JoeSperrazza (talk | contribs) m →WP:TE by IP 68.198.135.130: indent |
→Block request: Angel's flight: pov pushing, imo |
||
Line 633: | Line 633: | ||
:::::The question then was whether Angel's flight had edited from within those ranges, and the answer, as has been posted here, was yes. Whether it was exactly the same IP isn't known, but there's no need to know that detail. The ranges are tiny, just eight IP addresses in each. That makes it a technical match. Factor in the behavioral and editorial evidence, and it's a match in every sense. <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 14:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::::The question then was whether Angel's flight had edited from within those ranges, and the answer, as has been posted here, was yes. Whether it was exactly the same IP isn't known, but there's no need to know that detail. The ranges are tiny, just eight IP addresses in each. That makes it a technical match. Factor in the behavioral and editorial evidence, and it's a match in every sense. <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 14:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::@Cla, you have been concerned there was no POV pushing from Angel's flight (Af). I saw some. Here is the LaRouche position: "Obama's so-called health-care reform, modelled as it is on both the Nazi T4 and the British NICE model, is riddled with procedures which will permit the cutting of care, from the comparative effectiveness studies to the Accountable Care Organizations. But the chief measure, as Office of Management and Budget chief Peter Orszag is at pains to stress, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), previously known as the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), and popularly known as "death panels."[http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2010/3718t4_has_begun.html] Af came to [[death panel]] and would [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_panel&diff=next&oldid=408421200 support] text that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_panel&oldid=414375699#NICE_section_-_Journalists_have_sometimes... overstated] things (to LaRouche's benefit). Here's me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=411813083 calling] Af's POV out. Af was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_panel&action=historysubmit&diff=411805472&oldid=411796554 trying] to link the IPAB (and NICE) to the word death panel by overstating-sources & giving undue weight, in my opinion. They took a mini-break then returned by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_panel&action=historysubmit&diff=411601448&oldid=411577923 adding back] some OK content, but also some content (off-topic and Gratzer) that had already been decided [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_panel&oldid=412201410#Reference_to_David_Gratzer against], fyi. [[User:Jesanj|Jesanj]] ([[User talk:Jesanj|talk]]) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Violating of editing restrictions by Rich Farmbrough (again) == |
== Violating of editing restrictions by Rich Farmbrough (again) == |
Revision as of 17:34, 18 February 2011
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) |
|
Editnotice required, apparently...
Per this Wikipedia:Hardcore images needs an Editnotice created to let us know that we're not allowed to edit that essay without Herostratus' permission. I was going to create one myself but it seems one needs to be an admin to do it; no doubt he would have himself had he not been desysopped.
Oh, and yes the above may contain a *hint* of sarcasm. Egg Centric (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Account creators may also edit edit notices. --Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can make one if he wants it. Otherwise, I'd ignore him. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Barnstar on its way Egg Centric (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can make one if he wants it. Otherwise, I'd ignore him. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I think the sarcasm is funny, this is actually a situation where some input from others would be great. Months ago I asked HS to userfy this essay. The request was refused and I took it to a deletion discussion. Editors assumed it was an attempt to censor an essay and overwhelmingly !voted to keep. Since then, HS has locked the page down. Reverts (not my changes) here and here. These on top of the gaul to say anyone can edit but me 'is not only completely out of line, it is against WP:ESSAYS. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.". Time to userfy this essay and I believe HS needs a reminder of protocol if they can dictate who can and cannot edit.Cptnono (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Userfied to User:Herostratus/Hardcore images. If anyone wants to WP:OWN an essay, time to move it out of project space. Fences&Windows 00:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is troubling, Fences. The essay was up for MfD this fall and the decision was "Keep" (the headcount FWIW was 11-3, and one of the "Strong Keep" voters was Jimbo, for whatever that is worth.) So just deciding on one's own say-so to ignore that is troubling, and since you also deleted the shortcut (not called for, since many shortcuts point into userspace) this is an administrative rather than just an editorial action, so this is doubly troubling. (actually, a bot did this, sorry)
Now, as to "owning", this is an interesting question, and it involves the question of "hostile edits" to essays in Wikispace. Of course what constitutes a "hostile edit" can be debatable in some cases. But not here. An editor (who has repeatedly, vociferously, and at great length expressed his opposition to and rejection of the entire thrust and thesis of the essay) was gutting the essay, essentially a slow-motion page blanking. This was no good-faith effort to improve the essay or make it stronger and clearer, but rather a hostile attempt to destroy it, disingenuous protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. All this is discussed on the essay's talk page, which Fences should probably have read before taking this mistaken action.
In my opinion, edits to an essay that are clearly hostile shouldn't be allowed (instead, editors are encouraged to create refuting essays of their own and link to them on the original essay's "See also" section). I think if the principle of hostile edits to essays is to be allowed, that lead to a lot chaos and basically the potential destruction of the concept of essays, at least for those which are not necessarily popular and well-protected.
But who knows, maybe it would be a good thing. But it would be a major change, and there should be some quite considerable discussion before this is accepted, I think.
So if someone could please undo Fences' action and sort this all out, that would be good idea, I think. As always, I'm open to RfC, mediation, or whatever other good solutions are available. Another MfD would certainly be permissible. But not just, you know, one editor deciding he doesn't like the page. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't one editor not liking it. You reverted two other editors trying to make changes so at least three of us were raising concerns. You are able to make it say so much more in your user space so have fun with it and make your point. If you feel it is sufficient to change policy (which is an ongoing discussion over at Commons which you have been absent from) then please submit it at the Village Pump's policy page. F&W did act a little more boldly than I expected but any admin applying the policy fixes the issue and is exactly the outcome I expected sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see that in the article history, I see only User:Atomaton, not counting this one edit by Egg Centric, unless one wants to go back to November or earlier.
- Well, anyway, Fences, there you have it: if you acted a little more boldly than Cptnono expected (!) then I think it's safe to say you've gone quite a bit off the edge of the board.
- OK, well, this looks like a good case for mediation, I think. I'll file a request with the Cabal, and if mediation works OK we'll take it from there. In the meantime, the essay should be moved back into main essay space, and I would prefer if someone do this, but this is not critical, we can do that later on. I am restoring the shortcut, though, as this will make the page easier to point to.
- Also, ould it be asking too much if, in future, participants at ANI could suggest dispute resolution or something before taking precipitate action? We do have a whole dispute resolution process, and it would a good thing if admins in particular familiarize themselves with it, I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:ESSAYS, the idea of an essay is to put forward a point of view. These may range from personal to minority views, to views that enjoy wide consensus. If an essay sets out to make the case for a particular point of view, it is legitimate for the author to ensure that it stays true to that point of view. Improvements should be focused on clarifying the presentation of that point of view, but not to change the point of view. Editors who do not agree with the point of view put forward are free to write an alternative essay. Sorry, Fences, the deletion and userification without an XfD was improper, and should be undone. --JN466 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reread it, please: Wikipedia:ESSAYS clearly says, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Do you see this occurring here? Because I certainly do. The issue is not the viewpoint, it's the refusal to let others edit it. The MfD was about the content, not the actions of the author. None of the content is being changed in userfication. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, if you look at the edit history, and detailed discussions in the talk page you would see that no editor has tried to change the point of view being made in the essay. If it is in main space, then the essay is subject to the same consensus rules and BRD rules as any other article. No editor may wp:OWN the essay in mainspace. Clearly the originating editor of this essay wished for no one to modify the article without his approval, and explicitly expressed that he owned the article. Hence, he should be able to do that, but only if it is in user space. having said that -- see my earlier comment below about due process, that Herostratus should have had a chance to express his view before any action was made. Atom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Another point is that the essay could be broken into sections allowing expression of all major points of views on the general topic. An exclusionist perspective of only allowing one editor to make changes and expressly prohibiting edits of any kind from editors that are viewed as hostile is not functional. Atom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I've dropped a post about this to the Gendergap list. I would like a few more eyes on this, in particular female eyes. --JN466 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course I think that it is clear that a personal essay should be in user space, and community work to develop policies or guidelines should allow opinions and expressions from the spectrum of Wikipedia editors. In this case I was bothered by the lack of due process. I would have at least liked to see editor Herostratus express his viewpoint on why his essay should not be in user space before any decision or action was taken. Atom (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Atom, you have indicated that you will not accept mediation. I leave it as exercise to the reader to determine why this might be so. This now leaves us with the question, what to do next? RfC is not designed to handle this type of situation, and I don't know of any other dispute resolution steps that would apply here.
- One solution would be for another editor or editors besides me to agree to watchlist the page and defend the page's integrity. However, we're all busy and have full watchlists, so I'm not sure if anyone is willing to do this.
- Another solution would be to move the page back to main space and initiate an MfD.
- A third solution would be to clarify the operative policy, by suggesting something like the following change be made to WP:ESSAY (additions show in italics, and if anyone could suggest better wording that would be fine) and submitting it to an RfC:
- "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. If an essay is subject to hostile or destructive edits (such as section or page blanking), and only a single editor objects, that editor may be assumed to be in violation of WP:OWN and the essay may be summarily moved to userspace by any editor; no WP:MFD or other procedure is required
- I wouldn't support this, but it's arguable - a case could be made that if only one editor is watchlisting and defending an essay this if prima facie evidence that it doesn't have consensus to be in main space, and if the community wants to adopt this change to WP:ESSAY I'd go along with it. This is the de facto standard that is being applied by Fetchcomms and Fence, but I think it would be a good idea to have it clarified by community decision before we apply it across the board.
- So which of these three solutions would be best, or does anyone have another suggestion? Since mediation has been rejected, I would seek advice. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, first, I agreed to assist you if you thought mediating something would help. I'm not sure what iy is I said was a "rejection". Secondly, while it was in your user space, it was your essay. What did we have to mediate? Third is, what do we have to mediate? I have just as much right as any other editos to improve Wikipedia. We went through a very normal BRD cycle and discussed viewpoints in a ehalthy way. Should all articles be mediated when that happens? Atom (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Move back to Wikipedia namespace because there was an extended deletion debate with the result Keep. The essay which was considered for deletion was the one written by Herostratus, not a denatured version. The extent and manner such an essay can be changed is a question that needs to be addressed. I think edits which substantially change the meaning of the essay as opposed to refining it or elaborating on it are properly reverted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion was before the ownership issue. HS proved that others were not welcome to contribute after the deletion discussion so this was a great decision. Faster than I thought but same result that should have been expected. And note that I did not edit war, edit maliciously, or even open this ANI so I am not the bad guy as HS is asserting at the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am more inclined to see what is happening here as a form of censorship. Essays should reflect a range of opinions, and there was plenty of support for having this as an essay in the MfD. This reminds me a little of happened to the WP:ACTIVIST essay a few weeks ago: it was overwhelmed by editors dicking around with it, making it say the opposite of what it used to say, inserting jokes, etc. In the end it was locked, the controversy has died down, and the essay now seems to be coming along nicely, judging by the WP:ACTIVIST talk page.
- I am not saying behaviour at this essay rose to that level (although this comes close, but there was still an effort to change and water down the message of the essay. If you fundamentally disagree with the message of an essay, it is better to ignore it and work on a different one stating your position; both essays can and should then link to each other. That way we get fruitful debate; not by shutting positions out.
- Move back to Wikipedia namespace per previous MfD. --JN466 12:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Except that "shutting positions out" is exactly what HS was doing by WP:OWNing the article. If people cannot edit the essay, it doesn't belong in WP space. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion was before the ownership issue. HS proved that others were not welcome to contribute after the deletion discussion so this was a great decision. Faster than I thought but same result that should have been expected. And note that I did not edit war, edit maliciously, or even open this ANI so I am not the bad guy as HS is asserting at the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This absolutely needs to be userfied. In addition to ownership issues, Herostratus apparently means for this to apply to a very contrived definition of "hardcore", that is almost just bukkake and nothing else. It's a pointy salvo in a content dispute that Jimbo has latched on to. To Jimbo: While an appeal to exercising editorial discretion when it comes to pornographic images would be a completely appropriate essay, this isn't it. Gigs (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- And "hardcore" has actual legal implications that the essay ignores. The essay also ignores that there are very few (if any) articles solely based on sex acts in adult films. The creator of the essay actually tried to change the scopes of articles so that this essay would be more inline with those articles which meant that any policy change would have removed those images. There is attempted gaming of the system and wheel warring now. But fine, I will play the game. Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give examples of those edits please?--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bukkake is the perfect example
- Cptnono (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Snowballing is another one. Just a few minutes ago Herostratus put forth the argument that it is only in porn and no where else.[11]. Similar discussion have taken place. I ill be happy to track them all down but it will take a bit since they all kind of blend together since they have happened multiple times.
- C'mon, saying Dr Ruth is not RS when it means that an articles scope will be about sex acts and not just porn? I have to track that diff down still. Gaming. Complete and utter gaming.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That kind of editing is the kind of editing I usually see lead to a topic ban. There is a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with some attempts to game the system to try and drive their personal crusade. If they can't reign it in, then I'd recommend a topic ban be put into place immediately.--Crossmr (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The editor was actually blocked once after receiving multiple "final warnings". One of the transgressions was actually editing an image in the main space to be of a creampie with smiley faces all over it. The editor has toned it down since then but I still see it as covertly trying to disrupt articles. This might be for reasons that are morally acceptable but it certainly does look like a personal "crusade" to me. By the way, I made an edit to the essay recently that would have made it so it was no longer a concern for me if it stayed in the mainspace. It was reverted by another editor but if people want to take a look at it I think it should be considered since it would make it crystal clear to the reader that this essay is very contentious.[12] Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That kind of editing is the kind of editing I usually see lead to a topic ban. There is a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with some attempts to game the system to try and drive their personal crusade. If they can't reign it in, then I'd recommend a topic ban be put into place immediately.--Crossmr (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give examples of those edits please?--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- And "hardcore" has actual legal implications that the essay ignores. The essay also ignores that there are very few (if any) articles solely based on sex acts in adult films. The creator of the essay actually tried to change the scopes of articles so that this essay would be more inline with those articles which meant that any policy change would have removed those images. There is attempted gaming of the system and wheel warring now. But fine, I will play the game. Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposed Topic ban of Herostratus
Given his previous block for this kind of behaviour and the fact that he's again being disruptive with it, I think it's time he was topic banned from this kind of thing. He's engaged in bad faith assumptions, edit warring, ownership, and created a hostile editing environment with his little insults he likes to toss into statements, like referring to editors as fanboys and the like. As such I propose the following topic ban: Herostratus is topic banned for a period of 6 months from all articles/images/templates/discussions/ and other material related to pornography or human sexual practices (broadly construed). This is to ensure a cordial editing environment for all parties involved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Profanity and homophobia
Sighs another day, another IP and another overzealous editor. This time its over at Talk:Raining Men (song), with 91.154.107.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) using profanity. In particular he/she has directed homophobic slurs at myself (even though I've not professed to being homosexual), not that I have an prejudices against anyone, and more importantly has made offensive comments such as "now i know your a ho-m-o.. thats explains it all.. your so fu*kin stupid" which imply that there is a correlation between homosexuality and intelligence. I would like to see such comments removed from the page. Additionally I think its evident that the IP is unable to respond to concerns about his/her view might be considered incorrect and fails to respect the nature of discussions. There could be a link to sock master User:Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has previously clashed with all involved editors multiple times before being banned and marked as a sockmaster. also could be linked to Arky91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who harrassed my talkpage not long ago. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Homophobia and disrespect towards others should not be tolerated IMO — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 06:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend that you delete the IP's dumb-headed comments, and also your own comment so it won't be left orphaned, on the grounds of "not feeding the troll". They're not likely to block the IP since he's only made the two entries. But you could start an SPI, if this becomes an epidemic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is my experience that there is a correlation between homosexuality and intelligence; everyone I know who fears or hates it and its expression are morons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Putting it slightly more charitably, I suspect that loud opponents of anything that has to do with "gay rights" (or any kind of "abnormal" sexual behavior) are either not sufficiently in touch with their own sexuality, or else believe that what's "right" for them is how it has to be for everyone else. Even at that, it's amazing the social progress that has been made in the last 50 years in America. Not just gay people, but the subject itself was "in the closet" when I was young. The AIDS epidemic, and Surgeon General Everett Koop's courageous insistence on dealing with it instead of hiding from it, brought the issue out of the closet for good. However, there are still a sufficient number of morons out there, on any number of subjects. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, ANI is not a soapbox. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think most anyone who was around in 1970 would be amazed that, for example, "same sex marriage" would be approaching a level of acceptibility a mere 40 years hence. However, just as there are still racists around, there are also still sexists around. P.S. If you want to also lecture the admin LHvU for calling them "morons", feel free. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, ANI is not a soapbox. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Putting it slightly more charitably, I suspect that loud opponents of anything that has to do with "gay rights" (or any kind of "abnormal" sexual behavior) are either not sufficiently in touch with their own sexuality, or else believe that what's "right" for them is how it has to be for everyone else. Even at that, it's amazing the social progress that has been made in the last 50 years in America. Not just gay people, but the subject itself was "in the closet" when I was young. The AIDS epidemic, and Surgeon General Everett Koop's courageous insistence on dealing with it instead of hiding from it, brought the issue out of the closet for good. However, there are still a sufficient number of morons out there, on any number of subjects. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a troll, plain and simple. I removed the trolling and warned the anon. With hope they've already moved on and no more action is necessary. If not, well, that's what blocks of increasing duration are for.--Cúchullain t/c 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Guys, while I don't disagree, you're getting very close to attacking people for their religious beliefs. Just because I agree with you doesn't make it okay. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It would be quite a stretch to consider this diff[13] to be an expression of "religious belief". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- "everyone I know who fears or hates it and its expression are morons" -LHvU. Now I think homophobia is entirely unjustifiable, but between Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, there's about 2 billion people who at least nominally believe it to be sinful, a good chunk of whom probably do hold the beliefs described. I'm not saying LHvU is wrong, but he's treading a dangerous line and sacrificing the moral high ground. Let's stick to the matter at hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't rule out the satirical element. And by the way, I know plenty of folks who were raised Christian (myself included) who are a lot more tolerant about these things than our religion theoretically dictates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't include all Protestants - the Church of Sweden, for instance, doesn't even nominally believe that homosexuality is a sin. (Some of its members believe it is, of course, but the CoS teaches that it isn't.) Anyway, to bring this back on-topic, it would never have occured to me that LHvU's comment could have been interpreted as an attack on religious beliefs. Fear and hate of gay people isn't limited to religious people, and even those people who do believe homosexuality is a sin don't necessarily fear or hate it. Some do, vigorously - I don't know any such people personally though I wouldn't be surprised if I were to agree with LHvU about their intelligence if I did know them - but I'd guess an "oh I wish they wouldn't cos it's a sin, but it's nothing to do with me really" kind of attitude is much more common. --bonadea contributions talk 08:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- What Bonadea said; some religious inclined people seek understanding and compassion - even when not agreeing with the practice - when interacting with gay people and some atheist/agnostics are hostile toward same. My prejudices are in regard on how people respond to the issue, and not how they derive their misconceptions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- A good example of tolerance is what Steve Martin said in his, "What I Believe" bit: "I believe in equality. Equality for everyone. No matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- People, this is not a soapbox for general discussion. This is ANI. Take it elsewhere. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- A good example of tolerance is what Steve Martin said in his, "What I Believe" bit: "I believe in equality. Equality for everyone. No matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- "everyone I know who fears or hates it and its expression are morons" -LHvU. Now I think homophobia is entirely unjustifiable, but between Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, there's about 2 billion people who at least nominally believe it to be sinful, a good chunk of whom probably do hold the beliefs described. I'm not saying LHvU is wrong, but he's treading a dangerous line and sacrificing the moral high ground. Let's stick to the matter at hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It would be quite a stretch to consider this diff[13] to be an expression of "religious belief". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Should such comments not have been removed from the edit history too? I believe its called RD2ing? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- That would be the correct criterion for redaction, but I am not sure that this is sufficiently grossly offensive that revdel will be better than revert, block, ignore. "Not sufficiently grossly offensive" is a pretty low standard, so I would not complain were someone else to delete it. That is block-on-sight material, but there has been no activity from that IP for nearly two days now. A cursory scan does not present any suggestions for a potential range block, one of the above accounts is perma-blocked, and I do not see any contributions from the other (oversighted or typo?). If there is a regular pattern of harassment or of "new" accounts making similar statements, it may be worth asking for a sock puppet check. If you are being harassed at your user page, you can ask me or WP:RFPP to semi-protect the page temporarily; if you take this option, I would ask that you set up and monitor a parallel unprotected page so that non-autoconfirmed editors may contact you. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- The troll's comments are unintentionally funny, being rife with both obscenities and horrendously bad spelling. And who censors the "F-word" by spelling it "fu*k"? Removing it might actually make the IP look "better" somehow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- That would be the correct criterion for redaction, but I am not sure that this is sufficiently grossly offensive that revdel will be better than revert, block, ignore. "Not sufficiently grossly offensive" is a pretty low standard, so I would not complain were someone else to delete it. That is block-on-sight material, but there has been no activity from that IP for nearly two days now. A cursory scan does not present any suggestions for a potential range block, one of the above accounts is perma-blocked, and I do not see any contributions from the other (oversighted or typo?). If there is a regular pattern of harassment or of "new" accounts making similar statements, it may be worth asking for a sock puppet check. If you are being harassed at your user page, you can ask me or WP:RFPP to semi-protect the page temporarily; if you take this option, I would ask that you set up and monitor a parallel unprotected page so that non-autoconfirmed editors may contact you. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Repeated religious attacks by WikiManOne
WikiManOne (talk · contribs) has repeatedly brought up others' religion during content disputes.
- Here, he brings up an editor's Catholicism.
- Here, he agrees with another editor who questions the credibility of an editor who has a Christian userbox on his page.
- Here, he questions my credibility (without naming me) and basically says any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects. He is rightfully called out for it.
- Here, he makes a completely uncalled, false, and irrelevant attack on Catholicism in a dispute over sources.
- Here, he is warned on his talk page but shows no remorse and denies everything.
I think I got them all.
There's a fine line between getting heated in a content dispute and making highly offensive and unwarranted personal attacks on someone's religion. This editor is the most uncivil and belligerent I have ever seen on here. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This thread is going to do nothing whatsoever to cool the dispute and ease tensions. --B (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- NYyankees51 is hardly beyond reproach. DeCausa (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This of course coming from the editor who claimed that I was pro-human death because of my pro-choice stance. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply
- Yes, I admit without hesitation that I am guilty of making personal attacks. But I have never seen an editor go as far as to attack someone else's religion and question their credibility as an editor based on their religious beliefs. I am fully willing to be punished for what I said to WikiManOne. But I can't stand watching this sort of unabashed bigotry go unpunished. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This of course coming from the editor who claimed that I was pro-human death because of my pro-choice stance. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply
- NYyankees51 is hardly beyond reproach. DeCausa (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can say that, in general terms, "Pro-Choice" is in fact an "anti-life" stance. But to accuse a specific user of literally being "anti-life" or "pro-death" is rather over the top. Meanwhile, implying that conservatives on this point shouldn't be allowed to edit, is also over the top. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say that if you look carefully. What I said was that any admin that closes the discussion on the move in question should not have any obvious positions on the move, I clarified that being Christian doesn't disqualify one in my mind from being uninvolved by citing Episcopalians. As for the NCRegister, I still do not consider it a reliable source because it is run by a Church. My general statements about Catholics there were not directed at any editor and furthermore what I said about abuse and disrespecting women, I'm sure I could find you reliable sources for, they've been widely criticized for those things. I'm not going to answer every accusation thrown on these threads (as I've learned that replies seem to only fuel the flame on ANI) so if an uninvolved/neutral admin has questions, I can be reached here
- Bugs, that first comment was gratuitous and isn't going to do anything to cleanly and easily rectify this situation. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. My conservative friends have pointed out to me on various occasions, the "anti-life" aspect of "pro-choice". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- And it does no good whatsoever to bring that sentiment here. Wikipedia is not a political discussion board. --B (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You must have missed the recent dispute over whether to rename "Pro-Life" as "Anti-Abortion". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Still not relevant here. Calling pro-life "anti-life" or "pro-death" is a smear tactic, and flatly untrue. Your conservative friends have fed you a common POV talking point, that's all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not so. There is a valid, logical basis for those terms, which I can explain for you if you would like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to expound on my talk page. Though I'm fairly certain I've heard the argument before, in a few variations. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not so. There is a valid, logical basis for those terms, which I can explain for you if you would like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Still not relevant here. Calling pro-life "anti-life" or "pro-death" is a smear tactic, and flatly untrue. Your conservative friends have fed you a common POV talking point, that's all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You must have missed the recent dispute over whether to rename "Pro-Life" as "Anti-Abortion". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- And it does no good whatsoever to bring that sentiment here. Wikipedia is not a political discussion board. --B (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. My conservative friends have pointed out to me on various occasions, the "anti-life" aspect of "pro-choice". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, that first comment was gratuitous and isn't going to do anything to cleanly and easily rectify this situation. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say that if you look carefully. What I said was that any admin that closes the discussion on the move in question should not have any obvious positions on the move, I clarified that being Christian doesn't disqualify one in my mind from being uninvolved by citing Episcopalians. As for the NCRegister, I still do not consider it a reliable source because it is run by a Church. My general statements about Catholics there were not directed at any editor and furthermore what I said about abuse and disrespecting women, I'm sure I could find you reliable sources for, they've been widely criticized for those things. I'm not going to answer every accusation thrown on these threads (as I've learned that replies seem to only fuel the flame on ANI) so if an uninvolved/neutral admin has questions, I can be reached here
- [14] --B (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why did you post a link to a comment that you made earlier in this section? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was to say "This thread is going to do nothing whatsoever to cool the dispute and ease tensions" in reference to your comment about anti-life. Of course, it loses something when other users jump in front of it and modify the comment order. --B (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it might have been clearer to just restate the original statement. Here we have users at opposite poles that are at war with each other and accusing each other of bad faith and bias, and they might both be right. Good luck to the admins trying to figure this one out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was to say "This thread is going to do nothing whatsoever to cool the dispute and ease tensions" in reference to your comment about anti-life. Of course, it loses something when other users jump in front of it and modify the comment order. --B (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why did you post a link to a comment that you made earlier in this section? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- [14] --B (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm <-- Basically sums all of the discussions that have occurred over the last few weeks.
If you can tell what real life POV someone has, they are (probably) editing wrong. If people can tell that about you, then you're (probably) editing wrong. There are 3,558,998 other articles on the Wiki, and editing completely random ones is often far more fun. NW (Talk) 03:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Their user pages pretty well summarize their personal stances, and the unfortunate consequence, rightly or wrongly, is that it tends to raise suspicions about their edits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I still find it amusing that I somehow said "any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects." I find that very amusing considering that I am myself a Christian as my userpage says. :) WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The citation claiming that you say, "any Christian should not edit",[15] actually says that Christians who are part of the "Right to Life movement" are problematic; not all Christians. I don't see how any Christian could support abortion-as-contraception. Regardless of that, Yankee mischaracterized what you said in that one diff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, please stop making every discussion a soapbox for your own political views. Talk:Pro-life was a bad place for it, and AN/I is worse. The issue at hand is WM1's comments and whether they were out of line. Unless you're arguing that being a Christian is indicative of bias on abortion-related articles, in which case you're implicated in this fiasco too, the comment you made is not a productive one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- My political views are not as straightforward as you seem to think they are. Anyway, NYyankees51 significantly mischaracterized one of Wikiman's statements. Whether that was deliberate or a misreading, I couldn't say, but it does tend to undermine his argument. Yankees also makes it clear on his user page that he's conservative and a Roman Catholic. So raising questions about his neutrality seems fair. It's perfectly clear that Wikiman is politically opposite on that issue and in my opinion he's not neutral either. But while Wikiman's comments may be a bit pointed, they are not inherently unfair, as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think if you look at my history, you will find that I don't let my personal views interfere with my editing. Besides, this is not about me or the abortion issue. This is about Wikiman repeatedly bringing others' religion into a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You need to do something about your mischaracterization about this quote[16], where in your initial post here you said, "... basically says any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects." That is plainly not the case. His issue is with churches that are actively involved with the right-to-life stance, which the Roman Catholic obviously is; and he names some other denominations that he considers to be more liberal on abortion rights. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think if you look at my history, you will find that I don't let my personal views interfere with my editing. Besides, this is not about me or the abortion issue. This is about Wikiman repeatedly bringing others' religion into a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- My political views are not as straightforward as you seem to think they are. Anyway, NYyankees51 significantly mischaracterized one of Wikiman's statements. Whether that was deliberate or a misreading, I couldn't say, but it does tend to undermine his argument. Yankees also makes it clear on his user page that he's conservative and a Roman Catholic. So raising questions about his neutrality seems fair. It's perfectly clear that Wikiman is politically opposite on that issue and in my opinion he's not neutral either. But while Wikiman's comments may be a bit pointed, they are not inherently unfair, as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, please stop making every discussion a soapbox for your own political views. Talk:Pro-life was a bad place for it, and AN/I is worse. The issue at hand is WM1's comments and whether they were out of line. Unless you're arguing that being a Christian is indicative of bias on abortion-related articles, in which case you're implicated in this fiasco too, the comment you made is not a productive one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The citation claiming that you say, "any Christian should not edit",[15] actually says that Christians who are part of the "Right to Life movement" are problematic; not all Christians. I don't see how any Christian could support abortion-as-contraception. Regardless of that, Yankee mischaracterized what you said in that one diff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I still find it amusing that I somehow said "any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects." I find that very amusing considering that I am myself a Christian as my userpage says. :) WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare is totally correct, it can be so much more fun and rewarding editing topics you are not emotionally involved in - try this - if your emotionally involved in an issue then stay away from editing it. This issue pro life and abortion is clearly a train crash in the making and it is going to end in tears, or at least, blocks and bans and editing restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, hence why I don't edit any articles (other than the occasional simple tidy up) concerned with my political/religious/lifestyle beliefs/choices. GiantSnowman 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at WikiManOne's diff comments above personally I don't see anything presently actionable but he should be careful not to create a WP:BATTLEFIELD and does need to be aware as everyone else does there that the topic is emotive and all users discussing should attempt to be as respectful Wikipedia:RESPECT to the other position as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, that being said, WikiManOne should focus on one's edit history, not user boxes when determining if a person can remain objective on a subject. Sharing where you stand does not mean that one can't be objective and can actually be helpful as it lets others know whether or not you are knowledgable on specific subjects.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at WikiManOne's diff comments above personally I don't see anything presently actionable but he should be careful not to create a WP:BATTLEFIELD and does need to be aware as everyone else does there that the topic is emotive and all users discussing should attempt to be as respectful Wikipedia:RESPECT to the other position as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, hence why I don't edit any articles (other than the occasional simple tidy up) concerned with my political/religious/lifestyle beliefs/choices. GiantSnowman 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPA clearly states: "What is considered to be a personal attack? ... Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be 'you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?'" NYyankees51 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to defend wikiman, as I said above, a person should be judged upon what he does/how he edits, not on his self-identification. I'd much rather deal with a rational thoughtful athiest/christian/hindu/Manchester United fan that has identified themselves as such via a user box, than deal with an irrational user who hasn't self-identified where they stand. Despite what some believe, a user box does not equate to lack of objectivity/integrity or the lack of the ability to measure consensus. Some people get too sensitive around the issue of NPA. We need thicker skins around here. That being said, if the rationale to discredit other points of view continues, then there are other grounds upon which the community could act. But 4 edits? He's not there yet.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- One edit is enough. At least, it seems fair to say one edit would be enough had he been doing this Muslims or Buddhists or Jews or whatever. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Should be noted that WikiManOne has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring unrelated to this discussion, discussion below.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ban proposal Access Denied
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- It's been past 48 hours. Closing as Access Denied is now banned by the community. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Access Denied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created many socks and doesn't really seem to have any intention of stopping. I proposing a full site ban for Access Denied. Inka888 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support As nom. Inka888
- The user has been blocked since December. I doubt anyone is going to unblock him. --B (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- We've blocked so many AD socks that we've actually stopped marking them. I can't believe it actually needs to be stated, but yes, I support a ban. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support He had not been banned? Why wait. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment when was the most recent sock blocked? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Heironymous Rowe, Depressing I was shocked when he was blocked for Socking and I sent him an email encouraging him to help at another WMF project to get the block reconsidered. I remember him quite fondly and I hope one day he is another Jack Merridew and come back and get back to content creation. That day is not now in the mean time but it seem he has left us no choice.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support-didn't his latest sock pop up on ANI last night to taunt and get blocked[17]? I alrready assumed he was banned, but if not the situation should be remedied.Heiro 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- DFTT Kthx. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment He's not the one who's been disrupting ANI? And is this the proper venue for this proposal?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Serial sockpuppeteer ,wasting the time of other users, admins, CheckUsers. Hobartimus (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Fetchcomms's point is well-taken, and last time around I didn't see the point of a ban, but if he's still at it and a ban makes people less nervous about reverting his silly trolling, then sure. 28bytes (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Gloomy sad regretful upsetting...support Been hunting him down for more than a month, he's [like] a 4chan troll now. --Perseus8235 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied. --Perseus8235 18:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you put some AD socks on my talk page (ones that aren't tagged yet)? --Perseus8235 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ban or not, all this sock-tagging is pretty pointless, IMO. He's not some wily supervillain who needs a team of forensic analysts on the case 24/7, he's just a bored former editor who occasionally drops by to troll. RBI is really the best thing to do here, ban or not. 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Support - AD has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and has used many sockpuppets. We've blocked so many of them (even though I am not an administrator). As far as I know, trolling and sockpuppetry are not tolerated, and therefore, they must be put in their place. He has crossed the line several times while he is blocked. So, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support It's disappointing to know this guy once was a constructive editor... what a shame. Diego Grez (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- WTH User:Kathryn NicDhàna/Admin Toolbox User:Pigman/Admin toolbox and ANI are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied? --Perseus8235 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perseus8235 what are you saying in above statement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- WTH User:Kathryn NicDhàna/Admin Toolbox User:Pigman/Admin toolbox and ANI are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied? --Perseus8235 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support: It is a shame, but AD was, when he was here, a good editor. Why he took this path, I am not sure, but it is disappointing to say the least. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Very sad support. It doesn't appear to be stopping and it's gone on long enough. It is with much sadness that I !vote this way, but still. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support through my tears. Access Denied was brilliant with the code and knew his way around the wiki like no one else. He helped me calculate range blocks. I have no idea why he turned to the Dark Side either. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Endorse ban - I've been waffling on this one for a bit. I was originally going to oppose because obvious vandalism (like what Access has done) already falls under the list of exceptions to 3RR; site-banning another editor makes their contributions eligible for reversion on sight. He's effectively de facto banned already (to be perfectly blunt, no admin who isn't on crack will unblock him), but there is disruption which cannot be accurately categorized as exempted from 3RR (such as trolling, personal attacks, outing, and MoS violations); this renders a formal de jure community ban necessary. --Dylan620 (t • c) 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I am Access Denied and I hate to ware a perfectly good ip to say this. I would like to return to new page patrol (I have only created one sock inthe last few weeks the Mexico ups were not me). My account is global locked which is only thing stopping me requesting unblOck to work on new page patrol again. Thanks for reading this 74.117.233.130 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Have a new acct could we try WP:ROPE? Access Denied2 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Per above. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. This is really ridiculous at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Anyone who socks this much is up to no good. --Rschen7754 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Enough is enough. If he's going to continue evading his block as he evidently did today, then we really have no other choice. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. About time. It's funny how when I made a ban proposal, it was shut down as DNFTT. As if waiting a few weeks has made any difference. DNFTT is the most misunderstood guideline on Wikipedia and, therefore, utterly worthless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yay! If we must, but really? Mono (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is a bit uncivil. Alpha Quadrant talk 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I really don't think that it should go as far as a ban yet. It appears to me that most of the accounts were created on or before January 11th. Only one was created after that date. All of the IP's are assumed to be him on very limited evidence. I do support the block though, but I believe that AD could come back and be a constructive editor. Alpha Quadrant talk 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support This user has changed since he abused that account when he retired. Don't know why he kept going by making sockpuppet accounts and he even ran for adminship at one point. WayneSlam 21:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Access Denied unblock appeal
Acct global locked so cannot request from there. Would likeunblock to be able to go back to NPP work thank you Access Denied2 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above user is either a sock or is pretending to be, and I've reported it to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- What is or was preventing AD from logging in from his main account and posting a proper unblock request to his talk page? I don't see "cannot edit own talk page" in the block log. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's globally locked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- What is or was preventing AD from logging in from his main account and posting a proper unblock request to his talk page? I don't see "cannot edit own talk page" in the block log. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
He's welcome to email Arbcom arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org (that's a lower case L, not a 1) with a sensible proposal for a return to productive editing. He doesn't need access to Wikipedia email to do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe an standard offer set six months from the last sock. Inka888 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not if they are banned... →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's not banned yet. I support a ban. I was saying if we choose not to ban him that is a possible road to take. Inka888 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The standard offer still applies to banned users; though given the large number of socks (43 confirmed in addition to another 7 suspected), I doubt that the community would be willing to let him back in after just six months. --Dylan620 (t • c) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, a ban is going to happen. There is unanimous support for the ban and AD's posts to the section just added more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I meant. It would probably take a lot longer than 6 months to get the community's trust back. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, [18]. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Though as a general rule, ban discussions need to run for 24-48 hours before closing, perhaps we could invoke IAR on this one and close it early? HalfShadow's tagging is correct; Access was effectively banned already – this discussion is a mere formality, albeit a necessary one. In any event, it's becoming a blizzard out here. --Dylan620 (t • c) 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- The standard offer still applies to banned users; though given the large number of socks (43 confirmed in addition to another 7 suspected), I doubt that the community would be willing to let him back in after just six months. --Dylan620 (t • c) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's not banned yet. I support a ban. I was saying if we choose not to ban him that is a possible road to take. Inka888 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not if they are banned... →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- AD, if you're reading this, the community is obviously not willing to let you back at the minute. That doesn't necessarily mean they never will (you can see why folks might be just a little bit pissed off), but you need to totally disengage, at least from this project for at least 6 months (under any account or IP) and let people start to forget how much disruption you caused and how much unnecessary work was created in cleaning up after you. If there's a WMF project on which you're not blocked, making yourself useful there wouldn't hurt your case. Wikipedia will still be here in 6 months or however long it takes for you to regain the community's trust, but for every sock you create, the slimmer your chances of ever being allowed back become. Nothing that is done on Wikipedia cannot be undone and no user who is blocked/banned cannot be unbanned, but it's not going to happen overnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Review of my administrator actions: block of WikiManOne
Note: WikiManOne is being discussed above for another issue, independent of this.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I recently put down a block on WikiManOne (talk · contribs) after reading the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 48 hours). This was a difficult block to make, because I have expressed a very strong opinion on just this very subject, and it is diametrically opposed to {{user|WikiManOne's. Worse, after I made the block, I was already going to bring it to ANI, but I now actually notice that WikiManOne was the very same editor to whom I expressed this opinion! The result is that I've made a block that was out of the scope of what was appropriate for me. I don't want to completely undo it and as such give the editor a free pass if the block was justified (which I still believe it was, based simply on the structure of the edits, regardless of content). Can I have the community to take a review of it please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say you're in the green. This is a textbook violation of 3RR - given that you're a great administrator, I won't hesitate to say that I trust your ability to make a neutral judgment based solely on offenses and not previous experience. m.o.p 22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me, good for you for bringing it up here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are an admin, and thus your action is wrong. However, I am also an admin which makes my comment wrong. Any admin either agreeing with me or disagreeing me is also wrong (although it is wrong of me to say that). Are you sure you are an admin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Resp to Magog, below. I am supporting your action; although you may be somewhat involved (and thus are "wrong") you did the right thing - per
my agentBaseball Bugs, every admin action or comment is "wrong" (including my own attempt at humour, apparently) so... don't fret. It's fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Resp to Magog, below. I am supporting your action; although you may be somewhat involved (and thus are "wrong") you did the right thing - per
I'm afraid your sarcasm is lost on me LHvU. I don't get it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is not unlike Jayron's recent self-directed comment that "everything he says is wrong". I expect LHvU is saying that any admin's actions are under review and in some sence "everything they do is wrong", at least in the eyes of some editors. Hope that helps. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- simpl if you have doubts then revert it and bring it here. it shows great AGF (and even this admission does) een though there may ave been support for it. You may vry well be one of th ebetter admins i know, along with Number 57.--Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I would hate to see either 1) the editor's block log unnecssarily plugged up with another block or 2) the editor not be blocked for behavior which the community agrees on. I would be glad to unblock otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- simpl if you have doubts then revert it and bring it here. it shows great AGF (and even this admission does) een though there may ave been support for it. You may vry well be one of th ebetter admins i know, along with Number 57.--Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- - Two days is cheap enough for this report the user was only blocked a couple of days ago and has raced back in seemingly without listening to any advice - Magog's realized he was a bit involved and so brought it here, for opinions, and I support his actions completely. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Some, though not all, of WikiMan's verbal attacks on other editors are unfair and unjustified. He needs to cool his jets a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is an edit warring block after a similar one 48 hours ago. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Personal attacks and edit warring. Not a good combination. No matter how well-meaning he may be, he's building up to a permanent place in the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is an edit warring block after a similar one 48 hours ago. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good block I was considering it myself, and I tend to lean a bit more on WM1's side of the argument.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Sarek, might give you a swat with a Template:Minnow and say in the future watch how involved you are The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've taken ownership of the block, so he can't complain about Magog not being impartial. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Sarek, might give you a swat with a Template:Minnow and say in the future watch how involved you are The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- The mistake was certainly understandable - when a user's name doesn't match their signature, it's possible to accidentally not realize the two are one in the same. Sure, it would have been better if someone else had done it, but it's not the end of the world. --B (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, good point B. There may be a bit of climbing the Reichstag dressed as spiderman here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is getting to be a bit ridiculous; the talk page is being used to soapbox, not to request unblock. I request another admin give him a final warning before locking his page for the remainder of the time. I have nothing against WikiManOne (or at least I didn't until a few minutes ago), but right now the discussion is counterproductive and taking away from other areas where we could be working. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling had his talk page access revoked for posting repeatedly on his talk page without requesting an unblock... Is that appropriate here? Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO it would not be appropriate as long as people are engaging him in conversation. First step would be to request the unblocked editors to stop engaging in the back and forth. Give him the chance to settle down for his block without resorting to more button use.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling had his talk page access revoked for posting repeatedly on his talk page without requesting an unblock... Is that appropriate here? Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good call. TBH the request probably shouldn't have come from me either, seeing as the editor now thinks I'm Satan incarnate, or right-wing religious man incarnate, or something along those likes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not a huge fan of removing talk page access for this. It's not disruption if everyone just ignores him. Let him rant, he'll tire himself out. And perhaps sometime in the next two days a friend of his will come along and talk some sense into him. I'd only suggest revoking his talk page if he starts posting serial unblock requests. Lest I come off as too much of a softy, though: I see his name associated with turmoil and conflict all the time; is he worth it? I'm too lazy to look into his contributions in more detail to see, but my first impression is that this is someone here for the thrill of the battle, and it might be best to show him the door if he doesn't change his attitude fairly quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've had some interaction with him and I'm not involved in the content area. From what I've seen, I believe he's a good faith editor. But one who's editing controversial articles that he's passionate about. I don't believe that he's here just to battle, but rather his intense belief, including the belief that he's right in his edits have led to what we see. I wouldn't label him a irredeemable troublemaker. That said he does need to learn from this.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK Cube, I will defer to the judgment of someone who has actually looked into this for more than the 90 seconds I gave it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've had some interaction with him and I'm not involved in the content area. From what I've seen, I believe he's a good faith editor. But one who's editing controversial articles that he's passionate about. I don't believe that he's here just to battle, but rather his intense belief, including the belief that he's right in his edits have led to what we see. I wouldn't label him a irredeemable troublemaker. That said he does need to learn from this.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not a huge fan of removing talk page access for this. It's not disruption if everyone just ignores him. Let him rant, he'll tire himself out. And perhaps sometime in the next two days a friend of his will come along and talk some sense into him. I'd only suggest revoking his talk page if he starts posting serial unblock requests. Lest I come off as too much of a softy, though: I see his name associated with turmoil and conflict all the time; is he worth it? I'm too lazy to look into his contributions in more detail to see, but my first impression is that this is someone here for the thrill of the battle, and it might be best to show him the door if he doesn't change his attitude fairly quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Topic Block
I just became aware of this, so I am arriving late to this party...hell, damned thing is over...but WMO has a mentor (my previous in fact) User:Kubigula, who has been trying to work with WMO. WMO isn't responding to anything that Kubigula is saying, obviously. I have put this by Kubigula, but it being 7am here (as of this writing) he isn't up or responded, but I feel a topic block (NOT ban) is needed to get WMO back on the right track. If we get him out of the constant battleground that is the abortion articles, we might have a chance of keeping this user, a good one as said by Cube above, from an indef block.
I would recommend a 6 month block from any abortion related article, including creating them or even posting to their talk pages. He needs to be taken completely out of that arena and moved on to something else.
- First screw up, a one week block.
- I was going to go with a final stern warning here, but he has had those to no avail.
- Second screw up, one month block.
- Strike three, he's out. Indef block.
I know it is harsh, but if he sees the writing is on the wall, maybe he will chill out and move on to something different. He can't keep battling on at the abortion articles or he will wind up in indef-land anyway.
What say you? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think what you're asking for is a six month topic ban. Or, if that's not the case, can you clarify what you mean by "topic block"? Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- 2 or 3 months, anything abortion related might be helpful to the user as he is only struggling with the intensity in that area, talk page involvement allowed. Or a few weeks, 5 or 6, one revert condition and have someone clearly explain what a revert is might be helpful to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure what a topic block is, either. I also think that these are drastic measures. m.o.p 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Topic ban just seems permanent, so I went with "topic block". If you wish to use "ban", that's cool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- reply to User:Master of Puppets - Some might say to allow the user to return to the same editing style without some assistance is certain to result in an indefinite restriction, so I don't see a minor restriction now as drastic, I see it as a benefit and helping the contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have to say, I have been very taken aback by the user's whole response. He's exhibited some textbook-case MPOV problems (asserting the necessity to more than 3 reversions in a day, accusations of a cabal, assumptions of bad faith, referring to his version as the consensus version when he was the only consenter, etc.). I honestly can't understand how someone can go from being so reasonable (as he was on my talk page the other day), to so out in left-field (no pun intended... he claims to be opposite right-wing). He literally is claiming that I blocked him because I oppose his point of view (I blocked him only because I patrol WP:AN3), and that other editors with even the tiniest history of disagreeing with him are in an alliance to support me. I figure this can only be attributed to either 1) a lavishly paranoid personality, 2) youthful naivety, 3) naivety due to getting all his information from lavishly paranoid bloggers and talk show hosts or 4) a case of "takes one to know one", meaning this is what he would do in that situation (ever notice how sockpuppeteers are the most likely to throw around multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry?). IMHO it is much more likely than anything that this is a case of #2 or #3, which means that he is reformable, if open.
- I think a several week topic ban would be best for him; whether enforced by the community, or self-enforced on his own part. If it comes from the community (and I am not necessarily supporting that option), then the dictum and enforcement should only come from someone who is completely on his side.
- Lastly, I think we should torture him by mechanically prying his eyes open and making him watch some right-wing propaganda (just kidding). Or alternatively, maybe just politely suggest that he join a debate club so he can learn to argue for the other side and assume good faith.
- I don't want to pile-on, but I want WMO to understand exactly what he's up against, and the reasons the community considers his actions disruptive. When you read this WMO, please understand: there is no cabal. Even people on your side have taken exception to your response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure what a topic block is, either. I also think that these are drastic measures. m.o.p 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- 2 or 3 months, anything abortion related might be helpful to the user as he is only struggling with the intensity in that area, talk page involvement allowed. Or a few weeks, 5 or 6, one revert condition and have someone clearly explain what a revert is might be helpful to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly - I believe WMO's heart is in the right place and a topic ban from abortion related articles would probably be the best thing for him. However, it is a drastic measure and I don't think it's fair to go there unless we imposed similar measures on the other POV and edit warriors who frequent those pages.--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Kubigula raises a very good point there. There are plenty of people who are pushing their own POV and should be under the same conditions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other editors whose conduct has not been as abrasive or disruptive. I would rather topic ban an editor and channel him into an area of the encyclopedia where he can actually contribute real content, vs. POV-warring, as it appears WMO has been doing for the past few weeks. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Alternative to Topic block of User:WikiManOne.... General Sanctions on Abortion articles
Since there is clear consensus that WikiManOne editing is concerning and troubling but other editors have been equalling as troubling I suggest:
- General Sanctions be imposed on all abortion articles broadly construed with
- 1 Revert Rule: 1 revert per 24 hours per user per page (except for obvious vandalism)
- Sanctions: the ability for any uninvolved admin to impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
- Sanctions for any WP:BLP violations in the topic area
- Uninvolved administrators can independently impose sanctions, including escalating blocks or topic bans of up to three months, provided the individual has been notified of the terms of this scheme and possible sanctions (The template {{subst:Uw-probation|Article|Probation terms page}} can be used for ease)
- Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or (3) Arbitration Committee intervention
- Requests by the sanctioned user for his/her sanctions to be lifted: such requests may be made after three months at WP:AN. The request can only be considered if the individual has abided by the terms of the sanction and has not accumulated any other blocks or sanctions. If the the request fails to gain consenus the three month clock is reset The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion article probation/Logs
- Support as proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- I'm somewhat surprised there is not already something like this imposed. I would say it is undoubtedly needed, as even commenting in abortion related article talk pages seems to provoke incivility(at least) that lead to 'flame wars'. And I believe it is correct that if WM1 were to be topic banned, you might as well throw in at least 6 or 7 other editors. From both sides. Dave Dial (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Me too, I looked last week when this flared up and was shocked not to find such sanctions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support: This works better than mine and it is a step toward mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support --- An article probation is less draconian than sanctioning individual editors. It is almost the mildest step that can be taken. Due to the 1RR restriction it may produce quicker intervention when disputes occur. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can we just import WP:DSN instead of trying to reinvent the wheel? Also, edits by IPs and (perhaps) new users should be exempt from the 1RR. T. Canens (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:DSN only works after an Arbcom case has authorized such sanctions. This proposal is nearly a carbon copy of existing General Sanctions/Article probation listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Also The requrired notfication prevents people ignorant of the Probation to be notified before things anything can be imposed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Surely arbcom does not have a monopoly on sanctions? the community can certainly impose a sanction that is identical in form to a tried-and-true method. That's what "import" means. My point is that we can require a warning, but we should not require the use of a specific warning template.T. Canens (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the community does and that is what being proposed its called General Sanctions (also called article probation). We have existing ones for several other areas. As for the template, I dont see it as a necessity but we have the template for it why not use it The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because the track record of the community version is not as good as arbcom's? The most recent time it's used, it was superseded by arbcom discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBCC). T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and I'm quite surprised you can't see how requiring admins to use a particular template will lead to pointless wikilawyering of the "I wasn't warned properly - they didn't use that particular template!" sort. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:AE deals with the same thing all the time and some how manages not to implode remember its says right in the WP:The Five Pillars The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. People get that when dealing with this stuff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- And none of those decisions AE enforces required the use of a particular template. That the spirit trumps the letter is no excuse for not getting the letter right in the first place when you can. T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- fixed it, The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- And none of those decisions AE enforces required the use of a particular template. That the spirit trumps the letter is no excuse for not getting the letter right in the first place when you can. T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:AE deals with the same thing all the time and some how manages not to implode remember its says right in the WP:The Five Pillars The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. People get that when dealing with this stuff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the community does and that is what being proposed its called General Sanctions (also called article probation). We have existing ones for several other areas. As for the template, I dont see it as a necessity but we have the template for it why not use it The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Surely arbcom does not have a monopoly on sanctions? the community can certainly impose a sanction that is identical in form to a tried-and-true method. That's what "import" means. My point is that we can require a warning, but we should not require the use of a specific warning template.T. Canens (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Distant second choice. Per my proposed alternative below. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:DSN only works after an Arbcom case has authorized such sanctions. This proposal is nearly a carbon copy of existing General Sanctions/Article probation listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Also The requrired notfication prevents people ignorant of the Probation to be notified before things anything can be imposed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support - as per EdJohnson's comments. Also support TCanans simplification by importing a similar working condition from another topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- See Reply to Tcanen The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, if that is not an option, your model is also fine, I support the basic idea the fine details are for someone experienced in setting such conditions out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That why I modeled it almost exactly after Existing ones, No reinvenetion of the wheel only putting it on a new vehicle The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, if that is not an option, your model is also fine, I support the basic idea the fine details are for someone experienced in setting such conditions out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- See Reply to Tcanen The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support - if we have general sanctions on climate control, then I think this is a definite. People get much more emotional/involved in this than weather.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Emotional? I ain't emotional! Who you callin' emotional?! I demand Balloonman be blocked, banned, drawn and quartered! Call me emotional, will ya?! Why I oughta! :) LOL! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Suport This is a contentious topic and good behavior is necessary from those on all sides of the dispute. Will Beback talk 22:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Side note: WikiManOne block expired at 5:25pm EST. Eyes should be put on his contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support so long as "broadly construed" is broadly construed to include editing related to abortion-access groups like Planned Parenthood and pro-life "crisis pregnancy" groups as well; a great deal of the disruption in this topic area is a proxy war related to pregnancy counseling and current events in the United States. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we specified "broadly construed" for a reason ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Quite. For the most part my comment is meant as a record of the fact that the discussion considered this point. I confess to anticipating that the user who sparked this report will attempt to wikilawyer the scope as applied to himself. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we specified "broadly construed" for a reason ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support so long as "broadly construed" is broadly construed to include editing related to abortion-access groups like Planned Parenthood and pro-life "crisis pregnancy" groups as well; a great deal of the disruption in this topic area is a proxy war related to pregnancy counseling and current events in the United States. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose in specific. This request does not specify if it's 1 revert per day, or one revert per week. That's a big oversight. And neither does it specify an expiration, or what sort of conduct/action, specifically applied, can lead to the sanction removal. WmO isn't the type that likes to be put under boundaries; he will chafe.
Personally, I think a one day revert version is fine, or even better, no reversions violating the WP:BRD cycle (in addition to and/or in lieu of the above). And I think a hard time limit, like 2-3 months without any blocks or questionable behavior, from the time of the sanction's start, could lead to its automatic removal and/or letting up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)- Good points, I beleive they are fixed now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support, though I am concerned that this discussion has managed to get below the radar a bit, and I think we need wider community involvement to implement.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Let's put links to this on the Village Pump, AN, and possibly a site notice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I put one AN after placing this one here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, cool. Think the Village Pump needs one? Perhaps a site notice, since this is wide reaching in that area of editing? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Centralized discussion would seem a start but yes Village pump would probably a good idea too. I'm pretty sure site notice needs some one bigger than an Admin... I think Crat or Steward can do it but I think that might be over kill between ANI, AN, VP, Centralized discusison I think we would be good The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie...I will link to this discussion at CD and VP and we can leave the site notice for if it gets insane big. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Added to both CD and VP/P. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie...I will link to this discussion at CD and VP and we can leave the site notice for if it gets insane big. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Centralized discussion would seem a start but yes Village pump would probably a good idea too. I'm pretty sure site notice needs some one bigger than an Admin... I think Crat or Steward can do it but I think that might be over kill between ANI, AN, VP, Centralized discusison I think we would be good The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, cool. Think the Village Pump needs one? Perhaps a site notice, since this is wide reaching in that area of editing? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I put one AN after placing this one here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Let's put links to this on the Village Pump, AN, and possibly a site notice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have a few concerns (which can be resolved I think).
- Re: "Sanctions can be Appealed after three months at WP:AN", admins have gotten it wrong at times. In fact, last year, even an arbitrator managed to get it so wrong to the point that the Community needed to reverse it after 24 hours because he wouldn't. For this reason, we may need to change it to something like "After the first appeal, sanctions can only be appealed every six months at WP:AN" - I think that addresses the issue the original line was trying to address.
- The "has not accumulated any other blocks or sanctions" bit is a real issue because it does seem to make the sanctions from this scheme punitive; I'd recommend removing it. On the part where it says "appeal will only be considered if the individual has abided by the terms of the sanction", this will obviously not be applicable in instances where a sanction should not have been imposed in the first place or was not imposed properly in the first place (like those I'm alluding to in my second bullet point - otherwise adversaries argue that there have been violations of a sanction when there haven't been).
- Do you want the 1RR to be per day per user per page?
- As admins are already authorized to impose blocks for BLP vios in any areas (as far as I understand), is there a reason for not explicitly authorizing topic bans for this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I clarified the problems, Needed to clarify the differences between an appeal and request for sanctions to be lifted after good behavior. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good. I've also made a slight copyedit; I think that's about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good but your copy edit with "his/her" excludes people of who identify as Third gender :-P The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good. I've also made a slight copyedit; I think that's about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I clarified the problems, Needed to clarify the differences between an appeal and request for sanctions to be lifted after good behavior. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Alternative sanction wording
Proposed wording:
- Area of conflict
For the purpose of these sanctions, the area of conflict is the set of articles related to abortion, broadly construed.
- 1RR
All editors are limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any article within the area of conflict, with the exception of reverts of obvious vandalism and anonymous IP editors.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked for a suitable period of time by any uninvolved administrator, up to one year in the event of repeated violations; in lieu of or in addition to blocking, the administrator may also impose a discretionary sanction, as described below.
- General sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process; this includes, but is not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility, unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, and violations of the biography of living people policy.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the section of Wikipedia:General sanctions documenting these sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Appeals
Sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN), or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. In particular, they may not reverse or overturn (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of these sanctions, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce these sanctions, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Arbitration Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI).
- Involved administrators
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under these sanctions, an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.
- Logging
All blocks, sanctions and warnings made under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion article probation/Logs.
- First choice. As proposer. T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Its not consistent with Existing Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Its length also would take up substantial amount of the Wikipedia:General sanctions page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Then move it to a subpage. You already have a subpage for the logs anyway. I also don't care that much about maintaining consistency with a failed article probation scheme. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- No failure there. The point is to limit escalation of disputes, That doesn't mean such disputes wont esculate. Your model ties the hands becuase instruction creep that ties the hands of Admins who are watching or have commented in the dispute. We'd be in the same place if every time there was a violation an Admin had to run here to get a perfectly uninvolved admin to impose something... We'd be back where we started with tons of ANI threads and Drama. Every admin knows what involved is. The whole purpose of CS is to take care of problems with out excessive bureaucracy to get stuff done. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let's see. You have a probation scheme that did not define "involved", and you have massive fights over whether certain administrators are "involved" which became one of the three arbcom case requests that led to WP:ARBCC. Your proposed solution to that is...leave "involved" undefined. Right. Because the meaning of "involved" is so obvious that no reasonable people will fight over it... T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have Wikilinked the WP:INVOLVED from the Admin policy where it was infered for defintion of WP:INVOLVED Admins. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lets just go with Tim,s version as its a working probation, support for that. Also support for WP:INVOLVED as a good guide towards that issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have fixed the problems he pointed out above. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let's see. You have a probation scheme that did not define "involved", and you have massive fights over whether certain administrators are "involved" which became one of the three arbcom case requests that led to WP:ARBCC. Your proposed solution to that is...leave "involved" undefined. Right. Because the meaning of "involved" is so obvious that no reasonable people will fight over it... T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- No failure there. The point is to limit escalation of disputes, That doesn't mean such disputes wont esculate. Your model ties the hands becuase instruction creep that ties the hands of Admins who are watching or have commented in the dispute. We'd be in the same place if every time there was a violation an Admin had to run here to get a perfectly uninvolved admin to impose something... We'd be back where we started with tons of ANI threads and Drama. Every admin knows what involved is. The whole purpose of CS is to take care of problems with out excessive bureaucracy to get stuff done. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Then move it to a subpage. You already have a subpage for the logs anyway. I also don't care that much about maintaining consistency with a failed article probation scheme. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Side note: WikiManOne block expired at 5:25pm EST. Eyes should be put on his contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Since I am not an admin I can't vote and I almost never comment in the ANI section but I want to get this straight. One editors violates 3rr a couple times and a couple others come close, and the same editors keep bringing each other to this board and that requires a community-wide 1rr policy. I think this is going way overboard. How about just putting anyone that gets a 3rr violation in that section into 1rr or something like that? Yes the abortion articles get heated, but so does religion, politics, etc. Do we make every area 1rr? Yes I am someone that WMO has had heated discussions with but I stay within the rules and so do many of the other people that have been editing in that region. I personally think putting indivdual editors (not just WMO) into 1rr and maybe even disengage warnings would be better then a community-wide 1rr on abortion related topics.Marauder40 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- No people who cant agree to our NPOV policy typically have restrictions imposed on them. Areas where there are flamewars typically have restrictions imposed in the area. We do this over and over Wikipedia has not imploded. The princpal is to stop edit warring and encouage discussion since edit warring start when people change back and forth with out talk discussion we merely make them hurry up and talk. We haved this place have the issue long before any of ya'll showed up. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just honestly don't think it has come that far yet. MOST of the editors on the page are staying within rules. Most of the editors are discussing things. I just think a small number of editors on both "sides" need to be reigned in. I honestly think imposing a community-wide topic 1rr is taking the "easy" way out. Especially at this point. I have seen religion articles get much more heated then this discussion has gotten and they didn't go down that path. Usually a couple temporary restrictions of various types on editors bring things in line. But I don't hold a mop so I will not make any more comments on this on ANI. Marauder40 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- YOu seem to think this is recent problem, this type of flare heats up a couple times a year. We reign a few editors more fill the void it happens over and over and this gives us the tool to prevent further disruption The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just honestly don't think it has come that far yet. MOST of the editors on the page are staying within rules. Most of the editors are discussing things. I just think a small number of editors on both "sides" need to be reigned in. I honestly think imposing a community-wide topic 1rr is taking the "easy" way out. Especially at this point. I have seen religion articles get much more heated then this discussion has gotten and they didn't go down that path. Usually a couple temporary restrictions of various types on editors bring things in line. But I don't hold a mop so I will not make any more comments on this on ANI. Marauder40 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- No people who cant agree to our NPOV policy typically have restrictions imposed on them. Areas where there are flamewars typically have restrictions imposed in the area. We do this over and over Wikipedia has not imploded. The princpal is to stop edit warring and encouage discussion since edit warring start when people change back and forth with out talk discussion we merely make them hurry up and talk. We haved this place have the issue long before any of ya'll showed up. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support The explosion of ANI incidents related to abortion was not terribly surprising given the real life passions. When future high profile abortion incidents occur we can expect the same. I like T. Caens version better as the wording on "involved administrators" is helpful for mitigating distracting (and usually baseless) arguments about administrator abuse rather than on how to fairly deal with the topic at hand in article space. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The original needs a bit more work, but this alternative is not okay.
- On the point about involvement, the fact that the other Community probations are working does speak volumes. As was repeatedly noted in the CC case, the drafter of the CC probation failed to account for too many things and that's what happens when mad attempts are made to put off an ArbCom case without thinking things through thoroughly (it will only delay and prolong the inevitable as opposed to settling it in the longer term). If things were thought thoroughly, then a 100% identical wording from the Obama probation would not have been imported in the CC proposal (that was the first sign of an understanding which was too simplistic - instead, it would have become clear why that probation would not work in the CC topic area). It had no chance of working in the long term with the users involved. I don't see any reason to believe this issue is going to crop up here (as no evidence has been presented to that effect to date); unnecessary (or even unjustified) red tape is not our priority and standard policy on involvement ought to work just fine.
- In particular, I oppose having to write special rules for administrators indiscriminately every single time as a handful of them may refuse to take appropriate steps if their involvement is called into question (that is, the individual user remedies in the CC case resolution direct administrators about what they can do if they find themselves in such a situation).
- Should it ever come to the point where a Community general sanctions scheme is not working and AE-type discussions are regularly needed, then that is when ArbCom and its more drastic measures are needed (not sooner or later than that point); no amount of special rule writing is going to change the inevitable. It's the participants who are in a position to deescalate. Also, I have yet to see anyone being "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" under any DSN scheme...despite the fact it is written in DSN each and every time. And finally, the Community specifically did not want CSN (the relevant AE-type board) which was why it shut it down. Should ArbCom want to impose DSN specifically, they will not have opposition because whenever something goes wrong, it will be at AE which is under their management (and the sanctions are thereby their responsibility). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
User Innab repeatedly restoring information without discussion
Innab (talk · contribs) has repeatedly restored a large amount of information to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that was moved to and included in its entirety on a subpage Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. He has done this despite repeated requests by several editors for him to discuss on the talk page: User talk:Innab#Please see the talk page and discuss, User talk:Innab#Edit warring on ADHD, User talk:Innab#ADHD. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Moved content to subpage. Although Innab has not violated 3RR, I believe it should be considered edit warring because of repeated reverts and his absolute refusal to discuss. My personal opinion is that blocking him is the only thing that might put a stop to this. But if not, I hope at least that an administrator should discuss with him: (1) The information is already on a subpage, with a link to it on the main page; and (2) repeatedly reverting while refusing to discuss is entirely inappropriate. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I notified Innab about this discussion: User talk:Innab#ANI. Cresix (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- SarekOfVulcan, who is an admin, has commented on Innab's talkpage. If the editor repeats their edit without discussion or against consensus then I suggest letting SarekOfVulcan know, or me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Innab still hasn't edited since my last comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- SarekOfVulcan, who is an admin, has commented on Innab's talkpage. If the editor repeats their edit without discussion or against consensus then I suggest letting SarekOfVulcan know, or me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Kumioko and AWB access
I have temporarily removed AWB access from Kumioko (talk · contribs) for persistent violations of the AWB rules of use, specifically rules 3 and 4. Kumioko has been on a campaign of making trivial edits to article talk pages, under the guise of "cleaning" them. I am involved in this in an administrative capacity.
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_banner_tagging about whether there is a requirement to avoid redirects for talk page banners. The first few comments in the thread show several responses that there is no such requirement. Someone even pointed out that when this was proposed as a requriement, it failed to reach consensus (Wikipedia:Banner standardisation). Kumioko recently posted a note in the discussion there that effectively says, "sod off, I'm gonna do it anyway".[25]
Because that completely ignores the actual discussion in the thread, I intervened in an administrative capacity, pointing out on that page that there is no consensus for a bot to do that, and reminding Kumioko on his/her talk page to follow the AWB rules. Since then, Kumioko has continued to make the same sorts of edits wile giving various "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" explanation. For example, [26]. I specifically warned Kumioko today that I would disable his/her AWB access if the same edits continued. Unfortunately, Kumioko has refused to stop and find consensus, which is an abuse of AWB.
This sort of editing has previously gone before ArbCom in the Date Delinking RFARB. ArbCom made this finding [27]:
- "Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change."
Note that this is not about AWB in general. The problem is only Kumioko using AWB to make large-scale sequences of edits to enforce his/her personal opinion as a fait accompli while knowing there is not a general consensus behind it. Removing AWB access is a very mild, targeted remedy to pause the edits to allow discussion to take place. The best resolution here would be for Kumioko to agree to follow the AWB rules, at which point his/her AWB access should be restored promptly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There are several items identified above so I will attempt to answer each in turn.
- I want to state that I do not believe what I was doing was in violation of 3 or 4 and I believe CBM's actions of removing my AWB access is an abuse of his admin powers. Additionally his writeup above is totally POV and comepletely misrepresents what was actually said.
- Rule 3 states "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding". There is noting controversial about removing deprecated or unused parameters. The projects themselves say they shouldnt be there if not being used. They are only there because some editor added them needlessly.
- Rule 4 states "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." Nothing in this covers the edits I was doing. Therefore no violation.
- I asked CBM repeatedly to tell me where I cannot use AWB to delete deprecated parameters and unneeded, unused and unwanted parameters from banners when the templates and the projects both state that if they are not used they should not be there. Removing these makes the banner parameters that are being used easier to read and identify, it reduces the page size (frequently more than 1000 bytes), it speeds rendering times, etc.
- I didn't tell CBM to "Sod off". After leaving threats on my talk page I said was 1 editor did not warrant a lack of consensus and if he had a problem with my edits he should open up a discussion at the village pump. I even told him that if the consensus was that removing these parameters was a minor edit that I would stop and we could update the AWB rules accordingly. I did tell him that I wasn't going to stop because one editor told me too.
- The ongoing discussions related to the standardization of Wikiproject banners and only loosely relates here. I only "standardize" the talk page banners when doing other things of more significance.
- CBM did not intervene in a an admin capacity in fact his comments were very POV relating to his personal feelings that these were minor edits.
- This action and the Date delinking action are completely unrelated and there is zero correlation to them.
- Large scale is defined as about ten today, only a few over the past week and in fact it has taken me more than a month to clean up about 1800 a few at a time. I am now down to 347.
I recommend restoring my AWB rights immediately and instructing CBM to next time open up a discussion if he disagrees with an editor over a personal feeling of what constitutes a minor edit. --Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is an open discussion at the WikiProject Council, which you have decided to ignore by continuing to do the edits. The comment that can be summarized as "sod off, I'm gonna do it anyway"[28]was in that thread, not to me. 1800 edits certainly seems like a large number to me; in this edit [29] you said is was 2200 edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- No the discussion is completely unrelated and as a seasoned editor you should be able to see that. Just because I did 4500 edits this month doesn't mean I have done anything wrong. In fact it means I have been doing something right. Contributing to WP. Honestly though I think you acted completely out of line but well see what everyone else thinks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm unclear on what the downside to bypassing the redirects is. I could understand there being no requirement that we bypass redirects in talk page headers, but what's the downside if someone wants to spend their time/energy doing it? "We are not required to do X" is not the same as "doing X is not permitted". --B (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- What's the practical value of this work, for the reader? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- The idea of making these edits was proposed at Wikipedia:Banner standardisation and failed to become a guideline. Several people in the thread at the WikiProject Council again objected to the idea, but Kumioko seems to have decided to just ignore them and do it anyway. Using AWB to force your opinion onto articles is a violation of the AWB rules; it bypasses the consensus-building process. Also, the AWB rules generally prohibit making trivial edits, such as edits that have no effect on the rendered page. These edits are perceived as clogging watchlists with edits that don't actually change the pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please let me understand. Kumioko's current work consists of 3 parts:
- Assessing in WPUS
- Bypassing redirects
- Cleaning parameters
First part is uncontroversial. The third seems to have some benefits as noted above. The discussion on Wikipedia Council is about the second part and not the third. Many bots do the second and third part while doing tasks similar to the first one. What is exactly the problem?
- The second part in general?
- That the second part is done without the first part? (This is my concern)
And a small comment: If we do more than 300 posts on this one then it's not worth. Kumioko was about to finish. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- In general, the second. It is a controversial change, evidenced by the opposition to Banner standardization from becoming a guideline. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are we OK, if he keeps doing 1 and 3 till we end to some consensus with 2? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Human editors using AWB are expected to manually review every edit and avoid saving the ones that only do (2). I reminded Kumioko about that yesterday, and he/she claimed at first that they were errors. But today it's the same pattern of trivial edits, which makes it clear that they are being intentionally saved. AWB is not a tool for imposing decisions on the community; it's useful for implementing things that do have consensus. The thing that made me think that some admin action is needed is the combination of the pattern of edits is combined with the posts to the WikiProject council where Kumioko essentially tells everyone he/she will ignore them and just keep making the edits. That sort of bad behavior is what led to the date delinking RFARB; the lesson from that is the people need to stop sooner, rather than later, when others object to large-scale edit patterns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's not always correct. In Infobox character we made a tracking category to detect pages with many unused parameters because they slow down page rendering. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a bit of deja vu. There was some guy some weeks back who was making a bunch of edits that did nothing except take some spaces out of infoboxes. No benefit to anyone. How much would it be slowed down, assuming you're not on 2400 baud dialup or something? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's not always correct. In Infobox character we made a tracking category to detect pages with many unused parameters because they slow down page rendering. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- @M: You should really get a bot approval to do that sort of thing, because they otherwise that sort of trivial edit isn't permitted for AWB. The existence of AWB doesn't eliminate the need for many tasks to go through the bot approvals group, particularly when the tasks are meant to be large-scale and not require actual human discretion.
- If there is actually a slow-down with unused parameters, it should be reported as a bug, so it can be fixed in Mediawiki. Many WikiProjects intentionally pre-include blank parameters to fill in later, and AWB users shouldn't go around removing those unless the specific WikiProject asks for it, since they were intentionally included. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. We have to ask WikiProject Aviation what exactly they want to be done with the unused parameters. I can only talk about WikiProject Biography on that matter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, if they want to get rid of them they they should get a bot or AWB op to do it, nobody can complain too much about that. The other change that Kukiomo seemed to be making was to remove the nested=yes parameter. But if it has no effect any more, there's no need to go through and remove it (since it already has no effect). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree on the nested too. I wonder how many are left. I can't perform a database scan for talk pages. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- If there is actually a slow-down with unused parameters, it should be reported as a bug, so it can be fixed in Mediawiki. Many WikiProjects intentionally pre-include blank parameters to fill in later, and AWB users shouldn't go around removing those unless the specific WikiProject asks for it, since they were intentionally included. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to be offline for a little while. Like I indicated originally, I have no objections to Kukiomo's AWB access being restored once the issue at hand is resolved, or even sooner if he/she agrees to stop these "cleanup" edits. I'll check on back this thread here in a few hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reply To B - Most of the opposition stems from 1) they don't think its necessary, 2) they believe it to be a waste of time or 3) they just prefer the other naming convention and dont really care if its harder for non-experienced editors and don't care that from a programming perspective it requires over 1000 lines of code to account for all the variations of wikiprojects (without the WikiProject X convention) rather than just one with all the banners saying WikiProject X.
- Reply To Baseball Bugs - From the readers point of view that question frankly depends on the edit. I have a list of about 2000 edits give or take a few plus whats in the Find and replace fields on my AWB. Basically though it falls into one of the following; It simplifies what the reader sees, it reduces the page size by eliminating uneeded items, I rearrange the order of things according to talk page layout rules, I fix broken parameter values such as - instead of =, clas instead of class, add equals between certain parameters and their value if its missing, etc. In my opinion the problem that CBM has is with standardizing the talk page banners and removing deprecated and uneeded parameters from talk page templates. He does not feel that removing 1000 characters of empty parameters constitutes a significant enough edit to use AWB. I think that is basically it but I don't want to speak for him and he clarified his comments above. Just to clarify another thing. I am not eliminating all empty parameters, just certain ones. [30] is one example of the type of edit he is opposed too and shows what this is all about. Feel free to stroll through my contributions for more though.
- Reply to Magioloditis - I cannot do many of the edits from 1 and 3 because they assume that the naming convention is WikiProject X. Others rely on those so whats left may not work correctly.
- Reply to CBM - Yes you identified a couple of errors and I admitted I was not perfect and that I do occasionally make mistakes. My mistakes equate to trivial edits so no harm no foul. I am not harming the articles if I do 1 or 2 out of 4000 edits that are trivial. And I still maintain that most of the edits you mention are not trivial. Trivial are things like standardizing redirects, not deleting parameters. There was and is no need for admin action. I still maintain that it was inappropriate and you should have opened a discussion to see if there was more than 1 (you) editor who had a problem with it. I also want to clarify you comment about a large scale edit pattern. You make this sound as though I was doing massive numbers of inappropriate edits but you still IMO have not shown that deleting parameters is trivial other than vaguely written rules of AWB use. I DID NOT do anything that was mentioned as a violation of AWB.
- Regarding to the cleaning of parameters - {{MILHIST}} and {{WikiProject Aviation}} both state "To avoid needlessly cluttering up talk pages, it is usually appropriate to remove any unused parameters from the template." on the template documentation so IMO there is no need to "Get consensus" because consensus is implied by the statement from the projects. Additionally there is no need to have unneeded and deprecated parameters on the talk pages for the reasons already discussed above. Aside from claims that these edits are not allowed I disagree that these are minor edits (with the exception of standardizing the talk page banners). There is no need to force me to do these changes manually when I have a tool like AWB available to use. And as for these parameters not changing anything on the rendering of the page. Of course not they are garbage. Just like if I added a parameter to the template for
|
it would not display.
- regarding the bot comment - I tried that avenue but after about 6 weeks I withdrew it in frustration. In six weeks I was never even asked to run a test.
- AWB access - at this point I am not really concerned with AWB access. I may take a brake from WP for a while or I may continue editing. I haven't really decided. It seems lately that too many editors just want to debate every change rather than accept that people are trying to make WP better. I can't even make an edit without someone complaining about my edit summery, debating on whether its minor, drowning me in disucssions about why I would try and restart WikiProject United States and how dare I. All the drama is burning me out from wanting to contribute at all. --Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
So, let's solve first the "remove empty parameters" part where I think Kumioko is right. WPMILHIST, WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Biography state explicitly that the values should be yes or not exist (exception is the |living=
in WPBiography). Just in case I left a note in Template_talk:WPMILHIST#Unused.2Fempty_parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the milhist template, removing empty B-Class assessment parameters can be inconvenient for editors that come along later to assess the article. Our project how-to guide on using the template recommends including them as placeholders when articles are tagged for the project, and there are some additional commented instructions on how to assess included in the template that would be unhelpfully removed along with the blank parameters. I see no problem with removing other empty parameters though. EyeSerenetalk 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reply to Bwilkins - To clarify your comment I never thought I needed a bot and if you read my comments on the bot approval page you can see that in more detail. I submitted it only as a convenience and as a courtesy so I could use the bot flag due to the large scale of tagging and a passing comment (not really even a complaint) by another editor. That tagging is largely done now though because the bot group never stated I had to stop I kept on rolling and finished the run. The bot as requested was to allow me to do some WikiProject tagging and would have allowed the edits mentioned above to be done at the same time. I would have had to request an additional allowance to do these edits exclusively.
- Reply to EyeSerene - The B class parameters are not included in the removal. Only empty or = no taskforce parameters or parameters like Portal, peer review, A class review and the like if = blank or no. Never living, importance, class, bclass checklists or other parameters where having no is meaningful. Every parameter I delete is specifically identified individually. The full list is [User:Kumioko/Talkpage|here] but here is 1 example
ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, @"\|[ ]*peer\-review[ ]*=\s*\r*([\|}{<\n])", "$1", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
. This removes the peer review parameter if = blank.
- Since the B Class issue was mentioned though I personally feel that the B class checklist should only be on Start and B class articles. If an Articles is a stub then the B-Class checklist info is self explanatory and the article usually contains no's across the board filling up the checklist categories and distracting from the meaningful ones. If the article is GA or above the status itself indicates a B-Class yes so again its implied and IMO unneeded. but that's a different conversation and I wasn't removing any of those with the logic.
- The provided list on my subpage also gives an idea of how much coding is involved if you want to account for every project (I am missing a few and add them as they are found) and their redirects rather than being able to program simply WikiProject foo. Adding that much code makes the program bigger, it makes it run slower and process slower because it has a lot more logic to look through and its way harder to program and maintain. --Kumioko (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
First result of the discussion as I understand it. Kumioko:
- Assessing in WPUS is a plausible task. While doing this you can:
- Clean empty parameters as you do
- Bypass redirects unless the wikiproject disagrees. Bots have been approved to do that as secondary task.
- If you are planning to mass clean empty parameters you better first fill a BRFA. It's very likely you 'll get approval since many projects recommend deletion of empty parameters. (
|nested=
must have less than 100 transclusions left). I will support it since it's in the manuals. - Bypassing redirects as a sole task won't have the same fate.
I hope Carl agrees with my conclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks that's pretty much what I have been doing since I usually did not solely fix redirects (I made a couple accidental saves but nothing consistent) but could you clarify what "mass clean" means for the sake of the BRFA? Also in regards to the cleaning of the empty parameters whats the point of getting a bot for less than 1000 entries? If its just so the edits won't appear on watchlists then I already have them set to minor so they won't show up anyway on the few people who are actually watching these talk pages. --Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just came back to write the same thing. If we are talking about some hundreds and with your edit rate then I would say just go and do them. The task of removing empty parameters from these specific templaates+WPBS is uncontroversial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which specific templates are we talking about? EyeSerene asked for the parameters in MILHIST to be kept. Edits like [31] [32] look like trivial edits to me - do they change the rendered article in any way? "Cleaning up" is not on its own a justification for a bot job. This is the problem I posted about originally here. It's one thing for a project to tell its own members that they can remove the "n" parameters; it's another thing to do it with a bot, and yet another thing to do it with AWB.
- For the WPUS assessments, if the actual assessment is changed, that's should be fine. If not, then that isn't a justification to save the edit. It was actually very difficult for me to tell what the justifications was, with an edit summary like "Cleanup talk page templates, set importance, formatting template/section order &general fixes". — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- You need to read the comments a little closer CBM. Eye Serene asked for the B class checklist parameters to stay which I have never touched. Lets clarify that just because CBM deems them trivial does not make it so. I personally do not think that removing garbage parameters to be trivial and against the AWB rules simply because it doesn't render any difference on the page. Also CBM that is not what you posted about. You posted about removing my access from AWB after you refused to open a discussion as I requested. As for the assessments I am pretty much done doing the mass assessment for WPUS which others had a problem with. So it seems no matter what I do it upsets someone which is why I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion. This is Wikipedia there are always some editor who takes exception to every change and if we stop editing every time well never be able to accomplish anything. Your whole argument CBM is just smoke and is a complete waste of everyones time. But you did accomplish one thing which was to divert enough of my time into discussions that I can't actually edit any articles and has given me just one more reason why I shouldn't edit. Knowone wants an editor who does thousands of edits a day. They want a quite editor who edits once or twice and day, who doesn't make too many articles appear on watch lists, who doesn't disturb the delicate balance of editors to articles. Its really a shame that the editors who do the most edits are the ones who get spit on the most. --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion was already ongoing at the WikiProject Council. Comments such as "I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion." are exactly the problem, and one reason why I thought it was important to discontinue your AWB access temporarily. In this case, more than one editor has objected. I quoted above from an Arbcom resolution that editors who make widespread edits are expected to stop and get consensus when disagreements arise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Kumioko, as a bot operator, the onus is on you to show that your edits have consensus, or to resolve issues with someone who raises an objection to your edits. So far, you've done neither (and as this discussion indicates, there is no consensus on banner standardization, regardless of your protestations that there should be one), and your attitude that you will continue to ignore complaints because they must be wrong is what gets people under ArbCom restrictions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reply to CBM - Thats only partially true about the discussion CBM. The discussion at the WikiProject Council deals soley with the cleanup of WikiProject banners, specifically when done as a standalone edit which I agree should be avoided. The issue here is whether removing 1000 characters of unneeded garbage is a trivial edit as you suggest and that I told you needed to be discussed for agreement with others because I do not agree with that assessment or if it constitutes a significant enough edit to do as its own edit and at the same time do the WikiProject banner fixes. The 2 discussions are only loosely connected and its really confusing the issue at hand. You removing my AWB access before discussing them was really only a poor way of stopping an editor from doing something that YOU personally did not agree with. It didn't violate a policy and it wasn't part of an ongoing discussion. You just didn't like it and thats why I believe it was an abuse of admin powers.
- You need to read the comments a little closer CBM. Eye Serene asked for the B class checklist parameters to stay which I have never touched. Lets clarify that just because CBM deems them trivial does not make it so. I personally do not think that removing garbage parameters to be trivial and against the AWB rules simply because it doesn't render any difference on the page. Also CBM that is not what you posted about. You posted about removing my access from AWB after you refused to open a discussion as I requested. As for the assessments I am pretty much done doing the mass assessment for WPUS which others had a problem with. So it seems no matter what I do it upsets someone which is why I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion. This is Wikipedia there are always some editor who takes exception to every change and if we stop editing every time well never be able to accomplish anything. Your whole argument CBM is just smoke and is a complete waste of everyones time. But you did accomplish one thing which was to divert enough of my time into discussions that I can't actually edit any articles and has given me just one more reason why I shouldn't edit. Knowone wants an editor who does thousands of edits a day. They want a quite editor who edits once or twice and day, who doesn't make too many articles appear on watch lists, who doesn't disturb the delicate balance of editors to articles. Its really a shame that the editors who do the most edits are the ones who get spit on the most. --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reply to Titoxd - Your comments about my attitude are really out of place here tito. First lets clarify that I do not, nor have I ever ran a bot. I use AWB which is an application that can be used by a bot but I do not have the bot flag so its semiautomatic meaning I have to manually hit enter every time I save. I use AWB because it allows me to do a large number of changes to an article at one time rather than having to manually go through the whole thing. I can essentially built the calculation once and AWB will change it as it finds it. If you really intend for all the users of AWB to be required to get a BRFA in order to use the application (which is a really stupid idea I do not advocate) then I suggest you right it up and try and get consensus on that.
- The primary issue of consensus is that I have not, nor has anyone proved that I have, violated policy in deleting garbage fields other than to give a vague statement of the AWB rules 3 and 4 that DO NOT state that these edits are not allowed. In regards to the banner standardization there was consensus, all of the projects templates except for t3 or 4 were changed to the standard (with no complaints except for those that are not changed). So the consensus is there. Just because 1 or 2 editors of one project didn't like the change didn't mean that it didn't get consensus from the project. WikiProject United States has about 200 members and if 150 voted for it and 4 voted against it your comment implies there is no consensus when there actually was. As I stated at the WikiCouncil discussion. If an editor does not like the naming convention they should bring it up for discussion on the talk page of the project affected. Also explaining that they would not be supported by logic in certain apps like AWB if they decided to change back. The right is with the project in what they name the banner though and I have always supported that. --Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Has anyone made a decision on this yet? I would like to know if anyone has decided on whether the decision to remove my access was acceptable or not since I never broke any rules except for the perception presented by CBM. --Kumioko (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- About "unusued" parameters: I think it's important to keep
|class= |importance=
present even when empty, because it encourages people to fill in the blanks. And I would very much prefer that nobody bypassed the widely used {{WPMED}} in favor of any of the other available options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)- Sorry for my frustation buyt I have already stated this several times. But Again, I did not, nor do I intend to delete class or importance. I did have some of the priorities and work groups from WP Biography if they were Equal to no. I also did not delete living from Biography or any other parameter where no actually means something. Just task forces or fields such as portal links, peer review or A-class Review. --Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you still changing the spacing around headers? [33] I thought you were going to stop doing this. –xenotalk 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Wikipedia serves store any version so it doesn't save disc space. In fact in increases it since the diff is bigger. The same happens to rendering time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- In response to Xeno I thought that only applied to the bot not to my edits in general. In reply to Magioladitis it only increases it for that save. In every subsequent save of the article the size is reduced because those extra spaces aren't there progressively reducing the amount of space needed for the historical copies of the article. In the example given by Xeno thats 58 characters less for each time the talk page is saved. Times that by a modest 5 historical saves and times that by 3, 500, 000 articles. Yes not all talk pages are that long but if you include the main space articles in that then thats a lot of space saved over time. Plus it makes it easier to read without a bunch of extra spaces around everything. Although I admit that last part might be arguable for some. If that little edit is all thats holding this completely frivolous action back then Ill stop doing those.
- Honestly I am reconsidering doing many edits anymore so its likely I won't need AWB anymore anyway. All I am trying to do is make things better and easier but all I get is sucked into frivolous discussions like this because one respected editor disagreed with an edit and rather than DO THE RIGHT THING and open a discussion he revokes my AWB rights. Thats is the real issue here. This whole issue should have been dismissed upon suubmission and seen as the sham it is with my AWB access restored but instead its drawing out for days in lengthy discussion and every edit of mine is being scrutinized. Of course if you dig enough your going to find things. Im not perfect and never claimned to be but I dare say that 99% of my 220, 000+ edits have made the pedia better including the removal of garbage charcacters that do abolutely nothing for a banner but take up space on the talk page and make it confusing to see whats actually going on. CBM does a lot of high end things but he does not do very many edits. 10 - 20 a day at most. Whereas I usually do upwards of 1000 varying from talkpages, regular pages, categories, templates, stuff for deletion or promotion, WikiProject US and others, etc. CBM might be an admin and a respected editor but he is not above reproach and I beleive I have earned just as much respect as he has. This whole submission and revokation of my AWB rights has really pissed me off and again is causing me to reconsider whether I wnt to continue to participate in this nonsense.
BLP violations? Anonymous sources in report of sexual assault.
I don't believe any of this material is appropriate: [34]. There is a "discussion" in Talk. Go ahead and block me for saying "fucking" if you like. Mindbunny (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the source is appropriate. If a reliable source chooses to trust an anonymous source, or a source that chooses to remain anonymous to the public, then we can take this as an indication that the information is reliable. Circumstances should be taken into account; for example, if a particular article appears to push a particular interpretation of an event, then we would probably treat the information more cautiously. Cs32en Talk to me 02:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sorry, I disagree. It might be otherwise if our normally "reliable source" qualified their report by saying "according to ...", but in this case, I don't see that happening. Journalism can be largely self-referential, and occasionally irresponsible, but reliance upon a tertiary source as far as we are concerned should be unacceptable unless we are discussing journalistic responses from a third-party POV, which I don't see happening here. In particular, WP:BLP requires scrupulous and ultimately reliable sourcing, and as far as I'm concerned, this second-hand, unqualified, reporting, just doesn't cut it. We shouldn't just treat it cautiously; we should remove it, with extreme prejudice. Rodhullandemu 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- In a BLP, on a subject like a sexual assault? (And since when is the New York Post reliable?) The idea that an encyclopedia may rely on anonymous sources in discussing someone's sexual assault is pathetic. Mindbunny (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whose BLP is being violated? Certainly not hers. Who is it then? Her captors? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) WP:RS and WP:V don't talk about where secondary sources get THEIR information from. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here's USAToday's current report:[35] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- We should not be propagating sections of the press's weak titillating claims like we are a online volunteer Reuters- notnews is clear about this imo - Its not however a topic that requires administrative intervention or .. forum shopping at multi locations as is happening,. Off2riorob (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unless they're trying to claim that she "asked to be attacked", I don't see how this qualifies as a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- We should not be propagating sections of the press's weak titillating claims like we are a online volunteer Reuters- notnews is clear about this imo - Its not however a topic that requires administrative intervention or .. forum shopping at multi locations as is happening,. Off2riorob (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here's USAToday's current report:[35] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- While there may well be situations where repetition of anonymously sourced statements would be inappropriate, this doesn't look like one of them. The statements were published by major, reliable media and are not particularly intrusive. Even the Post statements build on Logan's own reliably reported comments that she'd reviously been accused of being an Israeli agent. I think the rather rancid "personal life" section is far more deserving of closer scrutiny. Why does an encyclopedia need multiple links to galleries of "swimsuit photos" of her, which I greatly doubt carry RS-verifiable identifications? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That part would seem to be irrelevant and POV-pushing... because it implies that "she asked for it". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- First, I don't know why people keep referring to reliable sources. The sourcing in the questionable material is : 1) anonymous + New York Post (mob screamed "Jew"), 2) anonymous + New York Post (Logan was afraid of Egyptian hospitals & police), and 3) anonymous + Wall Street Journal (she wasn't raped). That's 1/6 on the reliability checklist. The violations of BLP, in my opinion, are just describing any aspect of a person's sexual assault when you don't really know what's true. Saying she was or was not raped based on an anonymous source, and saying she was afraid or not afraid of hospitals/police are direct comments about her. The incident happened 48 hours ago. WTF. Give it a rest. The accusations of anti-Semtism are part of the sexual assault and the sourcing is a tabloid. A BLP has a high standard, and a matter of a person's sexual assault should carry a doubly high standard. Leave out what isn't known. Mindbunny (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would surmise that the Wall Street Journal knows about the identity of its source, but chose not to make the identity public. Cs32en Talk to me 03:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? CBS news didn't say she wasn't raped. Nor did it say anything about the mob screaming "Jew". Nor did it say anything about her reporting or non-reporting to Egyptian police/hospitals. Neither CBS, nor Logan, nor Logan's family are the sources for any of this. Wikipedia is essentially repeating anonymous comments about whether somebody was raped, when the victim has not chosen to make that information public. Mindbunny (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That User:Cresix should post his cites or stop posting uncited claims - I can't find anything from CBS reporting that, has he got a link for his claim? Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why should we assume that the text published by CBS is the only information about this event that is available to reliable sources? Cs32en Talk to me 04:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming is actually what we are trying to avoid. CBS are the people closest to the source, she works for their media outlet, they would be a very strong source for any controversial claims... large sections of the press are also not reporting it either. the BBC and the Guardian neither are reporting a mob chanting jew jew jew as they sexually attacked her. It just seems to be coming from that new york post report with an unnamed source, as we don't have to sell anything, lets wait a day or two and get the clarified story.Off2riorob (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why should we assume that the text published by CBS is the only information about this event that is available to reliable sources? Cs32en Talk to me 04:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you are obviously assuming (!) that CBS is the only possible source for any information about the event. Given that there were numerous journalists on Tahrir Square at the time the incident happened, this assumption appears to be implausible. Furthermore, the information is not anonymous. The New York Post does not say: "An anonymous caller to our news desk said", but refers to "a person familiar with the matter". Cs32en Talk to me 05:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That user Cresix hadn't got any reliable citations, when I asked him he said he saw it on telly, its easy on noticebords to make keep I saw it on telly claims but we need to weed out such worthless supports. 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you are obviously assuming (!) that CBS is the only possible source for any information about the event. Given that there were numerous journalists on Tahrir Square at the time the incident happened, this assumption appears to be implausible. Furthermore, the information is not anonymous. The New York Post does not say: "An anonymous caller to our news desk said", but refers to "a person familiar with the matter". Cs32en Talk to me 05:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Mindbender, forum shopping is considered disruptive. You've raised this issue on at least two different pages now that I know of. First, BLP Notice Board and now here.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have anything about her being sexually assaulted unless she comes out to ask for it to be reported. It can't help with the healing process to have sordid things like that all over the internet. This has nothing to do with whether there are WP:RS available. Egg Centric 09:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know you are "new" here, but that is an editorial decision that goes far beyond our usual bounds. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, our role isn't to assist in the healing process, but rather to record notable events/story lines. CBS made this into a national story when they shared that she was attacked. There are plenty of RS reporting the attack; we may think something is crass, but for better or for worse, this has raised Lara's profile. Unless she leaves the industry, she will be known as the reporter who was assaulted in Egypt. For us to leave it out would be POV. Now that being said, we don't need to put undue weight on the coverage. I think the "not rape" comment should definitely be in there, I mean when the story first broke that is what everybody assumed "sexually assaulted" meant. But the stuff about chanting Jew Jew and the ethnicity of her attackers down to their blood lines----not needed.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not new here, I'm new to using an account and faffing around with bureuacracy. However it has since come to my attention that she signed off on the CBS story so is obviously comfortable with it being out, so I don't have a complaint any more. Is it really unusual though? Would you (not you, Wikipedia :D) name a rape victim if they were a celebrity? I'm no knee jerk feminist but that seems wrong to me. Egg Centric 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone will suspect you of being a feminist (knee-jerk or otherwise) if you espouse an attitude which some might see as containing an implicit assumption that someone who has been sexually assaulted should be ashamed of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whether we, or for that matter, anyone else thinks that this should be the case, the reality in many cases is that it is the case that victims of sexual assaults feel ashamed of it. Our BLP policy should reflect this reality (and I actually think that the policy largely does so). I wouldn't support the inclusion of information about the incident if it would not (a) have happened during her time on the job (b) be reported by multiple (about all mainstream) reliable sources in the United States. Cs32en Talk to me 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Doubt anyone would be stupid enough to see it that way! I think people are far more likely to see it as per Cs32en Egg Centric 19:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone will suspect you of being a feminist (knee-jerk or otherwise) if you espouse an attitude which some might see as containing an implicit assumption that someone who has been sexually assaulted should be ashamed of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The kitten is out of the bag. But yes, if a rape victim is notable/famous, then yet it would be included. We have numerous articles that include mention of the rape/sexual abuse. Just to name a few: Gabrielle Union, Teri Hatcher, Connie Francis, Fran Drescher, and Kelly McGillis. I am surprised that CBS released her name, but it was released as news in part because of who the victim was. If it was a member of her staff, then it wouldn't have been news. But we are dealing with a known personality.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The current version of that part of the article seems ok to me. The incident was widely reported by news media, though the WSJ is the only one I've seen that specifically used the R-word regarding what did or didn't happen. Maybe that's the anonymous sourcing Mindbunny is objecting to, that is still in the article. The "Jew" stuff and the part about being afraid of Egyptian hospitals is gone now, and those parts seemed more concern, with the hospital part making no sense at all. Yes IMO we do have to apply a bit more skepticism with such sourcing (the NYT acknowledges anonymous sourcing decreases credibility[36] and the WSJ also took some heat[37]) but I think that particular statement is not very contentious and is mentioned just briefly in the article, so it seems ok to me despite minor misgivings. The other info in the WP article is consistent with what I've seen in general news coverage, though I haven't followed the story in detail. Off2riorob's remark about our not being an online volunteer Reuters is well-put. Breaking news reports very often don't and can't have the reliability we aspire to as an encyclopedia. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know you are "new" here, but that is an editorial decision that goes far beyond our usual bounds. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This plainly needs an admin in some way. ThinkEnemies is plainly edit warring. Technically, I am probably edit warring too, but I feel there is specific policy that applies regarding BLP. But, interpreting policy is always a bit subjective. I don't know what to do. In any case, the article is seeing edit warring, and material involving anti-Semitism and sexual assault is being added to the article based on a tabloid (and an anonymous source). Mindbunny (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Block request: Angel's flight
A checkuser has identified user:Angel's flight as editing from IP addresses registered to American System Publications, a company owned by the Lyndon LaRouche movement. This is the same company that user:Leatherstocking, a sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky, was editing from in 2009. He edited logged out several times, and the IP addresses resolved to American Systems Publications in Los Angeles. (See Leatherstocking and WP:LTA/HK.)
Angel's flight has been acting like Leatherstocking and Herschelkrustofsky too, pushing exactly the same text and POV on the same articles, as well as working on a new article, Death panels, an issue the LaRouche movement has an interest in. (See several threads on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive670.) In addition to the CU evidence, there is other behavioral evidence, which I can email if necessary. Could an uninvolved admin please block the account for block evasion? Will Beback talk 07:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I too would welcome a block on this user for his actions at Independent Payment Advisory Board as well as Death panel. The account may be linked to other editors such as User:Intermittentgardener which it often backs up and User:Jesanj for the same reason. I made several complaints here previously about User:Intermittentgardener and User:Jesanj has contacted me by email with material that in my opinion was intended to somehow scare me (someone knows who you are but I am trying to protect you). Quite sinister really. Jesanj has also claimed that Action T4 is a death panel, and as I have discovered, this is something the Larouche organization connects to organizations and subjects in the health field such as IPAB and NICE. These are extremists views and I have accused all of thee editors of trying to politicize the encyclopedia content and push POV in recent times. User:Arzel has a similar editing pattern also and may be worth checking out.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not a sockpuppet. You have made allegations against me several times without presenting any evidence. Please stop.Intermittentgardener (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea if he is sockpuppet or just one of that supporters of LaRouche who work in his companies or affiliated groups. Both can be true. But his edits in Independent Payment Advisory Board like this one are normal content dispute and I don´t see problem to include what notable politicians think about the topic. --Dezidor (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This came up a week or so ago and I saw what had signs of skillful POV pushing that I didn't have the energy to try to document with diffs. Will Beback would know better than I would about whether that's HK's style. Is there a SPI about this current checkuser finding and were more socks found? Angel's Flight and a couple of aligned editors arrived at that article with new accounts but as obvious non-newbies. My view is that actual newbies are expected to take a while getting acclimated and we can accept some pretty bad errors from them, but apparent practitioners of CLEANSTART should be presumed to know what they're doing when they make the new account, so it's appropriate hold them to high standards. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The POV pushing has been pretty relentless, and as you say skillfully done. In essence, they find a wee bit about something and spin it up into something else. This particular account has been used mostly on the TALK page to back up the unacceptable edits of other editors. Of course they make the same old claim of verifiability and not truth, but even attempts to add material which shows the POV they are pushing to be wrong, some member or other of the cabal working at these articles will come along and delete material. For example this edit which makes it clear that the NHS pays full cost for effective cancer drugs and allows top up by the patients if the price demanded by a pharma company for a drug is deemed to be too high. The counterbalancing material was just deleted because it does not fit the POV of the cabal. At some point WP is about TRUTH and these editors seem intent on hiding it.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've indef blocked this user as an obvious disruptive sock. Dreadstar ☥ 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest a CU since there were some other accounts with similar patterns. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the block. I too think that a checkuser should be done on all the accounts that have edited Death panel and Independent Payment Advisory Board and their respective talk pages since Christmas 2010 to see if they are connected. This is I think when the push (putsch?) began at those articles. Hauskalainen (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's called "fishing", and we won't do that. If we have individual editors for which we can demonstrate sufficient probable cause, a checkuser would be warranted. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with JpGordon, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there has been an abuse of multiple accounts. Hauskalainen's argument looks more like a content dispute to me, no reason for a ban either.81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No, its not just content, its about sockuppetry and POV. Puppetry is all about false consensus and that is what I sense is going on and so it seems do others. These editors back up each others edits all the time and on occasions have edited one after the other in quick succession. If one would go 3RR then another steps in and reverts on their behalf. Several are relatively new accounts which have edited only a few accounts. There is a definite cabal at these articles with POV pushing at its core. And as I pointed out above, at least one of these editors had expressed an opinion closely associated with the LaRouche crowd and we know now that Angel's flight was editing from a LaRouche web site that had been used before for puppetry. Taking user account history, editing patterns, edit time patterns and article choice into account, I would say that this would not be a fishing trip..Hauskalainen (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- This block was a little quick, don't you think? I don't see any evidence of POV-pushing presented in the thread above. The entire case was, "This editor edits, in a similar way, from the same IP range as another blocked editor." If an editor is following the rules, stronger evidence should be needed before the account is banned. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The account was blocked for being an obvious sock of a banned user. That user was banned for POV pushing, sock puppetry, and other violations of Wikipedia policies. The account was not simply using the same IP range - he was editing from the same small LaRouche company as previous HK socks. As far as POV pushing, every edit he made was to advance LaRouche views, or to argue against negative material on LaRouche, the same as HK. Will Beback talk 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that the account was POV-pushing in the LaRouche article. You haven't provided any evidence that the account was doing so. If the account was following the rules, how can it be blocked because it "might" (with only circumstantial evidence) be the same person? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- What standard do you suggest for blocking socks? Only if they're using the identical IP address and only if they're flagrantly violating other Wikipedia policies? that is not the standard the community has adopted. See, for example WP:DUCK. I note that you have repeatedly asked non-LaRouche accounts to stop editing the topic, yet you seem fine with having someone at a LaRouche HQ doing so. I also note that you frequently join in discussions on WR with the banned editor, who is the senior admin there. While I assume good faith on your part, your involvement with this topic has been decidedly pro-HK. Could you please do us all a favor and ask him to stop sneaking back here and editing under false identities? Will Beback talk 00:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, where is the link to the SPI? I don't see it in your statement above. I just realized that it appears that you haven't actually presented any evidence either that the account is editing from the "small" company you say it is. Where is the actual evidence to support this block? Let's see it. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- A checkuser did the investigation, and found the connection to the company. I don't have permission to reveal the IP in question, but it is definitely registered to American System Publications. Some details can not be disclosed publicly for privacy and other reasons. Will Beback talk 00:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the IP is confidential, then how do you know it? How was this checkuser requested if no request was made at the SPI page? What's going on here? Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- This checkuser request, as is often the case with those regarding prolific and malicious sockpuppeteers, was made privately, by someone very familiar with this particular miscreant. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, without giving the actual IP, did it match up exactly with the IP used by the banned user in the past, or did it just happen to be in the range used by the same company? If so, then I don't think you can conclusively decide that the accounts are the same. The ArbCom decision banned that specific editor, not the company he/she edited from. Also, after performing the checkuser, did you share the information with any other involved party. If so, why? Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is also behavioral evidence to show it is the same person and not just someone else sitting at a desk in the LaRouche HQ. In the past we have published that type of information. However HK is a clever puppet master (his use of socks dates back to Usenet and precedes Wikipedia), and he has adapted himself to be less identifiable. For that reason I will not publish the behavioral evidence publicly. Most of Cla68's objections seem to be Wikilawyering in defense of his friend. Loyalty is admirable, but misplaced in the case of disruptive POV-pushing puppet masters. Will Beback talk 01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, Will, what I'm seeing here is an editor who was following the rules being blocked as a banned editor on hidden, circumstantial evidence based on "because I said so". Will, did you approach JPGordon privately to conduct a checkuser? If so, were you aware that he was previously involved as an arbitrator related to the LaRouche case? Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68, even aside from the plentiful evidence that this is HK, do you really think it's appropriate for a member of the LaRouche movement, sitting at a LaRouche computer, to edit LaRouche-related topics without making any disclosure? Can I remind you again of how many non-LaRouche editors you've asked to stop editing the topic? Will Beback talk 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- (a) Will did not contact me. Doesn't matter who did, though. (b) "Previously involved" because I voted on a motion of clarification two and a half years after the original case? Don't be silly. But even if I had been involved in the earlier case, that would have made no difference to the intepretation of the actual data, as I provided technical details only, not conclusions. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68, even aside from the plentiful evidence that this is HK, do you really think it's appropriate for a member of the LaRouche movement, sitting at a LaRouche computer, to edit LaRouche-related topics without making any disclosure? Can I remind you again of how many non-LaRouche editors you've asked to stop editing the topic? Will Beback talk 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, Will, what I'm seeing here is an editor who was following the rules being blocked as a banned editor on hidden, circumstantial evidence based on "because I said so". Will, did you approach JPGordon privately to conduct a checkuser? If so, were you aware that he was previously involved as an arbitrator related to the LaRouche case? Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is also behavioral evidence to show it is the same person and not just someone else sitting at a desk in the LaRouche HQ. In the past we have published that type of information. However HK is a clever puppet master (his use of socks dates back to Usenet and precedes Wikipedia), and he has adapted himself to be less identifiable. For that reason I will not publish the behavioral evidence publicly. Most of Cla68's objections seem to be Wikilawyering in defense of his friend. Loyalty is admirable, but misplaced in the case of disruptive POV-pushing puppet masters. Will Beback talk 01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, without giving the actual IP, did it match up exactly with the IP used by the banned user in the past, or did it just happen to be in the range used by the same company? If so, then I don't think you can conclusively decide that the accounts are the same. The ArbCom decision banned that specific editor, not the company he/she edited from. Also, after performing the checkuser, did you share the information with any other involved party. If so, why? Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- This checkuser request, as is often the case with those regarding prolific and malicious sockpuppeteers, was made privately, by someone very familiar with this particular miscreant. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the IP is confidential, then how do you know it? How was this checkuser requested if no request was made at the SPI page? What's going on here? Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- A checkuser did the investigation, and found the connection to the company. I don't have permission to reveal the IP in question, but it is definitely registered to American System Publications. Some details can not be disclosed publicly for privacy and other reasons. Will Beback talk 00:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, where is the link to the SPI? I don't see it in your statement above. I just realized that it appears that you haven't actually presented any evidence either that the account is editing from the "small" company you say it is. Where is the actual evidence to support this block? Let's see it. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- What standard do you suggest for blocking socks? Only if they're using the identical IP address and only if they're flagrantly violating other Wikipedia policies? that is not the standard the community has adopted. See, for example WP:DUCK. I note that you have repeatedly asked non-LaRouche accounts to stop editing the topic, yet you seem fine with having someone at a LaRouche HQ doing so. I also note that you frequently join in discussions on WR with the banned editor, who is the senior admin there. While I assume good faith on your part, your involvement with this topic has been decidedly pro-HK. Could you please do us all a favor and ask him to stop sneaking back here and editing under false identities? Will Beback talk 00:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that the account was POV-pushing in the LaRouche article. You haven't provided any evidence that the account was doing so. If the account was following the rules, how can it be blocked because it "might" (with only circumstantial evidence) be the same person? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The account was blocked for being an obvious sock of a banned user. That user was banned for POV pushing, sock puppetry, and other violations of Wikipedia policies. The account was not simply using the same IP range - he was editing from the same small LaRouche company as previous HK socks. As far as POV pushing, every edit he made was to advance LaRouche views, or to argue against negative material on LaRouche, the same as HK. Will Beback talk 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cla, any details given publicly will help the person behind the LaRouche accounts. In addition, he attacks people—on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere—that he sees as opposing him. I hope you agree that no one should be subjected to those attacks, and I ask you please not to do anything that might make them worse.
- American System Publications in Los Angeles is a tiny LaRouche company. Leatherstocking edited from there while logged out, and he acknowledged it was him. He didn't seem to realize a whois would show it was a LaRouche IP. Another IP from the same company edited logged out not long ago, again revealing a very small range. So this is not a situation where different people are in a large company and might be editing unaware of each other.
- In addition to the technical connection, Angel's flight was raising exactly the same points the other accounts had raised, sometimes almost word for word, and was referring to issues discussed only on obscure pages years ago. The more he posted, the more he did it. So it was very obvious to anyone familiar with the accounts that it was the same person. There have been dozens of these accounts over the years, and they distinguish themselves by the language they use, the positions they strike up, and by the very particular interests—very specific tiny points that are of interest to the person behind the accounts.
- When you were involved in the Naked short selling situation, you agreed (or even suggested) that any new account that arrived at those articles should be assumed to be a sockpuppet. That is, you agreed the situation was such that the usual AGF could no longer be the default position. The sockpuppetry situation at the LaRouche articles is similar, if not worse. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the only organization prohibited from editing Wikipedia is the Church of Scientology. If the ArbCom has ruled that American System Publications is similarly not allowed to edit Wikipedia, could someone point out to me where it says that? Otherwise, unless someone confirms that the IP addresses were the same, then there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to support a block of the account as a sock of HK. No one has introduced any other evidence of wrongdoing, be it edit warring or POV editing. Will said earlier that he would be willing to email confidential evidence that he has. Will, please email me that evidence. Otherwise, I'm not seeing sufficient justification for this block. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- HK is a serial puppet master. He has disrupted the project for years and attacked WP editors from his post as WR admin. I've never seen you showing any concern about any of that. Instead, you have asked repeatedly asked non-LaRouche editors to stop editing the topic. You appear to be shilling for HK. Can you explain why you'd hold him to a different standard that Mantanmoreland? Will Beback talk 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The person behind the LaRouche accounts was banned by ArbCom, and has continued to sockpuppet ever since. He edits from American System Publications in Los Angeles, a very small LaRouche company. He has edited several times while logged out, which is how the ranges came to be known. I don't know which range Angel's flight edited from, but CU confirmed it was the same company, and it's clear from the logged-out edits that the ranges are tiny.
- Can you address the point I raised about Naked short selling? You argued at several of those articles that the various new accounts ought to be treated as socks, even though their IPs resolved to different areas. You argued that it was clear from their posts that they were the same person, or the same small group of people with the same aim and motivation, who repeatedly wanted to add the same material and the same sources, and who therefore for the purposes of WP were one person. But here—even though the IPs resolve to the same company; the company is tiny; it's owned by LaRouche; and the language, arguments, and edits are identical (even restoring each other's exact words)—you're arguing we should assume they're not the same person. What difference are you seeing between the two cases? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- SV, you'll need to give me a diff where I said something like that, otherwise, I don't remember the context involved. Back to this discussion, I have another question for Will. Above, JPGordon states that Will Beback did not contact him privately to request the checkuser. It was Will, however, who opened this thread announcing that he had proof that Angel's Flight was an HK sock, (which proof has yet to be produced, by the way). Will, if you and JPGordon weren't in private communication, then what made you decide to come here and announce the results of this non-public sock investigation, and how were you so sure that the results were conclusive? If the checkuser results, including IP addresses, were privileged information, then they shouldn't have been shared with you, right? Cla68 (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cla, you may have misunderstood. It wasn't checkuser sharing IP information. It was the LaRouche editor who shared it.
- Leatherstocking edited logged out in 2009, so his IP range was known. It resolved to American System Publications in Los Angeles, a small LaRouche company, one that HK is linked to. Recently another IP address edited the LaRouche pages logged out again, and revealed another IP range, which also resolved to American System Publications in Los Angeles.
- The question then was whether Angel's flight had edited from within those ranges, and the answer, as has been posted here, was yes. Whether it was exactly the same IP isn't known, but there's no need to know that detail. The ranges are tiny, just eight IP addresses in each. That makes it a technical match. Factor in the behavioral and editorial evidence, and it's a match in every sense. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- @Cla, you have been concerned there was no POV pushing from Angel's flight (Af). I saw some. Here is the LaRouche position: "Obama's so-called health-care reform, modelled as it is on both the Nazi T4 and the British NICE model, is riddled with procedures which will permit the cutting of care, from the comparative effectiveness studies to the Accountable Care Organizations. But the chief measure, as Office of Management and Budget chief Peter Orszag is at pains to stress, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), previously known as the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), and popularly known as "death panels."[38] Af came to death panel and would support text that overstated things (to LaRouche's benefit). Here's me calling Af's POV out. Af was trying to link the IPAB (and NICE) to the word death panel by overstating-sources & giving undue weight, in my opinion. They took a mini-break then returned by adding back some OK content, but also some content (off-topic and Gratzer) that had already been decided against, fyi. Jesanj (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Violating of editing restrictions by Rich Farmbrough (again)
Noticing a few pages on my watchlist getting hit by AWB edits by Rich Farmbrough, I found that he again is violating his editing restrictions (basically, no AWB edits that don't change anything substantial on the pages edited). I notified him of this here, but he continued with the the exact same type of edits, e.g. this one.
The only effect that edit has is that Category:Articles with tags with unsupported types is no longer on that page. Sounds good, until you realise that that category was created last week by Rich Farmbrough, without much (any?) discussion apparently, and lists pages with template parameters he doesn't like, but which work without any problem and are, despite what the category proclaims, 100% supported. E.g. in the example I gave, "Biographies" is changed to "Biography", even though both have the same effect, and "Biographies" is the tag that is suggested by the documentation at Template:Notability.
As far as I can see, Rich Farmbrough has created a category to deprecate some tags from parameters, despite the fact that these work perfect and are the ones suggested by the template documentation, and he is then violating his editing restriction to implement his preferred version. Fram (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I hope other Admins will, as usual, ignore this regular harassment by Fram. I am not the only editor on Wikipedia who's life is made tedious by his doubtless well meant, but pettifogging and ill informed attempts to be the Policeman of Wikipedia. <sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
- i'd hope you'd stop violating your editing restrictions and show some respect for the community. If you can't do that, you know where the door is. I'm getting a great sense of deja vu as this story is starting to sound like so many more that have come before it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec, agree with Crossmr by the way) As usual? Previous discussions have resulted in two editing restrictions, and 3 blocks. Could you perhaps address the actual remarks being made, instead of focusing on the editor who makes them? Why are you imposing your preferred tags (and spacing of headers, and capitalization of persondata tags)? Fram (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC) (and is there any reason why, after I have twice shown you that you are adding an incorrect month to some tags, you still do this[39]?) Fram (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rich, this is really bad. I've only barely touched the previous discussions, but I see 3 non-controversial blocks in your history. I don't think I've ever seen an admin blocked for more than a few hours without being unblocked, so my (admittedly inexperienced) eye tells me you've probably done something wrong, over and over. You're going to end up being desysopped (this is a warning from a neutral party, not a threat). Can't you just quit making minor edits with AWB, or your fake AWB bot or whatever it is they're claiming you use? Also, your response employed nothing of substance to respond to the accusation whatsoever, but it did make a clear-cut use of the famous ad hominem logical fallacy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This sort of random renaming of template parameters is one of R.F.'s habits, and it's also a violation of his editing restriction. Unilaterally declaring that "Biography" is a better parameter name than "Biographies", and then editing thousands of articles to make the change, is a clear example of a cosmetic change. How is that tracking category populated, by the way? Can't the template that populates it just have the category link removed?
Unfortunately, the only way to stop this is going to be an edit restriction that prevents R.F. from making large scale edits via AWB and bots. The present, limited edit restrictions would have been sufficient, but R.F. has persistently ignored them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of edit restrictions, is this not covered in the AWB rules (minor edits of no consequence) as something not to be done? --Errant (chat!) 13:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK - I looked at the changed articles, and they were good edits, because the plural form was not placing the edits into the correct category (due to checks within the template), but the singular was. In essence, it corrected a user typing error. I would not call this a minor edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The solution there would be to fix the template. If this went before a bot approval, they would point out that just changing the invocation of {{TDMCA}} would fix the issue without requiring any article edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)...if not for tha fact that Rich Farmrbough first changed the template to only accept the singular[40], making the previously accepted and preferred parameter suddenly unwanted: a change which he only mentioned after the discussion here started[41]. This was not proposed, not discussed. Because his implementation only supports one tag per type, and because he choose other ones than the ones so far supported, he has to make thousands of "minor" edits to articles that didn't have a problem before he started tinkering with the template... Fram (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK - I looked at the changed articles, and they were good edits, because the plural form was not placing the edits into the correct category (due to checks within the template), but the singular was. In essence, it corrected a user typing error. I would not call this a minor edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- @Errant: Yes, but admins are automatically authenticated by AWB (and even if they weren't, one can compile a custom AWB that doesn't authenticate the user or reveal that it is AWB; or use some other bot framework). So it's not practical to just disable AWB access, which would otherwise be a useful way to address AWB abuse.
- Wait a moment, can somebody please explain what is actually going on technically? Through what template mechanism are those categories actually pulled into the articles, and what template code determines which parameter versions are matched to these categories and which aren't? Why is it that the template documentation actually prescribes the plural forms, but Rich is now exchanging plurals with singulars? Rich has recently been editing the notability template, but I can't make heads and tails of it technically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rich added a tracking category in the template's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- ...and because the categories he created are called Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability (and parallel names), his solution needs the tag to be "Biography" (i.e. the exact word used in the category name), not some variation of it like bio, biographies, ... (yes, it took mes ome time as well to figure it out). Why he choose to change everything to fit his solution, instead of finding a solution that matches current practice (and the template documentation and so on) is not really clear. Why he didn't discuss this isn't clear either. Neither is it clear why he is still adding date=January 2011 to templates, even when we are closer to March than to January. Or why he is still changing the capitalization of Persondata parameters, despite clear opposition against this (not just from me). Fram (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c) Summary: R.F. changed the implementation of the Notability template, to use {{TDMCA}} instead of {{DMCA}}. Unfortunately, the new implementation is broken, because it assumes the notability template parameter's name is "Biography" instead of "Biographies". Rather than fixing this by editing the template code, R.F. added a tracking category for the pages that use the (perfectly correct) parameter "Biographies", so that he could edit every one of them to change the parameter to "Biography". This would never have made it through the bot approvals group. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rich added a tracking category in the template's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wait a moment, can somebody please explain what is actually going on technically? Through what template mechanism are those categories actually pulled into the articles, and what template code determines which parameter versions are matched to these categories and which aren't? Why is it that the template documentation actually prescribes the plural forms, but Rich is now exchanging plurals with singulars? Rich has recently been editing the notability template, but I can't make heads and tails of it technically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)From what I can make out Rich added the new option of "Biography" to the template the other day, and is now changing some of the templates to that form. This then lets the template automatically put the article in Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability, that seems a reasonable and sensible change. But it would have been nice to see Rich explain that rather than the response he did make here... --Errant (chat!) 13:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I left a message 3 days ago in Rich's talk page User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Trying_to_populate_newly_introduced_parameters.3F on the new parameters which I find odd too and I got no answer. My comment there explains why I find plural better than singular. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Re: answers to me above. Now to be fair, it's kind of hard to handle plurals in wiki-code. Most especially when the plural is a y -> ies change. Maybe someone would volunteer to make this change (if technically possible), and avoid nuclear war for the rest of us? Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Trying to come up with a solution to that now (agreed, it would be the easiest solution) but I am not entirely certain there is one. --Errant (chat!) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- We would have saved a lot of effort if the change was previously discussed somewhere so we all together could combine ideas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- One easy fix: in the notability template, move the invocation to TMDCA up into the switch statement, so that you can hard-code the appropriate category for each group of parameters. It's not like we have hundreds of different parameter options. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)It may not be as "fullyautomatix" as the current solution, but a variation on this may work (not tested, just taken and adapted from a different template):
- Trying to come up with a solution to that now (agreed, it would be the easiest solution) but I am not entirely certain there is one. --Errant (chat!) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{bio|¬}}}{{{Biography|¬}}}{{{Biographies|¬}}}|¬¬¬¬||[[:Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability]]}} Fram (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is actually an easy fix, there are several ways to do it, but the point is to be scalable. CBM's is a preferable fix out of those offered. However there are several hundred completely incorrect paramter 1 values - I will provide a link shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
Also, on a somewhat related issue, Rich managed to transclude {{TDMCA}} on 150,785 pages with nought for edit protection (4.234% of all content pages). Mistakes like this are precisely the reason I always encourage Rich to discuss his changes, templates like Notability aren't sysop-protected for no reason. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- TDMCA created without edit summary and has no documentation. I don't know what it does. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't editing a fully protected template to implement such changes without discussion on the talk page first not a violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy and thus of your admin abilities? Fram (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- TDMCA wasn't protected til just now. It looks like some hack added to the notability template[42] a few days ago (that is why it's transcluded into so many articles) in order to add a new category to articles containing notability tags of unrecognized type (person, organization, etc), and maybe similarly for other templates. I agree something like that shouldn't have been done without discussion, particularly about finding editors willing to actually update the relevant articles based on that category. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was replying to "templates like Notability aren't sysop-protected for no reason": Rich repeatedly edited this fully protected template, Template:Notability, making substantial changes, without any prior discussion. This is a violation of the protection policy and thus a misuse of his admin capabilities. Creating an unprotected template which indirectly appears 150,000 articles is, at first sight, just a bit of stupidity, but not a real violation in itself. Fram (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, right, yes, that makes sense. But, I think templates like Notability are protected to prevent vandalism across the huge range of transcluded pages; it's not like an article protected due to edit warring. Changing (e.g.) some words in a protected template probably shouldn't be considered too much of a problem. But complicated template programming that hits so many pages really should be reviewed and (if possible) tested on a separate server before being deployed on the live server. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was replying to "templates like Notability aren't sysop-protected for no reason": Rich repeatedly edited this fully protected template, Template:Notability, making substantial changes, without any prior discussion. This is a violation of the protection policy and thus a misuse of his admin capabilities. Creating an unprotected template which indirectly appears 150,000 articles is, at first sight, just a bit of stupidity, but not a real violation in itself. Fram (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- TDMCA wasn't protected til just now. It looks like some hack added to the notability template[42] a few days ago (that is why it's transcluded into so many articles) in order to add a new category to articles containing notability tags of unrecognized type (person, organization, etc), and maybe similarly for other templates. I agree something like that shouldn't have been done without discussion, particularly about finding editors willing to actually update the relevant articles based on that category. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, why do this with templates at all? Why not just process a database dump offline? And it was pretty bogus to write a template like that with no documentation.71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- See User:Rich Farmbrough/temp220. The tracking category is for long term maintenance, and the database dump is 4 weeks out of date so, no it's not bogus for those reasons although a db dump is is useful. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
- The template's merits can be reasonably debated, but if you're going to write such a pervasive template at all, it's completely bogus to not write any documentation for it. It was quite hard to figure out in part because it's hard to see the actual link graph of transclusions in the wiki (you can only see the transitive closure of all transclusions for any template or article, unless I'm missing something), but documentation really would have helped. We could use some better tools on toolserver to analyze this (it could also be done with Mediawiki extensions, but that might cause a performance hit). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- See User:Rich Farmbrough/temp220. The tracking category is for long term maintenance, and the database dump is 4 weeks out of date so, no it's not bogus for those reasons although a db dump is is useful. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
What would most users do when it has been pointed out to them that they have made policy violations, edits whoch don't have support and should have been discussed beforehand, plus violatons of editing restrictions, plus numerous errors (many pages dated with the wrong month)? Yes, obviously, go to an unrelated RfC/U that the messenger filed about an unrelated user, and give a totally diff-free distortion of the facts, meanwhile complaining about a lack of "the collegial approach that we try to foster in Wikipedia"... From someone who replied to this ANI discussion with the personal attack of "regular harassment", this is rather hyopocritical. Fram (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
If I try to summarize, my understanding is that:
- RF is making "AWB edits that don't change anything substantial on the pages edited", and that is called the "disruption" here
- RF, as an admin, has altered a protected template without discussion ("protected" here = only admins can edit), but not necessarily with a damaging outcome.
- Some users are unpleased by the way RF is interacting with them.
Is that a fair summary? olivier (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- For #1, R.F. is under an active edit restriction about trivial AWB edits, which is listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.
- The larger issue is a long-term pattern of this sort of thing from R.F.: undertaking large-scale unapproved (and often completely undiscussed) bot jobs, combined with a lack of communication. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- For #2, the damaging outcome is that thousands of pages that worked perfectly allright before, have to be changed to fit his solution; that admins editing pages that other editors are not allowed to edit gives admins an editing superpower which was never the intention of the admin bit (and which is for that reason disallowed by policy; that an unprotected template stood for a few days on 150,000 pages, giving vandals the chance to vandalize that many pages at once.
- For #1, apart from the changes that don't add anything to the page, there are also too many errors, like adding the wrong month to tags[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]..., or adding the same parameter twice with different values[57]. Note that in many of his AWB edits, he is also still adding or changing the defaultsort no matter if it is relaistically necessary or not, despite an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC on Sortkey issue, where there is no consensus to do this automatically, and a number of editors raisesd their reservations independently. The short discussion at Help_talk:Category#Defaultsort is indicative of why such AWB edits are a problem: "I've hesitated to remove them, because the massiveness of such edits suggests some reason for them." Editors see an admin making hundreds or thousands of edits with the same pattern, and presume that this is some agreed-upon, imposed rule, instead of being the preference of one or some editors, which may be removed again at will if it doesn't improve anything in any way, as is often the case. Fram (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. That make things clear for people new to the matter. olivier (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- We all know Fram that that is not "an onging RFC" it has not been edited for some 5 weeks. And it was started by you. You cannot use it as a chilling effect forever. Basically you take arms against something then never stop, which might be laudable in some cases, but here is merely tiresome. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
- I'm missing something in the discussion, though - for clarity's sake, Rich, do you have anything to add on whether or not your edits violate your editing restrictions? If it's a frivolous accusation, as you seem to imply, great - we can put it to bed. If not, then it probably should be discussed in that context as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for cutting to the crux. As the above discussion shows these were not "null edits" by another name, but a moderately small change to provide additional functionality using time tested techniques. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
- Incidentally the link to the list showing the indisputably bad values of parameter 1 I gave earlier as promised but it was overwritten by Fram here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
- That clearly looks like a software accident of submitting at the same time, which didn't result in an edit conflict. Fram is not to blame for it happening. SilverserenC 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that must have been an unidentified edit conflict. It's not as if I had any interest in suppressing that edit by Rich Farmbrough. Note that he could have used that dump to remove the obviously incorrect parameters from pages (e.g. "date+March 2008") without anyone protesting and without any change to the template. Note also that page tells us that before Rich's AWB edits, there were 2214 pages using Biographies, and 4 using Biography: but after the template change, the latter was the only accepted value, and the former had to be changed. If there are only 4 "correct" pages in your solution, and 2214 "wrong" ones, it may be time to change the attempted solution. Fram (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- That clearly looks like a software accident of submitting at the same time, which didn't result in an edit conflict. Fram is not to blame for it happening. SilverserenC 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally the link to the list showing the indisputably bad values of parameter 1 I gave earlier as promised but it was overwritten by Fram here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
- Yes, thanks for cutting to the crux. As the above discussion shows these were not "null edits" by another name, but a moderately small change to provide additional functionality using time tested techniques. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
- I'm missing something in the discussion, though - for clarity's sake, Rich, do you have anything to add on whether or not your edits violate your editing restrictions? If it's a frivolous accusation, as you seem to imply, great - we can put it to bed. If not, then it probably should be discussed in that context as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see these as well-intentioned edits that did not work as planned because of insufficient thought and especially lack of consultation. I'm not a template expert, but there seem to be some good solutions above. And I do know that even trivial changes of this sort that affect many articles have to be done very carefully. The time to have them discussed would of course have been before the template was changed and the edits made--and I would think anyone experience here would have realized it, so it is rather extreme carelessness or perhaps over-confidence, especially in view of prior restrictions. Given all this, I think we need a firm restriction now that Rich must consult before any new change of templates or new AWB job. The recourse if that should fail would be a total ban from editing templates and using AWB at all, to be enforced by clock if necessary. We must deal with this, but we should do it in a measured way. Rich, please tell us you understand that problem and that you're willing to accept this. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest that Rich quit using any sort of automation or programming (including template programming) on Wikipedia for a while. If Rich wants to contribute his software skills to improving the Wikipedia ecosystem, he should do it at toolserver for the time being. That way if something goes wrong with one of his programs, it won't disrupt wiki-editing nearly as much as these bot and AWB incidents have done. I can think of several useful tools Rich could write, that would help with the maintenance tasks Rich has been interested in, while making no edits at all to Wikipedia. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note that Rich Farmbrough also changed Template:Refimprove, also fully protected, to introduce a "type" parameter through his new, undiscussed and then unprotected and undocumented TDMCA template. All this contributed to have Category:Articles with tags with unsupported types with 6000 pages which had no problem before this template was introduced. The same was done on Template:Wikify and Template:Expand list. The latter is not protected (but probably should be, with 11000 transcluaions), so I left it alone: the former was a protected template as well, so I reverted the change there and at Refimprove.
- One example of what these changes accomplished. The previous version of Samuel Gougeon listed the article correctly at Category:TV articles of unclear notability. After Rich Farmbrough inserted his "type" template, the article had to be changed to accept a different parameter (not cat=TV but type=Television) to be listed in Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability? The actual gain of these changes? Zero. But the effect is that because of these changes, undoing his change to the template isn't enough, now many related changes, to categories and articles, have to be undone as well. All because this was not discussed before implementation, even though it is in general wanted for such changes, and certainly when it is done to protected templates. I'll try to undo as much of the damage as possible, but it may take a while. Fram (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly on the Wikify template this would be a bad change; we don't work by topic, but by date :) I think Rich needs to discuss this proposal centrally somewhere; while I have no issue with it in general he a) is under editing restrictions which should always make him pause for thought and b) such a major change should always be proposed somewhere obvious and gain consensus. If he had done so then probably the mass update would not have been needed. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Another protected template changed to introduce "type" without discussion at Template:Unreferenced section. Not through the TDMCA template though, but directly. No idea why a different approach was chosen here. Fram (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand the urgency of finding all these unrecognized type parameters. Who's going to fix them anyway, once they are found? Is there an example of one creating some kind of mistake in an article that users can see on the screen? We're writing an encyclopedia and if we're doing a good job of that, some disorder behind the scenes that doesn't cause tangible problems can probably slide for a while. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly on the Wikify template this would be a bad change; we don't work by topic, but by date :) I think Rich needs to discuss this proposal centrally somewhere; while I have no issue with it in general he a) is under editing restrictions which should always make him pause for thought and b) such a major change should always be proposed somewhere obvious and gain consensus. If he had done so then probably the mass update would not have been needed. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- One example of what these changes accomplished. The previous version of Samuel Gougeon listed the article correctly at Category:TV articles of unclear notability. After Rich Farmbrough inserted his "type" template, the article had to be changed to accept a different parameter (not cat=TV but type=Television) to be listed in Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability? The actual gain of these changes? Zero. But the effect is that because of these changes, undoing his change to the template isn't enough, now many related changes, to categories and articles, have to be undone as well. All because this was not discussed before implementation, even though it is in general wanted for such changes, and certainly when it is done to protected templates. I'll try to undo as much of the damage as possible, but it may take a while. Fram (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why has SmackBot gone back to unnecessarily changing the capitalization of templates? [58] I thought this was fixed in AWB. –xenotalk 14:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does it not only with "unreferenced"[59], but also with "citation needed"[60][61] , "coi"[62], "when"[63], "expand section"[64], ... At least it does it only with templates that are dated at the same time, no longer with things like "cite web" and so on. Fram (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- That Smackbot edit also fails to list its Build version in the edit summary (which is important for tracking given all the issues that continue to arise). Rd232 talk 16:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Question to Rich: how much longer do you think this sort of behaviour of yours can go on? This TDMCA business is just the latest "I know what needs doing and I'm going to do it, everyone else just get out of my way" attitude. At some point a ban from all forms of mass editing becomes inevitable. Rd232 talk 16:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since the general attitude lately is that bots are evil and Wikipedia doesn't need them and that everything should just be done by editors you should block the bot. If you are going to expect a zero error rate then you may as well block Rich too. Fram is going to follow him and the bot continuously until that is the result anyway so theres no reason to drag this out further. Of course all the good things that Smackbot does will just go without doing but who cares anyway right. It is of course more important that nothing be changed from one case to another than to ensure that maintenance tags get dated anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a general attitude that bots are evil. I run User:WP 1.0 bot (2,799,291 edits), User:VeblenBot (407,122 edits) and User:PeerReviewBot. The problem is not bots in general; R.F.'s editing is not in line with our best practices for bot operators. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thats true and I admit those bots are very useful but they do not do anything to better the articles themselves. They don't fix problems, they don't correct typos and formatting and they don't date maintenance tags like smackbot does. The general attitude lately is that bots that make changes to articles are evil and more and more users are focusing all their attention on things that are truly meaningless like wether a bot changed the casing of a template. Is it needed no. Is it going to change how the article displays. No. But if its done with another edit like dating maintenance tags who really cares. Multiple editors have spent literally days debating these truly insignificant things. THEY DO NOT MATTER. If the bot is fixing problems or dating maintenance tags or whatever and happens to replace a redirect, change the casing of a template to uppercase, remove spaces from headers, etc then is it really worth having multiple editors who could be editing articles or improving content spending weeks or months debating the symantics of uppercase vs. lower case. My opinion is no it does not. Now if the bot or editor actually does something wrong like break a template, delete or erroneously break formatting or data then yes we need to discuss it and do what ever it takes to fix it. But we need to quite quibling over these truly insignificant things. Its stupid an petty debates like this that are the reason that the ANI historical tables are by far the largest of any content on Wikipedia and are require in excess of 100GB (yes Gigabytes) of storage. --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a general attitude that bots are evil. I run User:WP 1.0 bot (2,799,291 edits), User:VeblenBot (407,122 edits) and User:PeerReviewBot. The problem is not bots in general; R.F.'s editing is not in line with our best practices for bot operators. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Blenn Geck legal threats
The guy has already been indef'd as a sock, but he continues to make legal threats. I ask that an admin take away his talk page privileges. I'm told he's been in contact with arbcom about his situatio, so there's really nothing useful he can do on his talk page. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- What account are you talking about? User:Blenn Geck isn't registered... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, it's BlennGeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- No offense, but what business do you have posting on his talk page? The guy should be blocked, and yes he should not be making legal threats but you are literally trolling his talk page, eliciting these reactions from him. Please cease and desist from stirring more drama up. You should be interaction banned from this user as there is absolutely no productive reason for you to be interacting with them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's now off my watch list. I was trying to see if I could get any truth from the guy, but he won't budge, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's threatening you for "outing" him by reposting the IP he accidently associated with his own account. You're pretty much in the clear; I'd suggest disengaging. No one is going to unblock him. For the record, blocks based on WP:NLT are typically reverted without prejudice with the threats are retracted, aren't they? (I know this is a sock block) --King Öomie 14:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've taken his page off my watch list. He outed himself and is angry over having been caught. The blocking admin advised doing nothing about that "outing" until the user hears back from arbcom. I've seen cases where they did revdel when a guy accidentally outed himself, but that's usually for a user in good standing, which this guy ain't, as he's a sockpuppeteer (previous, indef blocked account is Deliciousgrapefruit). Even if he retracts the legal threats, he'll stay blocked, because the sockmaster is blocked. But you're right that if it were an NLT block, retracting the threat could result in an unblock. Not in this case though. He just needs to be stopped from making further legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I should also point out that it was a different user who discovered the cross-blending of the accounts and their IP address. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, he just needs to be ignored. He's blocked already as a sock. Nothing more to see here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may be right. We'll let an admin decide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, but beware of the boomerang. This looks like very unnecessary drama to me, and now you're asking an admin to waste their time with it. Good luck. Out.Griswaldo (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Admins can stifle the guy or they can leave him be, that's up to them. I just don't like seeing legal threats left standing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's bugs for ya! One of the wiki's characters. It's all good natured. I can understand why some may not, but I like it... we're not here to be professional and up tight! Egg Centric 17:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. You're a good Egg. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, but beware of the boomerang. This looks like very unnecessary drama to me, and now you're asking an admin to waste their time with it. Good luck. Out.Griswaldo (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may be right. We'll let an admin decide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)(edit conflict) I saw your comments after, but was edit conflicted a full three times while attempting to post (and then while attempting to add (edit conflict), and twice while trying to post this- what the hell is going on up there?) --King Öomie 14:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've run into lots of EC's recently. My screen is also acting weird in the last day or two. They might have made some technical changes in the site. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- There really is something screwed up. I've seen several pages with no edit buttons as if they were protected, when they weren't, and I was able to edit one by clicking "view source". I wonder whether logged-in users also experienced that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- When opening a new edit screen, I'm seeing a light blue panel at the top, which is new, and weird. Wasn't there a comment a few days back about how they were going to implement some changes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- There really is something screwed up. I've seen several pages with no edit buttons as if they were protected, when they weren't, and I was able to edit one by clicking "view source". I wonder whether logged-in users also experienced that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've run into lots of EC's recently. My screen is also acting weird in the last day or two. They might have made some technical changes in the site. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, he just needs to be ignored. He's blocked already as a sock. Nothing more to see here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's threatening you for "outing" him by reposting the IP he accidently associated with his own account. You're pretty much in the clear; I'd suggest disengaging. No one is going to unblock him. For the record, blocks based on WP:NLT are typically reverted without prejudice with the threats are retracted, aren't they? (I know this is a sock block) --King Öomie 14:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's now off my watch list. I was trying to see if I could get any truth from the guy, but he won't budge, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- No offense, but what business do you have posting on his talk page? The guy should be blocked, and yes he should not be making legal threats but you are literally trolling his talk page, eliciting these reactions from him. Please cease and desist from stirring more drama up. You should be interaction banned from this user as there is absolutely no productive reason for you to be interacting with them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, it's BlennGeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Resolution
I've blocked the sock account from editing its own talk page. Socks do not need to edit anything anywhere - they can use their primary account for that unless their editing privileges have been revoked. In that case, they definitely should not be editing a sock talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- If BlennGeck and Delicious Grapefruit really were different users on the same computer as BG says, that basically announces off-wiki coordination since IIRC they were in the same edit wars. Heh. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Recommendation
If a user reveals an IP address by mistake and wishes to undo the error, I generally don't see a problem with removing it. Removal won't slow down admins or checkusers investigating complaints, and it's foreseeable that in rare cases an IP outing could cause problems such as in the case of a whistle-blower outing his or her work IP. However, I propose only removing such edits when the user makes the request and when the user isn't already involved in a sock case. Rklawton (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do we encourage whistle-blowers to edit articles? I'm admittedly biased on the subject—I have some doubts about the net social utility of whistleblowing—but I would think that the rationale of WP:AUTO would apply with only slightly diminished force. If an individual is too close to the subject to contribute to an article about themselves, presumably they are no more distant from organizations they're closely involved in. We wouldn't allow Barack Obama to edit Barack Obama; wouldn't it be anomalous to allow him to edit Presidency of Barack Obama? Why is it any different? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Time to withdraw Talk page edit privilege from this guy? (I haven't notified him this time - there's clearly no point) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replace page with Template:indefblock, remove talkpage editing privileges (my vote anyway). --King Öomie 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorted now, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- If he does anything like that [65] again I think it's time to revoke and move on. Doesn't seem to want to contribute anything of value. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good call. So much for second chances. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- If he does anything like that [65] again I think it's time to revoke and move on. Doesn't seem to want to contribute anything of value. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorted now, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Troh César Hougnonhouon
This AfD was opened on 3 January by Zanoni (talk · contribs) but nothing in the article history to show that it was ever tagged, and I doubt it was ever listed at AfD. Can an admin please rectify/close? Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've think I've managed to list it correctly now, can somebody double check though please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Kool dee and User talk:Yo Yo Vega keeps removing the birth year on the Nadia Dajani page.
I suspected these users are the same person, as they kept on removing the 1965 on the Nadia Dajani page (check the edit history). This user claims that they are the actor's agent; and they did not want to provide her age, for some strange reason. I wanted to report this to prevent any future edit warring. Tinton5 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have notified Yo Yo Vega (talk · contribs) about this discussion. ALL users should be notified. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
3rd billing in a 2-year-run sitcom followed by several film appearances, none of which appear to be "significant roles". Send it to AfD, that'll take care of the age reporting if it gets canned. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's an option. Other than that, the age disclosure concern is a valid consideration for a living person. According to WP:DOB, it may be acceptable to remove the date of birth (or year in this case) if the subject objects. The encyclopedic nature of this date is arguably limited, and I could not find any decent source giving this date. All websites giving her birth date seem to be copying each other with limited reliability. Keep in mind that IMDb functions partly as a Wiki. olivier (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:BLP strongly supports the removal of unsourced / poorly sourced contested and potentially controversial claims about living people. There are many many instances when a factual age is important and having the incorrect information would lead to damage to a living person/their reputation. (drinking underage, claiming retirement benefits too early, statutory rape). I have removed the date. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Their precise age has nothing to do with the subject's notability (not being a child star) and is just general information, unless it can be sourced reliably I see no reason why it should remain in the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:BLP strongly supports the removal of unsourced / poorly sourced contested and potentially controversial claims about living people. There are many many instances when a factual age is important and having the incorrect information would lead to damage to a living person/their reputation. (drinking underage, claiming retirement benefits too early, statutory rape). I have removed the date. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support unreliable sourced age should be removed - especially when someone objects. I'd also support deleting all but the most basic parts of the article at least until we get get some reliable sources - at this point there are zero. Rklawton (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation
User:N Wilson01 and its sockpuppets User:ChicagoHistory1 and User:Chicago Public Schools299 are adding unfree images to various Chicago area schools. He has been warned several times but he continues to upload. An admin should look into this. Thanks—Chris!c/t 01:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Add User:Love For Chicago to the mix. Zagalejo^^^ 02:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, first off, we cannot have multiple accounts; the following are Confirmed as the same person:
- N Wilson01 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- ChicagoHistory1 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Chicago Public Schools299 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Love For Chicago (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I will note that the IP is not from Chicago Public Schools or any other official entity. –MuZemike 03:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked the three Chicago-themed accounts indefinitely and tagged them as socks. Blocked N Wilson01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for copyright violations and sockpuppetry for 24 hours. So far as I am concerned this can be upped to indefinitely on the next copyvio. The IP has not edited for two days, so I left it alone; if it is still registered to the same user, it will be caught in the autoblock. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit by 188.192.109.47
At Talk:Prisoner functionary#Suggested merge there is a discussion of a proposed article merge with Kapo (concentration camp). In opposing the merge, user 188.192.109.47 says here "I suspect that this is an attempt at 'soft' Holocaust denial, by blurring and obfuscating the historical record specific to the Holocaust." As a supporter of the merge and a participant in what until then had been a slow-moving and cordial discussion, I found the suggestion insulting, both to me and to the community, and said so.
I request that the IP be warned against making casual and ill-founded accusations, and that their post and my reply both be expunged from the record. --CliffC (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- First, you must notify any user who you discuss here, which I've taken care of for you. Second, while the edit in question is possibly in poor taste, it does not appear to me to rise the level of anything sufficient enough to take administrator action. "Casual and ill-founded accusations," as you refer to the edit, happen all the time around here; they don't normally lead to expungement. Your reply directly after that diff made your opinion known; I would say "enough said" at this point. Frank | talk 02:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. The edit doesn't appear to rise to the level of an attack. Editors must be able to express themselves in lively debate, even if some of the rhetoric may seem offensive to some.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Frank, I had an edit conflict with you making my own notification, as I had a problem formatting mine to include the thread ID. It's one thing to be accused by an IP of being an asshole, another to be called a Holocaust denier. I don't see where any "lively debate" is warranted. I'd like to have both posts permanently off the record. Thank you. --CliffC (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see nothing in WP:CFRD to support this; indeed, "ordinary" personal attacks are specifically excluded. Since you weren't the proposer, I have an even more difficult time making the leap that it was a personal attack anyway. I suggest you let the discussion play out. Frank | talk 09:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Frank, I had an edit conflict with you making my own notification, as I had a problem formatting mine to include the thread ID. It's one thing to be accused by an IP of being an asshole, another to be called a Holocaust denier. I don't see where any "lively debate" is warranted. I'd like to have both posts permanently off the record. Thank you. --CliffC (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. The edit doesn't appear to rise to the level of an attack. Editors must be able to express themselves in lively debate, even if some of the rhetoric may seem offensive to some.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
AIV Backlog
There is a backlog at WP:AIV. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Australian head of state dispute
I have asked for a source at List of current heads of state and government for the inclusion of Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state of Australia. Now, before you say, well of course she is the head of state! She's the Queen, right?, read the discussion on the talk page (which is beginning to go around in circles), or better yet, read the Australian head of state dispute article. Simply put, there is no definitive source for saying that the Queen is the Australian head of state. No statement in the Constitution, no declaration in legislation. The best one can get from legal sources is opinion, needing synthesis, which is original research. There are good sources for describing the Queen as head of state, and the Governor-General as head of state. Official sources, academic sources, community sources. This is a debate within the Australian community with a long history, mostly within the context of the republican debate.
However, that's as may be. I am at the moment concerned with the five pillars points. The statement is unsourced WP:RS and if a source is found for the Queen, then sources are likewise found for the Governor-General WP:NPOV. If editorial opinion or synthesis are used, then it is WP:OR.
I'm trying to work through the problem using wikiprocesses, but encountering difficulty. At this point, I'd like to get some loftier eyes on the situation, rather than edit war over something with possible BLP ramifications. --Pete (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is more of a content dispute, IMHO. Anyways, Why would one ask for a source, when one has already pre-determined (having admitted as much) that no such source exists. At the article-in-question, one of the editors seems un-willing or un-able to accept that Australia's situation isn't unique. Again, this really doesn't belong at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why can't you just write that some sources claim that Liz Windsor is Head of State, and others claim that the GG is? This isn't OR, or synthesis. If the list can't handle ambiguities, then the problem is with the list, not the sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the essence of the Australian head of state dispute article. It's a collection of sources and a summary of the situation. When I added a link, GoodDay pulled it out. --Pete (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government#cite_note-ERII-0 already said "Queen Elizabeth II is separately and equally monarch of 16 sovereign countries sometimes known collectively as the Commonwealth realms. In each of these countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom (where she predominately resides) she is represented by a governor-general (unhyphenated in Canada as governor general) at national level. In some of these countries, opinion differs as to whether the Queen or governor-general should be designated as head of state; there is no questioning of the Queen's position as sovereign, above the governors-general, however." before
the OP's editthe OP's edit, so it wasn't clear why an edit specific to Australia was thought to be required, unless as WP:SOAP. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)- I think ya linked to the wrong edit, DB. Mine wasn't specific to Australia. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes. Hopefully corrected now above. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The font size was the critical point. By showing the Governor-General in a smaller size than the Queen, Wikipedia violates WP:NPOV. The sources are equally good for both Queen and Governor-General, and the Australian Governor-General's function goes beyond representing the Queen. I can recommend some of the sources in the Australian head of state dispute article for more and better information, but the guts of it is that she isn't a "deputy monarch" or the Queen's Australian agent. --Pete (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again though, Australia's situation isn't unique. Also, Mies' offered & compromise - using 'same size' fonts, if 'Representative' was added to all the commonwealth realm entries. I dropped my stance on 'different size font' & accepted the compromise. But Skyring/Pete refused to join myself & Mies in that agreement (thus here we eventually ended up). GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think ya linked to the wrong edit, DB. Mine wasn't specific to Australia. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of completion, I'd like to add that Talk:Elizabeth II does contain a large portion of this discussion as well. Some of it, I believe is in the archives. For the sake of sanity, I'd also like to say that while this is a content dispute, it's been going of since July 2010 and the unwavering tenacity on both sides makes me think that this is the place to get a final solution. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thus the big question. Does a country need to say Head of State in its Constitution, in order to have a Head of State? GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course not! But it's an extremely good source when this is the situation. Definitive even. We do have to source our statements, remember, and it's a lot better to use a nation's constitution as the source rather than the CIA Factbook. BTW, I notice that the CIA has also flip-flopped over the years on this precise point. --Pete (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The Australian government's own website[66] says that Dizzy Miss Lizzie is the head of state. What do we know that they don't know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I too am perpexed by Skyring/Pete's stance. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Australian government has changed its mind repeatedly over the years. See the references here, especially this page from the Commonwealth Government Directory. It's now a gamble as to who says what. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the Governor-General was the head of state, and his replacement Julia Gillard hasn't weighed into the debate yet. When official views are divided, how is Wikipedia to respond? Pick one side or the other? Or stay neutral? --Pete (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why will you not accept Mies' compromise? It allows for the fonts to be the same & reflect the Australian Constituion's Chapter II, Section 61 - which states the Governor General of Australia, is the Queen's representative. GoodDay (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does it say that the Queen is the head of state? No. The Governor-General's role in Australia is more than that of the Imperial representative the constitution, unchanged on this point since the days of Queen Victoria, implies. That's the way the empire crumbles. --Pete (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does the rest of all those commonwealth realm Constitutions say she's Head of State in their countries? Does the USA say the American President is it's HoS? Does the Japanese Constitution say the emperor is its HoS? Heck, the UK itself, doesn't even have a written Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does it say that the Queen is the head of state? No. The Governor-General's role in Australia is more than that of the Imperial representative the constitution, unchanged on this point since the days of Queen Victoria, implies. That's the way the empire crumbles. --Pete (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- If Head of State is the problem, then there's alot of county entries at that article, which should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why will you not accept Mies' compromise? It allows for the fonts to be the same & reflect the Australian Constituion's Chapter II, Section 61 - which states the Governor General of Australia, is the Queen's representative. GoodDay (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Onlookers may wish to examine this (this, this Arbitration case from 2005 and this block log for some background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've read over some of those 'past behaviours' & I'm quite concerned with what's happening at List of current heads of state and government now. Rightly/wrongly, at that article's Rfc, I feel as though I'm being 'bleeped' around by Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I recommend an administrator check over Skyring/Pete's behaviour concerning the said-article. He seems unwilling to accept 'reliable sources' that aren't agreeable with him. GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS-I'm trying to help Skyring/Pete avoid another possible long-term block. But so far, he's resisting my attempts. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:NSONGS, I proposed a merger of several singles by Ellie Goulding into either the article on her or her album. user:97.90.124.232 disagrees, which is fine, and removed the proposed merge templates, which is not. I replaced the merge templates and warned user:97.90.124.232 not to remove them pending consensus, but s/he retaliated by blanking my user page and has started to remove them again. I don't want to have an edit war so I have not reverted their removal of the template a second time; what's the way forward? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }
- Incidentally, from a brief glance at user:97.90.124.232's contributions, this seems to be a WP:SPA.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Earthcore" article being gamed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthcore
6 months ago I added a "controversies" section to this article. I also cleaned up the "personal reflection" style of the article into wiki format. I need someone to come and mediate the argument that i've been drawn into. my posts on the discussion page keep getting edited by the user "fisted rainbow" and his related IPs, who has also been claiming that I'm an opposing buisness interest, and has also been making un-referenced claims that everything in the controversies section was false or fixed. please note this is not an edit war, I've been trying to wait until a third party came in to arbitrate, however the agressive stance taken by the user "fisted rainbow" (+ IPs) seems to have stalled any attempts to arbitrate. Cognitive Dissident (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Talk:Earthcore is the biggest mess of text I've seen in a while. I can hardly make heads or tails of it. Consensus in October 2010 was that the controversies section was poorly sourced and thus removed. You seem to have missed that part. Anyway, this does indeed seem to be an edit war.--Atlan (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't had time to help over there recently, but there seems to have been a long-simmering dispute at that article between the organizer and someone who has a beef with him about not being able to get some refund or something. My view at the time was that the "controversies" stuff was not really of encyclopedic importance,
waslargely due to being poorly sourced, and was effectively implying blame without proper attribution. The personal arguments that have broken out on the Talk page should be taken off-wiki - this really is not the place for them. Wikipedia is not a forum for righting perceived wrongs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)- I have to agree with the above; when I posted the section at that talkpage, I was not intending to set off the flame war that resulted. I'd say more, but Boing! said Zebedee summed it up pretty well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't had time to help over there recently, but there seems to have been a long-simmering dispute at that article between the organizer and someone who has a beef with him about not being able to get some refund or something. My view at the time was that the "controversies" stuff was not really of encyclopedic importance,
AnomieBot is Requesting Assistance
Please see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed, I believe. The request had a suggestion that appears to have been the case. Go, AnomieBot, go! - 2/0 (cont.) 05:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Gotta love bots who tell you there is a problem. Anomie needs to fork over that code to other bot makers so they can add to their bots. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
E-Mail User Links not Working
When I click to email someone via Popups, I get the message: "You have not specified a target page or user on which to perform this function." When I go to the Special page, I get: "You have requested a special page that is not recognized by Wikipedia. A list of all recognized special pages may be found at Special:Specialpages." Both times, it gives me a link to the Main Page to click. Is this related to the 1.17 update? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The email this user link on usertalk works, though (confirmed by emailing my alt). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like Popups is just failing to pass the user parameter. I assume it used to work? I have it enabled, but very rarely email people. Anyway, you might get a better response at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups or WP:VPT (or whichever Village Pump deals with gadgets). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie....posting to those pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think they must have changed the format recently; popups passes a parameter, but it now uses the URL itself (i.e. Special:EmailUser/USERNAME) It should be a fairly simple fix, and I think I see how it could be done - but no way am I confident in my Javascript foo to be confident on that :s --Errant (chat!) 09:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- @ErrantX: Please post that over at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups. If they see it is easy fix, it might get fixed quickly. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it got fixed :) --Errant (chat!) 10:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed it did. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it got fixed :) --Errant (chat!) 10:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- @ErrantX: Please post that over at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups. If they see it is easy fix, it might get fixed quickly. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think they must have changed the format recently; popups passes a parameter, but it now uses the URL itself (i.e. Special:EmailUser/USERNAME) It should be a fairly simple fix, and I think I see how it could be done - but no way am I confident in my Javascript foo to be confident on that :s --Errant (chat!) 09:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie....posting to those pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like Popups is just failing to pass the user parameter. I assume it used to work? I have it enabled, but very rarely email people. Anyway, you might get a better response at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups or WP:VPT (or whichever Village Pump deals with gadgets). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Joungok
Joungok (talk · contribs) keeps removing the {{AfD}} template from Jin Wang Kim. He now did it twice. Please keep an eye on him and block (him, or the article), if he does it a third time. --bender235 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Admins are on it, but for future use it'd be better to use WP:AIV, the vandalism-specific noticeboard. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive IPs
I am here reporting User talk:173.66.71.79 and User talk:70.110.28.109 both of which recieved warnings and have made similar edits to Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi. The edits change the date of aired to 2011 and the network to also include the Disney channel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected the article for a couple of days, seeing as the IP's aren't discussing, and the article appears to have a history of this sort of vandalism. You might try WP:RFPP in the future, faster response. As the IP's are changing (and have stopped for now) it seems no point in blocking any of them. this has the dubious distinction of being my first click of an admin button :s so fingers crossed it was a good decision ;) --Errant (chat!) 14:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dubious my foot - this one looks like an easy call to me. No use blocking, as you say - these IPs appear to be rotating on a large ISP. Protection is the correct call. Well done, that, and congrats on the mop btw. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:TE by IP 68.198.135.130
See my prior report at AN/I [67], as well as a discussion at User_talk:Jpgordon#Theosophical_Society_dispute. As I asked in the latter:
- "If you repeatedly ask someone (IP or not) to not post to your talk page, and they continue to do so, is that not actionable?"
- "Often, yeah. But some uninvolved admin will need to stick their nose in for that. "
I'd appreciate help from an uninvolved admin. I've asked him/her to stop, tried "hat"/"hab", and reverted and ignored, but enough is enough. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I've also informed the IP that his/her conduct is under discussion here, and that they need to disengage from interaction with you. See your talk page, as I made the same request in reverse there. No thoughts on the underlying dispute. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- His promises to continue edit warring will cause difficulty soon, I fear; what's really going on is a disagreement about sourcing. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, all, for the help and comments. I have been, and will remain, disengaged. Regarding the underlying dispute, I don't have a dog in that hunt, so to speak, and am not an involved editor on that page. I think it should be easy for an editor with knowledge, background and interest in the topic to find proper sources. I don't understand why the need to do so is hard to accept, nor difficult to do, nor the rationale behind stating that improperly sourced edits will continue to be made after the article's semi-protection expires [68]. For that matter, if adding the edit is so important, why not register for an account? - JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- His promises to continue edit warring will cause difficulty soon, I fear; what's really going on is a disagreement about sourcing. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)