situation several times in the past and never have I been called a vandal, nor has the editor at issue had some established pattern of doing same.
Completely know that you're on the case, and this response isn't even slightly intended to suggest otherwise (and I sincerely mean that), just want to make sure it's clear that WC's behavior is, to this editor, very troubling. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This may sound petty, and perhaps I'm unaware of some mitigating factor from WC's history, but an apparent pattern of an editor running amok describing any edit he disagrees with as "vandalism" or "troll's nonsense," that editors he has had problems with in the past need to be blocked indefinitely (per his talk page), seems a bit more than "a bit bitchy." Honestly, I don't normally even involve myself with disputes like this, but I was very bothered by someone throwing a boldfaced "VANDALISM" at me in an AfD, and I'm all the more bothered to see that it's apparently a well-established pattern. I have the utmost respect for you as someone attempting to mentor a troubled editor, but I just want to make sure you know that, at least from where I'm sitting, this isn't just the standard "author gets a bit bitchy when his/her article gets AfD'd". I have dealt with that type of situation several times in the past and never have I been called a vandal, nor has the editor at issue had some established pattern of doing same.
For what its worth, Writer'sCramp hasn't edited since that day and hasn't responded on-wiki to John Vandenberg's note on WC's talk page. He may be stepping back to take a breath (which I appreciate, if that is the case). It was starting to look like a ramp-up of his previous troubling behavior. Syrthiss (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- If that's what WC's doing and why, that is indeed a very good thing. He's definitely trying to contribute in good faith, and it's a shame for anyone in that vein to go "off the rails." Regardless, good point, agreed, I'll shut up now :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Persistent potty-mouth, cussing, and swearing
- 74.178.230.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This IP took the liberty to use "go fuck yourself" in his edit summary and further insists via my talk page and edits after that that it's completely OK to swear and cuss like that in the encyclopedia, either in the edits or in the edit summaries. I'm afraid my response to his talk page won't be good enough here. –MuZemike 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wp may not be censored, but that's a clear personal attack.--SKATER Speak. 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a license for incivility. There's a difference between content and interaction. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wp may not be censored, but that's a clear personal attack.--SKATER Speak. 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I curse fairly often on Wikipedia, but using it against other users (either single users or Wikimedia projects in general) like that is over the line even for me. On WP, an encyclopedia where people work together to write articles, fighting and being rude just does not (or should not) belong. Other forums, etc. allow or encourage people to flame and prank others for lulz; this isn't one of them. Please do not. (I watch MuZemike's talk page and others, to help stay up-to-date with articles, rules, and such.) --an odd name 06:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Dayewalker asked the user to cut it out and s/he agreed. Speaking normal English (like Dayewalker did) generally works better in this situation than leaving templates full of wikilinks (like someone else had tried earlier). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This may be naive but if we be nice to him maybe he will be nice back? TheClerksWell (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- To be perfectly blunt, this appears to be an editor who was just trolling for a response. Don't feed the trolls, and RBI. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Xnacional
Xnacional (talk · contribs) has persisted in tendentious and disruptive editing against local consensus and the MOS for a while now. His regular activities are at:
- Operation Together (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, where he replaces the disambiguation page with a redirect; most recent reversion here
- {{Star Wars}}, where he removes an entry despite local consensus (and recent talk-page discussions that he hasn't engaged in) to retain it; most recent reversion here (a couple of hours after another revert).
- Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, where he alters caption text without explanation; most recent reversion here
- Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, where he adds two periods to end of captions that aren't sentences, i.e. per the MOS shouldn't have terminal punctuation; most recent reversion here
- Hannibal Rising (film) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch -- I haven't kept a close eye on the article, but his edit-warring led to a 3RR block couple of weeks ago.
Save for the dispute at Hannibal Rising, Xnacional has never technically violated 3RR. Xnacional understands 3RR well enough to file a complaint; he should similarly understand WP:MOS and WP:CONSENSUS -- but, he either doesn't hear multiple editors across multiple articles or simply gleefully gets off at these occasional tweaks. Xnacional has not heeded multiple talk-page requests (most of them still there; several removed by him) to stop his behavior. He rarely engages in talk-page discussion, but always curtly and never with any indication that he acknowledges his edits might be controversial or simply wrong. (As a side note, Xnacional's recent obnoxiousness includes persistently restoring his "warnings" at User:MikeWazowski's talk page -- even though Xnacional regularly removes the same from his own talk page).
Although Xnacional seems somewhat knowledgeable about combat in Afghanistan, his productive edits are weighted against his habit of ignoring other editors and wasting our time in reverting his obnoxious edits. Additional input, advice or action would be appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
....and he's just now gone through and hit three of those articles above, per usual. --EEMIV (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Block review
I have indef blocked Sohoscribbler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to persistent violations of policy on biographies of living individuals, misrepresentation of sources, issues of lack of neutrality, original research and giving undue weight to minority views. I've just deleted a batch of revisions from Office of the Independent Adjudicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and am off to remove (or verify removal of) similar allegations from other articles, including biographies. VRTS ticket # 2010040610020771 applies. This user is clearly angry and is using Wikipedia to present a side of a story which may justify coverage but definitely not in the terms the user was employing.It's more likely to be WP:UNDUE since many of the problematic sections of text were not supported at all by the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the OTRS ticket as well as some of the edits by the editor in question: Good block and good luck with the cleanup. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- COncur w/ KillerChihuahua. Wow. Dlohcierekim 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This user appears to be a vandalism only account and/or a sock. He created the article Magical Chocolate Men which I speedily deleted because of vandalism. Then he modified comments on his talk page and my talk page. See contributions for further evidence. Can some administrator do something about this user please so that he doesn't distract me again? Minimac (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any sock indications, but it's clearly a vandalism-only account. Reported to WP:AIV which is really the appropriate forum for this. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Update: Looks like xeno blocked the account. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to hear that. I saw on the WP:AIV that User:Jusdafax put him up on the noticeboard instead, but anyway, I'm glad he's blocked. Minimac (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Update: Looks like xeno blocked the account. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Minor annoying vandal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club
Minor annoyance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club. This was a hoax article by a new editor, Brianrehg (talk · contribs). They wrote the article, it was marked for speedy deletion, they put on a {{hangon}} tag, the article went to AfD, all voting editors agreed it was a hoax, and it was deleted. The same editor also created Olhendorf, which was speedily deleted. Now an anon (possibly the creator of the articles) is editing the closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club and (an exercise in futility) edit-warring with SineBot, trying to delete their IP address. Suggest that WP:RBI applies. --John Nagle (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just reverted through it. Shouldn't be editing a closed AfD anyway. --Smashvilletalk 21:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Smashville did the R. I just did the B. Let's all I. --Jayron32 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Current troublemaker aside, is there any reason why closed AfDs aren't full-protected? From what I understand, there's no reason a non-admin would want to edit one... Bobby Tables (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Probably because it hasn't been deemed problematic enough in the past? There are still a bunch of people who idealistically oppose indefinite protection of anything. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The only previous example that I can remember of an edit-war breaking out over a closed AfD was for the same reason as this one; a disruptive sock trying to remove IP addresses. There just, to coin a phrase, isn't the demand for protection on closed AfDs. Black Kite 23:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Probably because it hasn't been deemed problematic enough in the past? There are still a bunch of people who idealistically oppose indefinite protection of anything. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Namir Noor-Eldeen
Unless I'm crazy, neither the talk page nor the article history of Namir Noor-Eldeen appear to warrant {{pp-dispute}} protection. — C M B J 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just unprotected the page right before seeing this post. NW (Talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since there is, as of yet, only minimal anonymous vandalism, you may also wish to (at least temporarily) remove semi-protection. — C M B J 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Image violation
No doubt this is not the right place to post this, but I'm hopeful someone will just take care of it - this image: File:Lisa_Simpson_Meets_Michelle_Obama.jpg is incorrectly labeled as public domain and I assume not allowable without permission. I removed it from Talk: Michelle Obama - I stay away from image matters so don't know how to go about removing the image from the image files and would appreciate someone taking care of it. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tagged {{db-f7}}, it should disappear shortly. Tarc (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I changed it to G12. Policy wonks love to turn down things tagged as speedy with DB tags that are supposed to follow an expired prod or something. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've been here for several years and couldn't pin down the right one, I feel sorry for the newbies navigating this Byzantine mess. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Toolserver IP blocked
I've blocked 91.198.174.201 for 24 hours anon-only, as it looks like User:EdwardsBot is running while logged out. I'm going to contact the operator now, but please keep an eye out for any bots I may have accidentally disabled. If it seems to be a problem, please unblock without consulting me. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is almost certainly caused by a change in logging in reported at WP:VPT#Bots and Logging In. Svick (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks like the site was patched for a security bug, causing the underlying frameworks (wikitools, AWB, etc.) to break. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The above user has been going around various radio stations unnessarily changing the formats listed of the stations to information that is incorrect. I told the user this, and it was promptly blanked, which, yes, is his right. But his edits have gone over into vandalism territory. I noticed the user blanking a category and vandalizing the category page. When I warned him for vandalism, that too was blanked. This account is not sitting right with me, from the name to the actions of the user. Could an admin take a look and have a word with the user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I notified the user of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have added new rock format sub-categories (alternative, album-oriented, etc.) when I noticed that only a few (classic, modern) were present. I was re-categorizing the stations (you might think of them as orphans) which led to the generic rock category. Look, if you want to turn this into something sinister, go ahead. I have only been working to more accurately identify rock stations-- that's all! RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This may not be AGF, but for a user who just started yesterday, this user certainly knows their way around categories and other pages of the Wiki and already has the lingo down. Quack anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, the vandalism this user claims was the removal of a very small category (only 6 entries) for a group of sister stations in a certain radio market. There is absolutely no way to verify this, but I will say it anyway-- I created the category myself some months ago using a different user name. Since I have been going through many, many radio stations and their respective categories/templates, I noticed that there was literally no other similar small category for sister stations in a single radio market. I simply thought it was appropriate the do away with the grouping, but if the user who began this discussion feels otherwise, leave it, that's fine! I can't stress enough my constructive intentions here. I simply have been trying to clean up some of the Rock-Radio categories and templates. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Admitted sock? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- ROTA, it's a bit more seemly to post to the appropriate wikiproject (I'm sure there is one) before engaging in an operation like this. "Discussion" can consist of saying what you want to do, waiting a while to see if anyone objects, and going ahead with the plan if nobody has said anything. Then refer to the wikiproject thread in your edit summaries so that bystanders can understand what you're doing. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, the vandalism this user claims was the removal of a very small category (only 6 entries) for a group of sister stations in a certain radio market. There is absolutely no way to verify this, but I will say it anyway-- I created the category myself some months ago using a different user name. Since I have been going through many, many radio stations and their respective categories/templates, I noticed that there was literally no other similar small category for sister stations in a single radio market. I simply thought it was appropriate the do away with the grouping, but if the user who began this discussion feels otherwise, leave it, that's fine! I can't stress enough my constructive intentions here. I simply have been trying to clean up some of the Rock-Radio categories and templates. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I use no other username currently, and haven't used any other for some time now. I fully understand the policy regarded multiple accounts. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would seem to be this guy. Deor (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like it. Has a big interest in WMMS and other Cleveland radio stations. I recommend a Checkuser (any up this time of night?) and run one on his account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- They also have the right to vanish, so if they would be willing to admit to one of us either through this thread or by e-mail their old account, I don't really think that we should go through all this trouble. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Right to vanish involves leaving wikipedia permanently. If they come back, they haven't vanished. Maybe you're thinking of CLEANSTART which doesn't apply to users under active sanctions. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- They also have the right to vanish, so if they would be willing to admit to one of us either through this thread or by e-mail their old account, I don't really think that we should go through all this trouble. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like it. Has a big interest in WMMS and other Cleveland radio stations. I recommend a Checkuser (any up this time of night?) and run one on his account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would seem to be this guy. Deor (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I use no other username currently, and haven't used any other for some time now. I fully understand the policy regarded multiple accounts. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) I do think we should go through the trouble. If ROTA is the this guy, then he is evading MANY blocks and should be blocked (yet again) and range blocked to boot. ROTA has already disappeared, so it is obvious from their behavior they are guilty as sin. I have taken the liberty of reverting their edits, 90% were completely incorrect and downright vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- By trouble, I meant speculation. Go ahead and re-open the SPI if you want, but assuming a link isn't credible enough to most editors to block. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a bit more than speculation. He admitted above that he created Category:Clear Channel Cleveland "using a different user name", which would make him User:TheBlankingCompany79, one of the number of users blocked as a result of the SPI I linked. Deor (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I know, I'm just saying that we shouldn't just assume a link between users. There have been many times where I have and I have then been proved wrong. I've also seen users accused of being a sock and the accusations were proven false. A quick investigation wouldn't hurt anyone though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I already suggested a checkuser, so anyone know one that is up? Could have found one about 5 hours ago when it first suggested it, but they ain't up know and this dude has probably made 10 accounts by now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I know, I'm just saying that we shouldn't just assume a link between users. There have been many times where I have and I have then been proved wrong. I've also seen users accused of being a sock and the accusations were proven false. A quick investigation wouldn't hurt anyone though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a bit more than speculation. He admitted above that he created Category:Clear Channel Cleveland "using a different user name", which would make him User:TheBlankingCompany79, one of the number of users blocked as a result of the SPI I linked. Deor (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User:LynnCityofsin
User:LynnCityofsin has been asked to not accuse other editors of being fans or editing to insert POV at Talk:Glenn Beck multiple times (comment on the edit not the editor). She had previously been involved in long and heated discussions that were overall more suited for a forum than what is needed for improvement of an article. A final warning can be seen here regarding what I find to be surprisingly offensive (I don't want to be lumped in as a Beck fan for trying to keep a BLP acceptable). She took some time off but recently had a quick edit war ([24][25][26] and then made another inappropriate accusation on the talk page here. Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Bring it out in the open then. That page is being over run by POV in favor of Beck. Note that up until this point all of my criticisms were contained in the talk page. Only recently did I try to edit the actual page. And my edit was reasonable and within the scope of the section in question. Still the Glenn Beck page certainly needs review from an editor without a dog in fight, because it is clearly the front in partisan war. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Others do not agree that it was OK for inclusion. I don;t care since the reason this is open is you continue to assert that editors are fans of Beck. You have been asked not to do that multiple times and this situation seems to have emboldened you. You are disrupting the editing process.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Look, I am not the user that swears at people and attacks them. I may complain about bias, but I have generally refrained from personal attacks. You want to complain about someone on that page, DIGGITY should be the one. DIGGITY has crossed lines of basic decency. I've just tried to defend the entry that I think belongs on the page (and apparently others agree with me). I happen to believe that the pro-Beck bias is very obvious. I think like a lot of public personalities, he has fans who routinely comb the article and remove entries (rather than improve them) for the slightest violation. This is very common on now. I shouldn't be banned or punished because I noticed a trend. The trend should be brought to the attention of the higher ups, and the Glenn Beck page should be locked just like the pages for many prominent figures are locked. And just so you know. I am not an anti-beck liberal. I just want some objectivity on the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- So I really don't mind the above being said here since it seems to be the appropriate place. Can an admin make it clear that the repeated allegations on the article's talk page are not acceptable? If it continues, can a block be considered?Cptnono (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at Talk:Glenn Beck it seems that everyone is getting understandably frustrated with everyone else. However, LynnCityofsin needs to assume good faith, especially of Diggity. Yes, they have a high criteria for inclusion of material into the article, but that is a good thing. LynnCityofsin has repeatedly refused to provide Diggity with sources to back up their claims, and should refrain from complaining so arduously about certain aspects of the article if they are unwilling to support their accusations with anything except escalated conflict.
- However, Diggity has also been abrasive and rude (with swearing, which I really look down on) towards LynnCityofSin. I can understand them being frustrated but that is not the way to handle the situation.
- I think both parties deserve a slap on the wrist, with promises to be more civil towards each other in future. LynnCityofSin perhaps needs someone to also explain how to easily find sources to back up their claims, what qualifies as a reliable source, and how they can work towards improving the article within the rules of Wikipedia. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
In my defense, I want to point out that at the time of those disputes, I wasn't contributing to the page. I was just commenting as a reader of the page. In the last dispute, when I actually contributed to the page, I felt the rules were being applied selectively, as there is a POV phrase in that section that attacks Mark Potok for misrepresenting Beck's treatment of conspiracies (though it may have since been removed). Also, I don't mind that people want me to put more sources up. I haven't been seriously editing for very long, so I know I am not well versed in the methods of wikipedia. But I felt like guys like Diggity, immediately piled on me and called me ignorant and attacked me. It just seemed like there was a political axe to grind there. I have had a history of run-ins with diggity. While my position has been strong and adamant (perhaps too adamant), I haven't resorted to the kinds of personal (and frankly unacceptable) attacks that Diggity has. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Glenn Beck
In my opinion, this page is being overly manipulated by people with pro-Beck leanings, and is often vandalized by Beck critics. I think the editors should review the page, and I think it should be locked, so regular users can't edit it. Only reputable editors should be allowed to edit the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you think attention needs to be drawn to the Glenn Beck article, please bring it up here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm having a quick look over at Glenn Beck and the talk page as I've tried to help with the article in the past. Late last summer the article was indeed extremely skewed in Beck's favor (literally making it appear that there was nothing at all controversial about him, which is obviously absurd), but some balance was eventually brought to it. There was at least one editor who was editing in a highly POV manner/dominating the article and who was chastised by several people for it (I also had to block them for egregious edit warring), but they do not seem to have been active recently. In general the Beck article is a bit of a POV war zone (shockingly), and without saying anything definite about this ANI report I'll just point out that it's understandable that people working there would get frustrated. Experienced editors or admins who are willing to wade in and offer outside advice would probably be helpful, more so than doing anything in direct response to this thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing by User:Vexorg
This user is engaging in the kind of disruption is virtually impossible to deal with. Reverting without consensus or references, disruption on the talk pages, and even canvassing to get his WP:POINT into the article. For the record, this is not the first time I have brought this editor to this board, but report is in reference to this article only. The defense will be a loud accusatory finger (sorry about the mixed metaphor) pointed at me and any of his other accusers. Please strip off the histrionics and look directly at the diffs. I hope I have not got any of the diffs wrong. I have tried to be careful but mistakes happen and I will correct any asap. Thanks
Disruptive editing at Rothschild family
The following are recent reversions (the last three days)
- [27] 5 March
- [28] 5 March
- [29] 5 March
- [30] 3 April
- [31] 4 April
- [32] 4 April
- [33] 5 April
- [34] 5 April
Disruption on the Talk page
Verorg started a section about another editor he titled 'Complaint about User:Mbz1 and his POV edits
Examples of Vexorg's dialogue on the talk page:
- [36] "this isn't the place to discuss your lack of knowledge..."
- [37] acknowledging that he is restoring material on the basis of his own argument without consensus or references
- [38] continues to restore debated material based on his own arguments rather than consensus or references
- [39] asking another editor if he is editing as an IP and threatening to do a checkuser
- [40] again threatening this user with checkuser
- [41] accusing another editor of "untruths" and "smelling a Pov here"
- [42] more personal attacks, expresses his desire to reinsert the same material "after a reasonable time has elapsed"
- [43] Accusing other editors of having a "problem" - again expressing his intention to reinsert his material despite the lack of consensus for such a change
- [44] demanding of another editor once again if he is a particular IP
- [45] "It's not surprising that Stellarkid wants to remove the section, given his/her political stance as shown in several disruptive Arbitration reports over the last few weeks. "
Canvassing
User:NickCT's comment after being canvassed by Vexorg here [48]
Thanks for your consideration. Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by Stellarkid
I have fixed the edits above to reflect the correct date. I misread 3-4, or 3-5 got it backwards or something like that. My intention was not to indicate 3RR violations since if that were the intention I would have gone to the appropriate board. My intention here is to show that there is disruption and that Vexrog is not using the talk page constructively to make his case. He is not getting RS or listening to the concerns of others and trying to address them. He seems to believe that he has the truth and so the right to put his edit in despite lack of consensus and challenges by others. Stellarkid (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where's the beef? What are you trying to do here? Surely you don't think that's enough to get Vexorg banned. In fact if this is all you could dig up on him it's a credit to Vexorg. Factomancer (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- It would be great if someone could straighten out what's going on with these two groups of editors, but if that's not possible to do, then I suggest it might be necessary to block Vexorg, Stellarkid, Factsontheground, Mbz1, Breein1007 and whatever other members I missed of these contentious and disruptive groups. They've all been warned that blocks were going to start coming, I assume other people are as tired of seeing these same names here over and over again, so admins should start wheeling and dealing, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This ANI has nothing to do with me. I will strongly request that you refrain from mentioning my name again unless you intend on filing a report against me. Otherwise, keep me the hell out of this because I am not involved. Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned. Those of us merely trying to write articles and improve the encyclopedia should be left alone and not punished for other people's misbehaviour. There's no Wikipedia policy that says that you can be banned just because people mention your name a lot. And who are you to suggest that I am banned? How many articles have you written lately? Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment And in fact the accusatory voices are raised against the messenger as expected, with calls to block me for bringing it forward. This venue is where we are supposed to bring such things. You may call it drama, but not one of you have addressed any of the diffs brought forward. If you don't see anything problematic here, fine, say so; but please do not start calling up other names for blocks. Deal with this one, then if you are unhappy with me or others, bring the report and the appropriate diffs. Some people are beginning to make editing Wiki an unpleasant experience, and that goes against the purpose of WP. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I never mentioned your name in the above comment, I merely said "The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned". It's interesting that you immediately interpreted that as meaning yourself. Freudian slip? Factomancer (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment And in fact the accusatory voices are raised against the messenger as expected, with calls to block me for bringing it forward. This venue is where we are supposed to bring such things. You may call it drama, but not one of you have addressed any of the diffs brought forward. If you don't see anything problematic here, fine, say so; but please do not start calling up other names for blocks. Deal with this one, then if you are unhappy with me or others, bring the report and the appropriate diffs. Some people are beginning to make editing Wiki an unpleasant experience, and that goes against the purpose of WP. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- It would be great if someone could straighten out what's going on with these two groups of editors, but if that's not possible to do, then I suggest it might be necessary to block Vexorg, Stellarkid, Factsontheground, Mbz1, Breein1007 and whatever other members I missed of these contentious and disruptive groups. They've all been warned that blocks were going to start coming, I assume other people are as tired of seeing these same names here over and over again, so admins should start wheeling and dealing, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Those first diffs on the Rothschild article are from early March, not early April. However, I completely agree that Vexorg's discussion on Talk:Rothschild is uncivil. There's a ginormous debate on that page over what looks to me like a relatively minor section heading issue, complete with canvassing and tons of personal attacks about the "political agendas" of other editors involved. I tried earlier today leaving the editor a note about civility 1 because I thought all of the conspiracy accusations against other editors were pretty irritating, unfortunately s/he found it "patronizing" and told me so on my talk page. The editor is certainly willing to engage in discussion, but their incessant conspiracy theorizing about editors who disagree with them on issues related to Israel/Zionism being part of a "Lobby" just seems to me to be really unhelpful in terms of keeping editing in this area calm and civil. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
First and Final Comment by Vexorg - This clearly obsessive and bad faith attempt to get me blocked/banned by Stellarkid doesn't even warrant a millisecond's response. It really speaks for itself as a continuation of the disruptive derailment that has no doubt annoyed all the admin who have had to wade through this nonsense over the last few weeks. This latest piece of partisan melodrama is not something I wish to be associated with and I sympathize with any administrators who have to deal with this incessant and childish guff. And for the record the 'rant' left at my talk page by CordeliaNaismith was extremely patronising and that is why I swiftly removed it. I won't be spoken to like that in real life or on Wikipedia. This whole debacle is getting beyond ridiculous. I'll leave you all to it. Vexorg (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Vrubel's Demons - having been at the receiving end of Vexorgs incivility, I was thinking of reporting him myself, but apparently someone else did that. I do not know and do not care about any prior quarrels this editor had with other editors, but I do care that he derailed a discussion about content by attacking other editors and by canvassing what he perceived as like-minded editors (though let me emphasize that one of those canvassed did not respond, and the editor responded added to the discussion about the content). He also filed a bad faith sockpuppet report about an editor who disagreed with him, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Off2riorob/Archive. When warned at his talk page about his incivility and edit warring, he accused me of hounding him [49]. It this behavior which makes any discussions about content impossible, and drives away those editors who actually want to improve the content of the article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by NickCT This is another example or "drop-of-the-hat" arbitration. If you read the Rothchild talk page, you'll see that this issue is being taken care of, and the tone of the debate is simmering down. @Stellar - By filing these ANI you only serve to inflame. Verxog may be loud, but he hasn't done anything egregious. When he does, I'll report him myself. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
I don't really care who it starts with, but something's got to give or this will go on forever -- so why not start right here and now, since general warnings have been given already. My suggestion is that both of these editors should be blocked for a reasonable short period of time, say a week, and when they return it should be under a topic ban which requires them to deal with their disputes with each other only on the relevant article talk pages or in legitimate dispute resolution. Any posts to AN, AN/I, RSN, COIN, SPI regarding each other would be grounds for another block. The third time, block indef. Then, when some other member of either of the two battling groups cames here with another dispute, start the process over with them.
Until they are forced to deal with each other, there's no real reason for them to come to any accomodation or compromise as long as they think they can come running here (and elsewhere) to continue the fight and run the string out even further. Channel them into dispute resolution, and if they don't want to go there, indef them.
Anyway, I'm feeling bloodthirsty tonight and that's my suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose If Vexorg did something to earn admonishment or a block then Stellarkid was justified in bringing this report. I don't want to get too involved in this since I know the admins are losing their patience but this proposal seems a little far reaching and based on frustration instead of a decent review of the complaint. If it is found that both CordeliaNaismith and Stellar are wrong in their perceptions then there might be reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this is basically a problem between Stellarkid and Vexorg, Vexorg directed personal attacks at other editors on Talk:Rothschild family also. It also looks like 2 other editors have discussed campaigning or personal attacks with Vexorg on his talk page: 1, 2. Given that, within the last day, Vexorg has started a Wikiquette thread regarding a comment on another editor's talk page and opened a sockpuppet investigation which was rejected as fishing, it looks to me that this editor is making significant contributions to the drama. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I have nothing in principle against your affection for radical solutions. However, we have enough action already and I have good reasons to believe that you solution will only increase the stream in this bloodbath (so blood-thirsty or not-you may not like the outcome). I see it as a complex problem that need the intervention of expert surgeon-maybe involvment of other admins, new in this I-P but experineced with solving complex long lasting conflicts, and with the close supoervison of bureaucrats-could lead to cease fire. Nothing would be less benificial for WP than mass "executions" of user accounts. It will only result with less articles on this topic, with articles that are biased and so forth. This conflict involved, generally, with more than 30 editors-it seem just to suggest special policy in regard to editing in I-P related articles.P.s. I agree with Breein 1007, this random name dropping you did is improper and destructive.--Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion
Comment: Any reviewing administrator should be advised that User:Vexorg was recently given a strong warning (final warning?) about such behavior. Vexorg has also been previously blocked for a type of behavior that somewhat resembles what's shown in this report. FYI. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment #2 – The edits that Vexorg made to Stellarkid's comments are also concerning, and, I believe, actionable in of themselves. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reply by Vexorg - I am discussing this at my talk page. So before you jump in and start shouting for action, I did in fact revert myself previously. And after it was pointed out that it was against policy I just came here to revert myself a 2nd time but I see you have done it for me. So thank you for that Ynhockey :) - I think, and in regard to policy, I think it's better to let Stellarkid's misrepresentations of my diffs be exposed for all to see. Vexorg (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I apparently made an error in my dates. Will try to fix that later in the day. The point was not to show that Vexrog had violated 3RR. I don't know if he did or not, probably he didn't as he was conscious of violating it and made a note of giving it a proper amount of time before reinserting the material. My point was just that he was edit -warring and disruptively inserting information against consensus and without references to back up his assertions. Stellarkid (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reply by Vexorg - "Will try to fix that later in the day." - if there is good faith why not fix it now? It would take 5 seconds? Vexorg (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment to Stellarkid It is very difficult to believe that you accidentally dated edits made on the 5th of March as being from 3rd of April.
- I will note that you have made use of misrepresentation when it suits you:
- here where you selectively quote for effect.
- here where you misrepresent the provenance and quality of a source: Based on the link Big Campaign which is a propaganda anti-Israel site, NOT an RS at all. Using this bogus site and its information,.
- Which I asked you to correct here
- Yet you continued on with the misrepresentation here - The root source was of course http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/, this is apparent when one visits the link that I gave when adding the cats in question, which is why it is troubling that you chose not to reproduce it in full.
- I think it is understandable that one wants to offer a strong case but it is troubling when an editor does so by proffering half-truths and fabrications, as I believe to have demonstrated that you have. Unomi (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will note that you have made use of misrepresentation when it suits you:
- Reply to Unomi-- The difference was I think between the dates 4-3 and 3-4 -- March 4th or April 3rd. Stellarkid (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Further reply to Unomi.this is not a misrepresentation nor a selective quote. It is what the words say. It was not quoted "for effect" but to clarify why people might find it offensive. The tacked-on disclaimer is a bit meaningless if you know Carlos Latuff's work and the fact that he came in 2nd at the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest
- The second link which you call a misrepresentation is based on this link [50] which your edit summary says {"add cat per http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements"} and a handful of other edits using the same edit summary, all of which are found on the page you linked to. Will deal with the other accusations of misrepresentation later today. Busy now. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I support some kind of restriction on User Vexorg, recently it is almost impossible to find an edit of his that has not been reverted, all of his edits are to a single issue and on some articles he is repeatedly labeling organisations as Zioninst when his additions are reverted by multiple editors he repeaterdly inserts them, causing disruption at multiple locations. He reported me as a sockpuppet, there was no evidence at all apart from he thought it was me and the report was closed with a looks like bad faith comment, I would have more expected an apology under such circumstances but after the SPI was closed User Vexorg continued to question if I was the IP. He also posted messages in a canvassing manner at two editors talkpages, Umoni, who is here commenting and another editor. I don't see any sign that there will be any change at all in his editing pattern, without restriction the disruptive pattern will simply continue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I concur. In fact this recent comment by Vexorg [51] suggests that the Vexorg shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior. A preventive block or ban might be in order, in particular given the extensive block log of this account. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
MarinaSapir's defamatory edits of Nancy Scheper-Hughes
MarinaSapir is continually inserting unsourced defamatory material into the biography of living person Nancy Scheper-Hughes. After her first 3 violations I warned her to stop, but she is continuing to insert the material.
- 1. [52]
- 2. [53]
- 3. [54]
- At this point I gave her a warning to stop:[55]
- However she continued with the following edits: [56] and [57]
This user seems set upon continuing to violate the BLP policies unless something is done. Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Errr.... last edit was a week ago... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Bieberquake
Not realy sure what to do about this. user: Minimac who made a comment on the now speedy deleted page: Bieberquake has removed the warnings and block notice from user Bieberquake talk page and replaced it with their sugestion of a reason for an unblock. --Wintonian (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to be taken care of already by admin User:Gogo Dodo. Hence, I am going to mark this resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Could an admin make a note in the block log of this user about this legal threat? Possibly one on their talk page as well, or, if not there as well, at least there?— Dædαlus Contribs 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Gogo Dodo was the blocking admin, so you might want to let him know about it via his talk. I don't think he is aware of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
AFD problem
Right, the AFD for the article "Dorble.com" has a problem, the result of it was speedy deleted (by an admin, and it was closed by a non-admin) but the article has been re-created again. Should the discussion be re-opened or should the article get deleted (again)? --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- If it is exactly the same page, it must be speedy deleted per G4. Of course, substantially different, you follow regular deletion procedures. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 07:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- deleted again, facebook page doesn consitiute notability, also the author has a COI. Gnangarra 07:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- On my watch list if it is created again then (bar any objections) I might ask for it to be protected. --Wintonian (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- WP:SALT if it becomes necessary, I have also warned the creator about advertising. Gnangarra 08:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Edit conflict x2 Protection might be a good idea (as Wintonian says) since the page seems to have been deleted four times within nine hours. It's likely if protection isn't inserted the article just going to be created again any time soon. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- WP:SALT if it becomes necessary, I have also warned the creator about advertising. Gnangarra 08:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- On my watch list if it is created again then (bar any objections) I might ask for it to be protected. --Wintonian (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- deleted again, facebook page doesn consitiute notability, also the author has a COI. Gnangarra 07:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User:CheesyBiscuit requesting unblock of 1RR
CheesyBiscuit was blocked for 1RR in violation of an Arbcomm decision. He requested unblock, which I declined. However, one of the options to overturn the block is community discussion. Seeing as he's drafting an Arbcomm appeal, I'm being bold and bringing it here for discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would unblock him with a strict warning about 1RR in future. He's only one of many editors who have reverted a now-blocked editor who is inserting information in the article which effectively tries to deny that the event happened as stated. I don't think we'd ever block anyone for reverting holocaust denial propoganda in a Holocaust-related article, regardless of whether they'd stepped over our technical limits; this strikes me as a similar situation. Black Kite 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given his explicit mention of 3RR in his edit summaries I get the strong impression he was unaware of the specific 1RR restriction there, and the person he was reverting was clearly being an awful lot more disruptive than he was. I'd be inclined to unblock with a warning. ~ mazca talk 11:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Except that in this edit he indicated that the article is under 1RR. This is before he did any of the reverts. Tim Song (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes. I don't doubt his intentions were good, but it's clear he consciously and intentionally broke the restriction he was aware of. These 1RR restrictions really do exist to stop exactly what happened here, he definitely should have reported the other user and then left it alone. I can definitely see the justification for the block here. ~ mazca talk 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Except that in this edit he indicated that the article is under 1RR. This is before he did any of the reverts. Tim Song (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't support an unblock - his justification was that he was reverting borderline vandalism, which if you look at the edits it clearly wasn't - he was involved in an edit war. He knew about the 1RR restriction, yet he still decided to break it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Restrictions are restrictions. He knew it and broke it. Don't really see why that is up for debate.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, CheesyBiscuit first went to that page yesterday to service a semiprotected edit request from TheDarkLordSeth. I also got involved with that request and I, for one, was surprised to find that TDLS was able to edit the article unassisted. It seems to me that CheesyBiscuit merely got caught up in the moment and perhaps could be given some leniency, since it's not his war. Also, since he has expressed that he will gladly agree to not edit that article, the block doesn't appear to be preventing anything. I think it would be best to unblock him and let him continue his gnome-like activities. Celestra (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Suggest reduction to time served. It was a mistake I am confident won't be repeated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Identity Theft S-F
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I just wanted to inform you of Identity Theft so to speak --> This User:StevenFraser account was created without my friends consent and It is a account which contains his First and Last Name which is in a way Identity Theft as he did not create that account. Tho I do have a idea on who did actually create it but I will not get into that. Steven has asked me If one of the Admins could either block or delete the account created in his name. Thank You 142.163.148.8 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Putting the name "Steven Fraser" into a Facebook search gives 714 results - it's a very common name. Do you have any reason to suspect whoever created that account even knows who your friend is? It could very easily be someone else who's actually called Steven Fraser, and the account hasn't edited in several months. ~ mazca talk 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The account's first edit was in 2008 - chances are it's legitimate, and just another person with the (quite common) name of Steven Fraser. f o x 12:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- My ex friend created the account due to the fact she and he both are at war with each-other (they hate each others guts) and i already know it was her that created it since He goes on Blue Kaffee and the fact knowing her She would probably create a account on here with my name as she did on Facebook by creating a false account on there with another ex friends name Then go on a hating/harassing/spamming spree as I witnessed when I was her friend in the past. 142.163.148.8 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure whether the account is legitimate, but this edit, the first one that the account made, does not look legitimate. Cs32en Talk to me 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was also made 2 years ago. The edits from February appear legitimate. Nothing to see here. --Smashvilletalk 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Iamstiff
This account appears to be a single-issue, "throwaway" account, used primarily to make a series of drive-by edits to remove the term "Northern Irish" from all articles about Northern Ireland football clubs.
Perusal of Iamstiff's contributions should confirm this.
There are dozens of edits making the same change, and so I'm not posting them all, but example diffs are:
[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]
I reverted the edits, as per WP:BRD. User:Iamstiff did not engage in discussion, but rather made the edits all over again. He subsequently declined to engage in dialogue and has apparently disappeared. I would like to be able to revert the edits without this being considered edit-warring.
I suspect Iamstiff may be a sockpuppet for User:Vintagekits who made similar edits in the past, and who is now banned. Mooretwin (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Don't think it's VK, other edits are US-centric, and some show poor grammar, spelling or wiki-knowledge. Having said that, I don't think there's a problem with reverting all of those edits. Black Kite 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- So Black kite you are encouraging an editor to edit war there is a discussion on this matter on the talk of the Northern Ireland and consensus on which to prefer is far from established, if it is a sock then revert away if not wait for consensus, edit wars never do any good and I am surprised an admin would encourage them. Mo ainm~Talk 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This guy Mo ainm is probably BigDunc based on dates of registration/retirement, and his interest in edit warring over this phrase. Has anyone got that tool that compares editors interests? I know there is no policy against users 'retiring' and then re-appearing under a different name, but they aren't supposed to edit in the same areas of past conflict thereby avoiding scrutiny, and this guy is referring to BigDunc in the third person [65] too. He also bizarrly declares on his user page he is an alternate account of an established user, without naming the user, I know for a fact that's not allowed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Infact Mo ainm has picked up where BigDunc left off at Gainsborough Trinity F.C., edit warring over use of the Ulster Banner, I'd say all of this adds up to evasion of scrutiny and if BigDuc is infact not 'retired' (seriously, why does this stupid template still exist?), he needs to revert to his main account forthwith, or link to it from this new account. MickMacNee (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- If Mo ainm is BigDunc then he, too, has a history of edit-warring over this issue on the very same articles. Regarding the discussion at Tatlk:Northern Ireland, I started that to try and obtain a consensus, but it is clear that there is no consensus either that "Northern Irish" is acceptable or not acceptable. On that basis, under WP:BRD, User:Iamstiff has failed to achieve consensus to his changes and reverting them is quite legitimate. Ohterwise, Iamstiff's edit-warring will have been rewarded. Mooretwin (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This guy Mo ainm is probably BigDunc based on dates of registration/retirement, and his interest in edit warring over this phrase. Has anyone got that tool that compares editors interests? I know there is no policy against users 'retiring' and then re-appearing under a different name, but they aren't supposed to edit in the same areas of past conflict thereby avoiding scrutiny, and this guy is referring to BigDunc in the third person [65] too. He also bizarrly declares on his user page he is an alternate account of an established user, without naming the user, I know for a fact that's not allowed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Infact Mo ainm has picked up where BigDunc left off at Gainsborough Trinity F.C., edit warring over use of the Ulster Banner, I'd say all of this adds up to evasion of scrutiny and if BigDuc is infact not 'retired' (seriously, why does this stupid template still exist?), he needs to revert to his main account forthwith, or link to it from this new account. MickMacNee (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- So Black kite you are encouraging an editor to edit war there is a discussion on this matter on the talk of the Northern Ireland and consensus on which to prefer is far from established, if it is a sock then revert away if not wait for consensus, edit wars never do any good and I am surprised an admin would encourage them. Mo ainm~Talk 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is just the usual disruptive forum shopping that Mooretwin usually uses when he does not get his way in his point-of-view campaigns. He brought it up here, was told to go away, went here where the discussion want against him, so now he comes here to try and get answer he likes. This is a content dispute, no administrator action needed other than someone stopping Mooretwin's relentless forum shopping. 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Delicious Carbuncle. AGAIN. (and Bali ultimate)
In this discussion and it's related links, Delicious carbuncle is misstating the purpose of that RfC. The RfC is regarding Ash's BLP editing behavior, while Dc and Bali ultimate are deliberately using this as a platform to make points (attacks) about other possible and/or perceived violations.
If any other issue is to be raised in this RfC besides Ash's BLP editing, it should be addressed promptly, properly, with diffs, details, summaries, and certifications. Otherwise, those comments should be immediately stricken as hostile and Wikihounding/bullying. Isn't that right
Please advise. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The irony of a SPA bringing up DC's supposed single-minded attempt to ban Ash is amusing in an ironic sense. What admin attention is needed? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some admin attention at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty Trombone might cut this round of trolling short. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Possible threat
66.99.248.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made what could be read as a threat in this edit (stating that a specifically named person was an endangered species) ... to me, it seemed relatively minor; but I wanted to report it here in-case others viewed it more seriously. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Disregard ... the user made a subsequent edit claiming the same person was "the cutest" endangered species. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see where the possibility lies, but yes, not a threat. f o x 17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The three-revert rule
User:DIREKTOR made more than three revert actions on Bleiburg massacre article within a 24-hour period. Pada78 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please take it to this noticeboard. DustiInsert Sly Comments 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like DIREKTOR is reverting the contributions of sockpuppets per WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users. They are puppets of this person. Pada78 above is yet another of them. No admin action necessary, except perhaps either at WP:SPI or simple blocks per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 18:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the article for a week, it looks like all the activity on the page recently has been an edit war between a sockmaster and a couple of editors. -- Atama頭 18:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
GameZone
Right, I'm not really sure if this is the right place (or if a right place exists), but I received a bullying-sounding email from the purported Editor-in-Chief of GameZone based on a comment I made on a talk page. Basically, I noticed a user's (DarkBlade4658 (talk · contribs)) sole contributions were adding GameZone reviews and previews to articles - a little bit of looking and the user turns out to be an editor for them. I gave the user two warnings before reporting them to the COI noticeboard. The user then replied on my talk page and I explained the situation on his talk page. Here's where it gets interesting - I then received an email to my personal email account (the address of which is available on my website, the email wasn't sent through Wikipedia) from the purported Editor-in-Chief of GameZone, criticising my expression of opinion on the talk page (I questioned GameZone's reliability in passing). Now, seeing as this is essentially off-wiki, I'm not sure if it should even be here, but then again, seeing as it's (essentially) the head of a company sending (what I found to be) a bullying email for someone saying something about said company on a talk page, maybe it should. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think he might just have qualified for a lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
General disruptive editing
91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruptive editing on March 17 per this thread. He has since made several posts on my talk page, persistently soapboxing about:
- "sick americans", "Nudity rocks" - [66]
- "Sick American aversion sex syndrome", "USA has been hijacked by a pack of religious Christian and other evil sects", " Nudity in films rock and thats a fact, no crazy American priest or evil sects are gonna tell me otherwise" - [67]
- "And while we are at it: Health care in USA! Only 100 years behind Europe!" - [68]
At times, he makes attempts to make his edits look legitimate, such as starting posts like this one. I've replied to that post of his and even notified him of this when he kept persisting for a reply on the article talk page. My talk page is full of communication with him where I was very patient and offering advice in the unlikely event that he decides to do something useful. My last comment to him stated, among other things: "should you cause any further disruption to articles or talk pages, I will report you and ask that you be blocked". He replied to that post today (from a different IP, 91.150.30.17 (talk · contribs)) by calling me an "American self appointed dictator asshole", "American fag" and told me to "Run home to mother you fuck" ([69]).
He edits from a dynamic IP and I think he deserves a block; a range block would be appropriate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can you list the IPs from which the edits came? It will be easier to nail down a rangeblock (if deemed appropriate). TNXMan 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- 91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 91.150.30.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the only ones I've seen so far. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- A CheckUser could help identify more info (IPs) and calculate a rangeblock more accurately.--mono 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unless there has also been activity from registered users in the range I don't think a checkuser would be much use here. Right now I'm seeing some blockable activity from two IPs, but it's very sporadic and there just hasn't been enough activity to nail down exactly what range is being used here, let alone justify blocking it. I blocked the recently-used IP for harassment but that's all that's warranted right now, I think. ~ mazca talk 19:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- A CheckUser could help identify more info (IPs) and calculate a rangeblock more accurately.--mono 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- 91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 91.150.30.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the only ones I've seen so far. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Edson Rosa
User:Edson Rosa (Special:Contributions/Edson Rosa; Special:Contributions/Edson Rosa Brise) was recently banned for one week for persistently uploading images without proper documentation. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Edson Rosa.) That ban was extended to two weeks after the user created a alternate account and continued editing in the same fashion. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa.) Today, following the expiration of the block, the editor again uploaded a non-free image, claiming it to be his/her own work and releasing it to public domain.
None of these incidents seem to be malicious vandalism. The user seems to sincerely wish to contribute to Wikipedia. Yet they are clearly persistent violations of Wikipedia policy, and at least in the case of uploading non-free images constitute serious problems. To my knowledge, the user has made no attempt to discuss these issues or seek ways to redress them. User talk:Edson Rosa and User talk:Edson Rosa Brise include more than 110 warnings, but no responses from the user. Cnilep (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- See also: Special:Contributions/Edson Henrique Rosa Junior, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa/Archive Cnilep (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked this editor indefinitely. It's obvious that he/she is not getting the point here, what with no apparent intention of stopping the incorrect uploads and no attempt to communicate at any point in time. The multiple socks are definitely a problem as well. If the editor is willing to discuss their actions and learn why they're doing things wrong, then I'd be fine with an unblock at that point. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate editing of Natural born citizen of the United States by IP user
The IP user 108.7.96.216 has been repeatedly attempting to add material to Natural born citizen of the United States, purporting to explain why an exception to the "natural born citizen" rule was made for people who were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. No source has been cited, and the accuracy of the explanation is questionable. I advised this user regarding Wikipedia's sourcing policies on his talk page after the third instance of this, but he went ahead and did it a fourth time a short while ago, without addressing (or even acknowledging) the problem. I fear this user is just going to keep doing this over and over again unless some stronger action is taken. Richwales (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Physical threat on user's page
There is a user page that I don't wish to name on this board, containing a physical threat against, as he put it, "Wikipedia." Is there any way I can notify you without having to use a public noticeboard? Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You could email WP:OVERSIGHT, but I would only do so if it was a threat against an actual user or person. If it was just to Wikipedia, I don't think that really warrants attention. Aiken ♫ 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)