Kim Dent-Brown (talk | contribs) →Van Epperson, vandalism, legal stuff: Have requested oversight |
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 451: | Line 451: | ||
*Anyone thinks that an [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] is a good idea here? [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
*Anyone thinks that an [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] is a good idea here? [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Absolutely not. The problem is that Wolfowitz won't interact with Hammer, he just reverts his actions. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
:Absolutely not. The problem is that Wolfowitz won't interact with Hammer, he just reverts his actions. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
'''I am goddamn sick and tired of being treated like dirt here. In the last two years I've made about ''thirty thousand'' edits, none using automated tools or scripts, concentrating on BLP and copyright policy enforcement, two areas that are among the highest priorities, as established both by on-Wikipedia consensus and by Wikimedia Foundation action. These are pretty much thankless jobs these days, as my repeatedly vandalized user page and talk page evidence. Yet obviously this counts for nothing, and that quite a few people are never going to give me a fair shake because I became an involuntary Wikipedia Review poster child as a victim of admin abuse over an incident where no less than Jimmy Wales eventually weighed in support of me and the admin who blocked me, for an edit made by another user, stomped off Wikipedia in the face of criticism. It's evident that a double standard is being applied here.''' |
|||
<br/>With regard to some of the specific points made: |
|||
*TenPoundHammer claims that he filed an RFC/U against me recently, but that it "went nowhere." That's hardly accurate. The RFC, which wasn't ever even properly certified, ended up with four users endorsing TPH's position generally, five endorsing mine generally, and a dozen or so rejecting most of TPH's claims particularly those relating to stalking and harassment, but finding some of my AFD comments too harsh, in particular my comment that when TPH says he can't find sources on a subject, it's because he hasn't bothered to look for them. (I didn't participate in the RFC precisely because it was never properly certified, so the community's rejection of TPHs accusations was based only on his presentation of his case, underlining just how unfounded the accusations were.) I think my comment is accurate and within the general range of comments accepted at AFDs, but I've respected the expressed opinion of the community and have not since used that formulation. TPH does not respect the community's determination and has repeated, here and elsewhere, the accusations rejected, by a wide margin, by the community in the RFC. The RFC, focusing on my responses to TPH's AFD nominations, reflects a pretty strong community consensus that TPH's deletion proposals are too often destructive. As one admin noted in a lengthy ANI discussion regarding TPH only a few days ago, "I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. . . . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer] |
|||
*It is absolutely false that I "refuse to discuss edits." My talk page shows scores of discussions, and my contribution list shundreds of talk page discussions. What I won't do is waste my time responding to uncivil, peremptory comments that aren't made with any intent to engage in an encyclopedia-building process, but to make editing unpleasant for an editor who's disagreed with the commenter. Comments like these, from TPH: |
|||
*:"Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=385828382] |
|||
*:"oh so now you're being a douche too? let's just have a big douche parade across his talkpage" (edit summary) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=394447184&oldid=394389774] |
|||
*:"and you wonder why I'm never fucking polite to you" (edit summary) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=394981454&oldid=394938091] |
|||
*:"why are you only ever this big a douche to me?" (edit summary) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=393484480&oldid=393483722] |
|||
*:"So in other words, what we have is an editor being a single-minded, bullheaded, tendentious douchebag and no one can be bothered to do anything about it." (under the heading "Wolfowitz") [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASilver_seren&action=historysubmit&diff=393499647&oldid=393485383] |
|||
*:"fine, Hullaballoo Doucheowitz... if you insist on undoing every damn edit I make. Undo this. I dare you." (edit summary) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Ain%27t_Goin%27_Nowhere&action=historysubmit&diff=394450783&oldid=394415592] |
|||
*:"What the hell is your problem? You're labeling ALL my edits as disruptive. Whatever happened to good faith, hmm?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=387402805&oldid=387402473 |
|||
*:"What the hell is your problem? Every time I make a nomination you're here to bitch about it." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Once_Upon_a_Time_%28Marty_Stuart_album%29&diff=next&oldid=387402550] |
|||
*:"You just have a grudge and a half against me don't you? I looked and didn't see anything that said "Emmy". Clearly my google-fu is abysmal." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEzra_Edelman&action=historysubmit&diff=390723389&oldid=390714247] |
|||
*:"Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=386346807&oldid=386276530] |
|||
*:"WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=386346807] |
|||
*:"*Seriously man, do you have some sort of agenda against me? It seems like no matter what I do, you're there to undo it. And answer me already. WHAT NEEDS DISCUSSION" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=386349280] |
|||
*:"Are you gonna answer me or what?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=386352206] |
|||
*:"*Great. So you're bulldozing all my edits AND giving me the silent treatment. Way to be civil." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=386353461] (''Note that the last five comments were posted over a 45-minute period.) |
|||
:I made repeated attempts to dialogue with TPH over at least a year. Note the extended discussion in [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerome_Vered|this AFD]], for example. After a long period, TPH dropped any vestige of rational conversation and shifted to summary invective. As I recall, the shift came in mid-September, after I posted a comment/warning on his talk page regarding disruptive editing practices -- in that case, reinstating about two dozen disputed redirects, marking the edits as minor, and using edit summaries suggesting he was reverting vandalism. His accusations and nasty talk page posts began almost immediately afterwards. |
|||
*A substantial portion of TPH's editing, particularly as related to deletion/removal of content, is incompetent, well beyond the point of being disruptive. This is behavior which actively damages the encyclopedia, impairs its value to users, and drives good faith contributors away. TPH admits regularly that his ability to use Google as a search engine is deficient (his own descriptions of his competency level include "abysmal" and "I still suck". Yet he continues to make AFD nominations and create redirects, despite his awareness that his basis for doing so is unreliable. Just yesterday, taking one of the articles which provoked his post here to [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Urbano|this AFD]], only to have it snow-kept within an hour, shortly after he withdrew [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scrat|another AFD]], where he'd claimed no sources "seem to exist", only to be quickly overwhelmed by proof otherwise (leading to his admission "Clearly I ''still'' suck at using Google, I would think a reasonable, constructive editor, conscious that his analyses were regularly misleading/inaccrate, would stop employing those analyses until they figured out what was going wrong. TPH doesn't. Two other examples are instructive: TPH nominated [[Jordyn Shellhart]] for deletion, saying that "Thorough searching of Google News turned up only an interview and no other reliable sources." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jordyn_Shellhart] Yet the Google News search results [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Jordyn+Shellhart%22] actually turn up several dozen news hits, some trivial, but many substantial, including full profiles, and showing that the article subject received national press attention for her televised performance of the national anthem at an NFL game. Only today, TPH unlinked the term "sheoque" from an article on Irish mythology [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cl%C3%ADodhna&action=historysubmit&diff=405892286&oldid=399988755], claiming "google doesn't know what a sheoque is." However, a basic Google search [http://www.google.com/search?q=sheoque&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t] immediately turns up relevant hits at the top of the search results, as well as, further in what appears to be detailed commentary by Yeats. Nor are the problems limited to Google use. In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taral Wayne|this AFD]] TPH claimed "I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations" for the article subject, although all he needed to do was click the appropriate link in the (already wikilinked) article on the award. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album)|Here]] he insists hat an album was released on a "non-notable label," even though the label had an [[CMH Records|article]] soundly establishing notability. And [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezra Edelman|here]] TPH ''argued that HBO was a "redlinked network," ''on which no further comment should be necessary. This is highly disruptive behavior, and there's fundamentally no other way to refer to it other than variations on "incompetent." Or worse. |
|||
*TPH regularly refuses to engage in discussion after I have responded to his attacks. For example, the first time TPH raised similar matters at AN/I, he refused to provide any substantive response to my reply (reproduced below). Instead, he forum shops, abandons discussions when they don't immediately produce the results he wants, then renews them in hopes of finding a more receptive audience. It's not a coincidence that his attacks on me closely follow significant complaints being made regarding his editing practices; he's trying to divert attention from his repeated and very serious misbehavior, pointing to the alleged venial sins of the Big Bad Wolfowitz because I'm not a very popular guy with a bunch of admins. TPH has never responded in any way to my previoys response, which bears repeating here: |
|||
** |
|||
:I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre, and slightly Byzantine, attempt to game the system as this complaint. TPH has been posting uncivil, borderline profane tirades (other users have recently described similar TPH comments as "tantrums") to my talk page and elsewhere, for the last week or so, on most occasions where we're on opposite sides in editing disputes. As is the acceted practice of many experienced editors, I generally ignore such comments, especially when they ask for nothing more than the same information I already set out in the edit summaries, comments, discussions, or whatever that such posts respond to. No editor in this project has an obligation to respond to comments like "What the hell is your problem?", "answer the damn question," or "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?!" (caps in original). |
|||
:In the immediate dispute, TPH responded to statements I made in opposition to an AFD he started by making an uncivil post to my talk page (which I deleted) and striking my post from the AFD with the inflammatory comment ''Struck out as blatantly false accusations of bad faith. Bawwwwwwwww.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Once_Upon_a_Time_%28Marty_Stuart_album%29&diff=prev&oldid=387401826] TPH then vandalized the article involved, removing the wikilink to the page on the music label involved, apparently to buttress his spurious claim that the label was not notable. (I had recently corrected the link, which had earlier pointed to a dab page rather than directly to the label's page.) I reverted TPH's edits. It might well have been better for me to have left TPH's inflammatory comment in place, but in the moment I viewed it as the sort of pure vandalism that I'd seen removed from other AFD discussions. |
|||
:TPH continued to make uncivil posts to my take page, but continued to ignore the substantive issues in the underlying dispute, so my response did not change. Finally, TPH posted his complaint here. He then placed an ANI notice on my talk page, but immediately removed it, replacing it with what appeared to be an apology for his earlier posts, characterizing them as his ''being bitchy''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=387404776&oldid=387404173] |
|||
:TPH then returned to ANI, continuing to press his complaints, rather disingenuously avoiding mentioning his apparent apology and his removal of the ANI notice from my talk page. Having left the impression on my talk page that he was letting most of the conflict drop, he simultaneously complained here that I was not engaging in the conflict. I've never seen anything like this in WP dispute resolution, whether in complaints from experienced or inexperienced users. |
|||
:With regard to the particular matters TPH raises: |
|||
*My comments in the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album)|Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album) AFD]] are self-explanatory, and their accuracy is easily verified. As is made even clearer from other users' comments in the AFD, TPH's claims that no sources could be located were false. In particular, TPH's claim that AllMusic provides only "a one-sentence summary" is conspicuously untrue [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:wiftxqegldte]. It's also rather curious that TPH applies a rather different deletion standard when it comes to other articles; in the current AFD for "Hello Mannequin," he argues that the subject is notable because it was "released by a notable act on a blue link label,"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FHello%2C_Mannequin&action=historysubmit&diff=386146454&oldid=386138635] precisely the standard he rejects here. |
|||
*The Reggie Young AFD is a simple matter. TPH initially performed a substantive AFD close on an AFD which he initiated (and in which I participated), with a dubious rationale that did not accurately reflect consensus. After my objection, he reclosed it as a simple withdrawn-by-nominator, which addressed my objection. |
|||
*The Big Time Rush discography question is equally simple. The exact resolution of the matter is not terribly important, but a collaborative project is always better served in cases like this when such matters are resolved by discussions with the editors actively working on the articles, rather than by a drive-by editor who pronounces "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=386346807&oldid=386276530] Let them decide whether the discography should be merged, of if similar content be removed from the artist article. |
|||
TPH's account of our interactions is grossly incomplete and misleading. As I recall, the first time we crossed swords was in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_2|the Atlantic Records discography RFD]], where multiple users characterized TPH's actions as inappropriate/disruptive, a theme that is hardly unique to me. In more recent disputes, I was one of several users who criticized TPH's edit warring, with misleading edit summaries, over a large set contested redirects.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TenPoundHammer&diff=prev&oldid=385617427] In [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taral_Wayne|a recent AFD]], I criticized TPH's apparently spurious claim that certain claims ogf notability could not be verified. |
|||
In fact, TPH's recent history regarding AFDs and redirects shows other clear incidences of dubious if not disruptive behavior. For example: |
|||
*TPH nominated [[Trey Bruce]] for deletion after removing the (imperfectly) sourced claim that Bruce had won a songwriting Emmy Award from the article; he avoided mentioning that claim in his nomination. His rationale was "doubt it won HIM an emmy,those don't go to songs." The claim was, of course, easy to verify, and there is at least one Emmy Award given annually to a songwriter for his/her song. TPH made no effort to edit responsibly on this point. |
|||
*TPH redirected [[Robb Royer]] to [[Bread (band)]], asserting the songwriter had no notability outside the band. In fact, as the relevant articles clearly state, '''Royer had won an Academy Award for Best Song'''.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robb_Royer&action=historysubmit&diff=386130446&oldid=384639542] This situation is particularly problematic; while TPH typically removes all backlinks to redirected articles (itself a practice of dubious value), he stopped removing such links to this article at about the point where he would have reached the relevant Academy Award article, an indication that he recognized the inaccuracy of his lack of notability claim but was unwilling to correct himself. Instead, he apparently opted not to remove backlinks, when removal would highlight the incorrectness of his action. |
|||
*Without discussion or notability tagging, TPH summarily redirected award-winning or award-nominated episodes of [[CSI]], including "A Bullet Runs Through It" ([[Edgar Award]] nominee)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Bullet_Runs_Through_It&action=historysubmit&diff=385297009&oldid=368497449]; "For Warrick" (Emmy nominee)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Warrick&action=historysubmit&diff=385303655&oldid=367606199]; "Gum Drops" ('''Emmy winner, inexplicably redirected to the candy rather than the relevant episode list''') [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gum_Drops&action=historysubmit&diff=385296905&oldid=385285795]; "Blood Drops" (WGA award nominee)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Drops&action=historysubmit&diff=385285168&oldid=385285112]; and many more. TPH's s actions here and in similar redirection controversies also violated the Arbitration Committee's "Episodes and characters 2" decision, particularly with regard to the "Fait accompli" principle.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Fait_accompli] |
|||
TPH's talk page shows that, in the last few weeks, his editing practices have been criticized by a significant number of editors and administrators. For example: |
|||
*Sept 9; two editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for a grossly inappropriate edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Edit_summary_on_Tokyo_Mew_Mew] |
|||
*Sept 9; two different editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for uncivil/insulting edit summary(ies) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Longhorns_.26_Londonbridges |
|||
*Sept 18; multiple editors criticize TPH for systematic redirects of a large set of articles without following procedures established by consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#House_episodes] |
|||
*Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for misusing TWINKLE by leaving explanation field empty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Reason_not_supplied] |
|||
*Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for edit warring without discussion over disputed redirects [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Please_discuss_on_talk_pages] |
|||
*Sept 18; two admins cite TPH for "multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes" and threaten him with loss of TW and rollback and possible blocking if abuses recur [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Stop] |
|||
*Sept 19; admin warns TPH over disruptive editing, stating that "multiple editors are expressing concerns about your recent editing practices." TPH responds by commenting, inter alia, "Have we all gone stupid or something?" and "Being civil hasn't been any more effective, so what do I lose if I scream?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Concerns |
|||
*Sept 21; called out for referring to another editor as "Douchey McNitPick" in edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Douchey_McNitpick] |
|||
*Sept 21; another editor criticizes TPH for "an enormous number" of uncivil comments in edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Civility_in_edit_summaries] |
|||
*With regard to certain claims of edit warring: [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:BRD]] are inconsistent. But BLP is an important policy with strong consensus support, while BRD is an essay. BLP calls for certain classes of material to be removed "without discussion" or "without waiting for discussion"; such material is not to be restored without achieving consensus for its restoration. Similar standards apply to nonfree content. In both cases, enforcing the relevant policies is exempt from the edit warring limits. There are editors who do not agree with the current policies, and believe that BRD principles are more important. But policy says otherwise, and criticizing or threatening to sanction any editor acting under those policies is not appropriate. |
|||
[[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Massive advertisements by [[User talk:Kleinjj|User:Kleinjj]] == |
== Massive advertisements by [[User talk:Kleinjj|User:Kleinjj]] == |
Revision as of 20:47, 4 January 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) |
|
User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)
Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson
I've documented on his talk page three instances of uncivil behavior on the part of User:Pmanderson within the last day or so. I'm copying those comments here:
- Please do not make derisive and/or maligning comments about me (or any other editor) in article/guideline talk page discussions as you did recently at WT:PLACES [1]. Announcing your opinion about another editor, that he is "prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way", is taunting, baiting, maligning and generally contrary to the type of behavior encouraged at WP:CIVIL.
If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it up in an appropriate forum, normally starting with that editor's talk page, for which this post may serve as an example. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- You made another derisive comment about me here. You, wrote, about a suggestion I made, "This would worsen Wikipedia - although it would help B2C's long term agenda.". Sharing vague conjectures about another editor's "long term agenda" in such a blatantly negative light can have no purpose other than to malign that editor, and is highly inappropriate. WP:CIVIL clearly states, " Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.". Statements like this are not examples of how editors "treat each other with consideration and respect." Second request in two days. Please stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- And this one too: "We need to ignore Born2Cycle's persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize." [2] Characterizing the efforts of another editor as "persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize" is uncivil. Again, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, you should take it up in an appropriate forum; a guideline talk page is not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Any one of these comments taken in isolation is not really egregious, but taken together it amounts to harassment:
a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons ...The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.
These comments are distressing, they make working on WP unpleasant (others have noted the inappropriateness of these types of comments as well[3]), and they are obviously intended to undermine me. Per WP:CIVIL they are also "taunting or baiting": "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves".
I've asked PMA repeatedly to raise concerns about the behavior of other editors (namely me) at the appropriate forum, starting with that editor's talk page (as I did with him), but he persists. If he has legitimate concerns, then he should pursue them in an appropriate manner, not by making derisive comments on article and guideline talk pages. PMA has a long history of make these kinds of inappropriate snide remarks about fellow editors with whom he disagrees, and I'm asking for administrator intervention.
At a minimum, I ask that he be restricted from making derisive comments about others, or sharing concerns about the behavior of others on article and guideline talk pages. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It does appear that the focus of your editing in recent years has been on naming conventions, rather than article editing.[4] You have been brow-beating editors who disagrees with you in page move discussions or naming convention RfCs. Perhaps the right course of action for Pmanderson would be to start a user RFC to get community input. Will Beback talk 01:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It would be the second in under a year, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson From this past July The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I meant that maybe Pmanderson should start an RfC on Born2cycle. Will Beback talk 01:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- No argument there, honestly PMA and Born2Cycle need an interaction ban. One always seems to be bringing the other to ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Far too much time is spent on wikipedia debating the names of things, which serves the readers not one iota. Normal US usage is "city, state". It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- And it's rather disturbing to read, in a citation provided by B2C himself, that B2C intends to devote years to his pointless crusade. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Far too much time is spent on wikipedia debating the names of things, which serves the readers not one iota. Normal US usage is "city, state". It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- No argument there, honestly PMA and Born2Cycle need an interaction ban. One always seems to be bringing the other to ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I meant that maybe Pmanderson should start an RfC on Born2cycle. Will Beback talk 01:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It would be the second in under a year, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson From this past July The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see that these comments rise to the level that they need the attention of ANI. Born2cycle should learn to be more concise and conciliatory on talk pages. Also, warning templates on Pmanderson's talk page are more likely to escalate rather than reduce tension. TFD (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pmanderson is consistently slightly derisive and uncivil, constantly accuses people of being vandals and not assuming good faith. But doing anything about it is a long and painful process. It's not worth the effort. Try to ignore it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel that Born2cycle and Pmanderson have both been guilty of incivility in recent weeks. I also recently placed a complaint on OpenFuture's talk page a few days ago about his comments towards me, a complaint which he promptly deleted. All three users (and possibly a few of the others who have been involved in the debates in question) need to cool it. I respect them all as contributors, but my own patience is wearing thin. Under the circumstances, I feel the best thing to do with the current discussion is to bin it and start again with a bit more mutual understanding for 2011. Deb (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your unfounded accusations of me are unbecoming of your admin status, and is either harassment or baiting. I'm trying to ignore it, as I feel that it is a waste of time. Please stop, and try to engage in something more constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I neither am nor play injured, that's another baseless accusation. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason I started with discussion on PMA's talk page is that that is the recommended first step in dispute resolution. The reason I escalated immediately to ANI is because of PMA's history and everything else has already been tried with this user.
Some here may not know or fully appreciate that, for better or for worse, my main interest in Wikipedia is to bring stability to the area of article naming. What I mean by naming stability is that the number of articles moved per day, and especially brought for discussion to WP:RM, is reduced to a trickle compared to the torrent that it is today. Having this interest means that I am heavily involved in article naming including many naming discussions (both with respect to policy and guidelines as well as individual article naming disputes).
Because I seek ultimate stability in naming, I am a strong proponent of having all article titles in Wikipedia each adhere to the naming criteria listed in policy at WP:TITLE as much as possible. This is because the reasons someone may reasonably have to move an article are minimized and usually eliminated once an article is at the title that meets that criteria as much as it reasonably can. Time and time again I have seen years of disputes over titles be resolved once the article in question is moved to the title that best meets that criteria.
This is why I am also an advocate of using specific naming guidelines that provide guidance only when the primary guidance at WP:TITLE falls short, primarily in order to indicate how an article should be disambiguated if disambiguation is required so that similar articles are disambiguated similarly. But when a title is clearly indicated for a given article by the criteria at WP:TITLE alone, then more specific naming guidelines should have no application. I find that most naming disputes are ultimately caused by more specific naming guidelines indicating a title that is different from the one indicated by the criteria at WP:TITLE (most often the specific guideline indicates one title, even though a natural and more concise name is available).
Many do not agree with me, but others do, and only time will show who is correct. But I strongly believe all the evidence supports my position on this, that better adherence to WP:TITLE criteria is the only path to true naming stability at Wikipedia. However, because I am very vocal on these issues, that apparently creates animosity towards me. Okay, I can deal with that. But can't I still ask that everyone who disagrees with me never-the-less treat me in accordance with community standards? That's what I do with you, don't I?
I'm not claiming to be the ideal Wikipedian here; but surely perfection is not a requirement for requesting that sanctions be taken against another user. And if Deb is going to accuse me of being guilty of incivility in the last few weeks, I request diffs and correlations with quotes from WP:CIVIL that shows this, as I've provided with respect to PMA's behavior. At any rate, I note that Deb is on record in this ANI for agreeing that PMA's behavior has been uncivil.
I understand that starting an ANI can also bring scrutiny to one's own behavior, and I welcome that, but I suggest that while my focus on naming and naming discussions is probably not an ideal use of time from any perspective, it's not a behavior that violates policy or guidelines or any community standard, as far as I know, and certainly does not justify the violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:HARASSMENT by anyone, which is the focus here. Besides, no matter how inappropraite my behavior, WP:CIVIL clearly states, "This applies equally to all Wikipedians: It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."
I am simply asking that despite my flaws, that PMA treat editors with whom he disagrees, including me, with same respect and civility that all editors are supposed to treat each other with, and to avoid the kind of comments that are supposed to be unacceptable. Those who have a history of disagreeing with my views, including everyone who commented above so far, may be delighted to see PMA comment about me derisively, but that is not a good reason to look the other way. I suggest we hold respectful behavior towards each other as the higher standard.
As to Deb's advice to back off, that is exactly what I've been trying to do with PMA for months. That is, except for in discussions that are specifically about his behavior, I've avoided commenting about him or his behavior, though I would comment as objectively as I reasonably could about positions he has taken. It is my understanding that that is what we are supposed to do, no? Again, if there are specific problems with my behavior, I would like to see the diffs.
I don't understand why there is reluctance to clearly tell PMA that he must adhere to the behavior standards set forth by the community in terms of treating others respectfully and civilly, or he will face escalating sanctions, and to follow through on this. The incidents I have cited above occured while there is another ANI open about his behavior. Almost everyone admits there is a problem with his behavior, but actually doing this has not been tried. I therefore seek administrator assistance. Enough is enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it's because it looks like you're a crusader, and crusaders' careers at wikipedia tend to end badly for the crusader. Normal US usage is "city, state". Your insistence on screwing around with that for the sake of rigid conformity to some global "consistency" theory is a total waste of your time and everyone else's, as it provides no value whatsoever to the readers of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean to say that because of my opinions about naming with which you disagree I deserve to be treated disrespectfully and uncivilly, and that disrespectful and uncivil remarks should not be sanctioned when they are about me? If so, that is the epitome of defending the ad hominem attack. If not, what are you saying? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm saying your renaming crusade is of no value to the readers of wikipedia. I would further say that your gripes about name-calling are a way of distracting from that issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for that advice. I'm sure it's sincere, and is likely to even be true with respect to me being too active in this area. But unless it is meant as a justification of PMA's disrespectful and uncivil behavior towards me, how is it relevant here? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The user Deb advised you to back off. Take that advice. Find something to edit that the other user is not involved in. That's what I do when something gets too frustrating (for example, it's why I don't edit political articles anymore). And a tip for the future: Never complain about another user's incivility. If you complain about name-calling, then the name-caller wins. The only thing that matters is article quality for the wikipedia readers. If a user interferes with that quality, then you've got something to complain about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reject the argument that incivil behavior does not affect article quality. If it were true, there would be no reason to have WP:CIVIL (not to mention WP:HARASSMENT). I presume you do not favor getting rid of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT, which means you again seem to be arguing that whether incivility should be sanctioned depends on whether the recipient of the incivility "deserves" it or not in your view. That is, if an editor is making edits and comments with which you agree and PMA starts making the same snide remarks about them as he does about me, and that editor raised an ANI against PMA, I get the impression you'd take a different position here. You and Deb disagree with me about naming. I get that. I'm asking you to put that disagreement aside when you look at PMA's behavior. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be commenting here, instead of taking this opportunity to encourage me from advocating a position with which you disagree. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- In "real life", if someone insults you, do you ignore it, or do you take it to his Mom? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've had no content interactions with Born2cycle, but wish the user could see why her/his own behavior (characterized above as "crusading" and here as tending toward arrogance) can come across as unproductively self-righteous and controlling, whatever good intentions lay behind it. My interaction with Born2cycle is limited to a single page, where the user was asked by no fewer than four editors ([5] [6] [7] [8]) to dial it back. Born2cycle finally stated his intention to withdraw, but in fact continued his quarrel at Pmanderson's talk page less than four hours later, and made the complaint on this page about 24 hours after that. As one of the 400 most active editors, User:Pmanderson travels with a long baggage train. He has friends, enemies, and people who just don't know what to do about him. Born2cycle has laid claim to measurably high cognitive skills and maturity, but there seems to be a growing number of editors who perceive Born2cycle as attempting to control the process and other editors' behavior to an uncivil extent. I've noted elsewhere that of the last 500 contributions by Born2cycle (as of that time), all but 10 were made to talk pages and forums (excluding moves and redirects). Multiple editors have suggested that Born2cycle's social and rhetorical strategies need to be modified, perhaps by a shift of focus to article content ? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe, this kind of confrontational post was exactly what you were requested to avoid on WP:WQA. Please could you disengage? The same applies to Born2cycle, who should probably not have started this thread. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain why presenting evidence that Born2cycle's own behavior inflames the situation is unduly confrontational. Born2cycle had just implied that those who have problems with his/her behavior also have content disputes. I've had no content disputes with the user, and have only encountered Born2cycle in the one forum, where I unwisely tried to answer the questions posed persistently to me. Multiple editors involved in multiple pages think he needs to moderate his behavior. I'm not a regular participant in these forums, but didn't know that my opinion isn't allowed here. If something I said was uncivil, I should be told what it is so I can avoid that kind of language in future. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The summaries of edits as "measurably high cognitive skills" and "maturity" were not particularly helpful. I don't quite understand why matters like this are being debated; in any case Pmanderson's age, background and expertise were revealed in a public interview he gave some years back. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- That comes perilously close to outing, since all Wikipedians may not be familiar with that little piece of journalism. My links were to remarks Born2cycle made about himself; you're right that pointing them out may make him look a bit insufferable (hence the reaction some people have to him), and I apologize. My point is that Born2cycle assured us he was backing off the other discussion of PMA's behavior, and then promptly went off to file this. I also gave a legitimate counter-response to his claim that everyone who objects to his behavior has a content dispute with him; this is simply untrue. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The summaries of edits as "measurably high cognitive skills" and "maturity" were not particularly helpful. I don't quite understand why matters like this are being debated; in any case Pmanderson's age, background and expertise were revealed in a public interview he gave some years back. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain why presenting evidence that Born2cycle's own behavior inflames the situation is unduly confrontational. Born2cycle had just implied that those who have problems with his/her behavior also have content disputes. I've had no content disputes with the user, and have only encountered Born2cycle in the one forum, where I unwisely tried to answer the questions posed persistently to me. Multiple editors involved in multiple pages think he needs to moderate his behavior. I'm not a regular participant in these forums, but didn't know that my opinion isn't allowed here. If something I said was uncivil, I should be told what it is so I can avoid that kind of language in future. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think what this thread evidences is various editors who won't back off, because they want to win the fight; like the other day when B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary, and including B2C's acknowledgment that I may well be right that he spends too much time on this topic, but by implication, it doesn't matter, because his crusade is more important than the interests of wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- "like the other day when B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary". If you won't provide the diffs supporting your accusation about allegedly inappropriate behavior or statements, please do not make the claim. For the record, I never made such a statement, though I don't doubt that this is a sincere belief about what I meant. It's ironic that it echos what PMA said about what I said ("an editor who has just declared repeatedly there will be no stability unless he gets his way."[9]), but does not reflect what I actually said, which demonstrates the problem with such statements from PMA (others, like BB, assume it's true). The lack of citation of my specific words which supposedly mean this is telling. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I regret my behavior with Cynwolfe (repeated questioning), and I understand why Cynwolfe might perceive a relationship here, but my behavior in that discussion has nothing to do with the years of snide and derisive remarks PMA has made about not only me, but many other editors, that has nothing to do with me or my behavior. See his talk page and block log, not to mention the completely unprovoked uncivil and harassing remarks cited at the top of this ANI.
And I ask again, unless you're arguing that PMA's uncivil harassing is justified by my behavior, what is the relevance of my behavior here in this ANI about PMA's behavior? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Measures to regulate PMA's more wasteful behaviors are already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names. A proposal to block PMA had no consensus, and Born2cycle's efforts to urge a block failed; other restrictions have been proposed and are in current discussion. This seems like an attempted end-run around the preexisting action. I bear Born2cycle no ill will, and am sorry that any dedicated editor has been made to feel put-upon. I sincerely think (from experience) that taking a break from talk pages and noticeboards and focusing on improving content, perhaps in non-controversial areas, would be a good thing for someone of such persistent temperament — something to which I'm no stranger. Your behavior, Born2cycle, indeed does not justify anything PMA did. But it isn't good for you. Bad karma, and all that. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that ANI was exclusively about PMA's behavior at another incident. Should I have brought up these incidents there? At any rate, I just noticed that WP:CIVIL dispute resolution recommends, after trying to resolve the situation at the user's talk page (which I've already attempted), to make use of Wikquette alerts. Perhaps this ANI should be closed as "wrong forum" and I will open an alert there. At this point I will and and see what an uninvolved admin will advise.
I sincerely want help with this situation, because PMA's comments are completely unprovoked, and there is nothing I can do to make PMA stop except maybe by avoiding the expression of opinions with which he disagrees. Capitulating to that, by "backing off" from my efforts to find consensus in the area of WP article naming in what is negatively characterized as a "crusade", "fighting", and "until he gets his way", as those who tend to agree with PMA unsurprisingly advise me to do, is unacceptable. Finding consensus through discussion is how we resolve conflicts in WP - bullying others into suppression by ridiculing them or their opinions is not. Is it unreasonable for me to seek help in dealing with the latter? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Back to your previous question... Here,[10] it appears that you are willing to fight this useless battle for years. And you reaffirm that here,[11] where you pledge to go 5, 10, 15 or 20 years if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- You misread those statements. In the first one I'm referring to how long it will take article names to change if wording A is accepted, just as Canadian and Australian city names are taking years to slowly transition after their guidelines were changed to effectively what A is. There is no "fight" or "battle" being referred to here - though it's revealing that you see it that way. In the second quote I'm referring to the debate about city, state -- which started long before I came to Wikipedia, and continues often without my participation -- going on for years, not about my participation in it at all. I stand by what I say in those statements as being true even if I'm hit by a bus tomorrow; that is, they have nothing to do with me or my participation in the debate. If you're reading my words through glasses that color it like that (to mean "B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary"), that reveals a very strong bias. Try putting that bias aside and reading those posts again. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Back to your previous question... Here,[10] it appears that you are willing to fight this useless battle for years. And you reaffirm that here,[11] where you pledge to go 5, 10, 15 or 20 years if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that ANI was exclusively about PMA's behavior at another incident. Should I have brought up these incidents there? At any rate, I just noticed that WP:CIVIL dispute resolution recommends, after trying to resolve the situation at the user's talk page (which I've already attempted), to make use of Wikquette alerts. Perhaps this ANI should be closed as "wrong forum" and I will open an alert there. At this point I will and and see what an uninvolved admin will advise.
- Cynwolfe, this kind of confrontational post was exactly what you were requested to avoid on WP:WQA. Please could you disengage? The same applies to Born2cycle, who should probably not have started this thread. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've had no content interactions with Born2cycle, but wish the user could see why her/his own behavior (characterized above as "crusading" and here as tending toward arrogance) can come across as unproductively self-righteous and controlling, whatever good intentions lay behind it. My interaction with Born2cycle is limited to a single page, where the user was asked by no fewer than four editors ([5] [6] [7] [8]) to dial it back. Born2cycle finally stated his intention to withdraw, but in fact continued his quarrel at Pmanderson's talk page less than four hours later, and made the complaint on this page about 24 hours after that. As one of the 400 most active editors, User:Pmanderson travels with a long baggage train. He has friends, enemies, and people who just don't know what to do about him. Born2cycle has laid claim to measurably high cognitive skills and maturity, but there seems to be a growing number of editors who perceive Born2cycle as attempting to control the process and other editors' behavior to an uncivil extent. I've noted elsewhere that of the last 500 contributions by Born2cycle (as of that time), all but 10 were made to talk pages and forums (excluding moves and redirects). Multiple editors have suggested that Born2cycle's social and rhetorical strategies need to be modified, perhaps by a shift of focus to article content ? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- In "real life", if someone insults you, do you ignore it, or do you take it to his Mom? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reject the argument that incivil behavior does not affect article quality. If it were true, there would be no reason to have WP:CIVIL (not to mention WP:HARASSMENT). I presume you do not favor getting rid of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT, which means you again seem to be arguing that whether incivility should be sanctioned depends on whether the recipient of the incivility "deserves" it or not in your view. That is, if an editor is making edits and comments with which you agree and PMA starts making the same snide remarks about them as he does about me, and that editor raised an ANI against PMA, I get the impression you'd take a different position here. You and Deb disagree with me about naming. I get that. I'm asking you to put that disagreement aside when you look at PMA's behavior. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be commenting here, instead of taking this opportunity to encourage me from advocating a position with which you disagree. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The user Deb advised you to back off. Take that advice. Find something to edit that the other user is not involved in. That's what I do when something gets too frustrating (for example, it's why I don't edit political articles anymore). And a tip for the future: Never complain about another user's incivility. If you complain about name-calling, then the name-caller wins. The only thing that matters is article quality for the wikipedia readers. If a user interferes with that quality, then you've got something to complain about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for that advice. I'm sure it's sincere, and is likely to even be true with respect to me being too active in this area. But unless it is meant as a justification of PMA's disrespectful and uncivil behavior towards me, how is it relevant here? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm saying your renaming crusade is of no value to the readers of wikipedia. I would further say that your gripes about name-calling are a way of distracting from that issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean to say that because of my opinions about naming with which you disagree I deserve to be treated disrespectfully and uncivilly, and that disrespectful and uncivil remarks should not be sanctioned when they are about me? If so, that is the epitome of defending the ad hominem attack. If not, what are you saying? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I've made a specific proposal at the previous (still open) ANI concern PMA, actually an addendum to another one made there, that would address my concerns (and those of many others). link. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to have missed this drama-fest while on break; Born2Cycle's objections are these:
- That I don't agree with him on article naming (few people do);
- That I remember having done so years ago at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive, and its subpages (when he was using a different user-name, but it should be clear enough which editor is using the same tactics);
- That, while it is acceptable for B2C to repeat the same arguments indefinitely, without persuading anybody who didn't arrive persuaded, it is incivility to call him on this use of argument by loquacity; which continues interminably in this very section.
- This effort to convert a content dispute into a civility dispute (as often, combined with what I tell you fifteen times is true), is the very model of a certain class of less than desirable editor. Those who do not wish to be called interminable should consider occasionally ending a thread or abandoning a True Cause when it fails to win consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see I have also missed the editors of WP:NCGN, the locus of this content dispute, in which three editors - Born2Cycle being I think the most common of these, have managed to get the guideline protected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Back to his old ways
For what it is worth, Pmanderson is getting into the same behavior he always does, creating article titling disputes in areas he never works on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- We have plenty of people who concentrate on typo fixes all over; title issues all over; formatting all over, syntax and grammar all over; references cleanup or adding all over. We don't require that you be active in a content area to work on the articles, on purpose.
- That said, PMA is appearing rather often here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is that PMA forces himself into these disputes and then leaves after he asserts to everyone who normally edits the pages that he is right and they are wrong, resulting in these unnecessarily long threads on ANI. This discussion (which has been archived off of this page) is resulting in a consensus where PMA should not be allowed to move pages. Why should he be allowed to directly modify the policies that concern page titling as well?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The reqason I am appearing here is that a few editors find it easier to complain of me here than to convince me - or others - to change our minds. This began when Ryulong undid a third editor's text, restoring his own text. I restored the old text.
- The issue is that PMA forces himself into these disputes and then leaves after he asserts to everyone who normally edits the pages that he is right and they are wrong, resulting in these unnecessarily long threads on ANI. This discussion (which has been archived off of this page) is resulting in a consensus where PMA should not be allowed to move pages. Why should he be allowed to directly modify the policies that concern page titling as well?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are we going to edit, not by discussion, but by reversion and who can whine to ANI first? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- To Ryulong - PMA can edit this topic because we haven't passed any community or other edit restrictions on this topic. If you believe they're necessary, please feel free to describe and propose them.
- PMA - I believe that you mean well and are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. But it's not just you and Ryulong, or you and Born2Cycle. It's you and (long list of other people you keep butting heads with).
- Editors who have created as many little conflicts as you have over the last six or so months have a way of finding themselves in front of a community sanction proposal. You are becoming a focal point of disruptive behavior, albeit not all of it on your part. But if you create it in others, that's a problem, too. Normally we give people some leeway on "are they baiting or provoking others", but in your case the history essentially forces us to conclude that your behavior is an equal or greater part of the total problem.
- Lots of people participate far and wide in cleanups, policy, renames, etc. A very small group of those create more hassles on ANI and other boards than the other hundred-ish combined. You seem to come up here more than anyone else.
- I'm not looking to initiate a community sanction discussion here, but as I pointed out in your RFC earlier, if you edit in an abrasive manner and it ticks people off, the community has to consider whether it's going to respond. You were warned about that. You're still ticking people off. You don't seem willing or able to change how you operate, given this discussion. The logical outcome of this scenario is that in an indeterminate future repetition of this cycle, someone proposes a community ban on you, and you're booted.
- If you don't want that to happen, please listen, and figure out a way to edit in a less abrasive manner. I don't want that to happen, but I can't change your editing style. All I can do is call this out and lay it out for you.
- Please listen this time and work on your interactions style and behavior. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will consider what you have said. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are we going to edit, not by discussion, but by reversion and who can whine to ANI first? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
A topic ban is currently being discussed on the subpage which was unlinked from this page prematurely.The subpage is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names. Johnbod (talk · contribs) made some comments there very recently, which have resulted in a more finely tuned proposal for a topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year, EST!
And many happy returns. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same from me :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same here. Happy New Year from Virginia!--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto from Ohio. Happy New Year! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And Happy New Year from North Carolina!!! :-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- One more year until the world goes to poo! But seriously, Happy New Year everybody! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bah! What the do the Mayans know? Didn't even predict their own completely mysterious disappearance. Unless... Doc talk 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, I actually had this Saturday Night Live skit about 2012 in my head there. That's worth it to watch though because it feels quite true. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bah! What the do the Mayans know? Didn't even predict their own completely mysterious disappearance. Unless... Doc talk 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- One more year until the world goes to poo! But seriously, Happy New Year everybody! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same here. Happy New Year from Virginia!--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Assuming EST means Eastern Standard Time, it was a Happy New Year here 15 hours ago. You guys are so slow. (PS: EST is not exclusive to USA) HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- New York *is* the capital of the world. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)- Little Rhodie checking in :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess your Eastern Standard Time is different from our Eastern Standard Time. For us, the new year came only about 25 minutes ago. We watched the news and saw the Acorn-drop in Raleigh, N.C., and the celebration in Times Square, New York (as well as seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- And just when I thought I'd managed to repress the memory of the Backstreet Boys, they show up... I thought I hated them in the late 90's, but now I really hate them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P Cannot unread. 2011 is now ruined for me, thanks ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- L.O.L. That was my fancy way of saying that they were kissing each other on the lips, smooching, and all that grub. One can just imagine them doing what I said above, plus touching tongues, wiping each other's teeth with their tongues, etc. >:-P(I have to quit now, or someone who enjoys such kissing is going to feel like they are nastier and more gross than a Kroger restroom. ;-) It is hard to look at. It makes you want to look away. What is really funny is the fact (and it is fact) that, while the people in New York were smooching, etc., the people in Raleigh were hugging! (Which is a lot cleaner, more sanitary, not gross, and perfectly acceptable to watch!) L.O.L. Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Adding my late new year greetings to my fellow wikipedians across the pond. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And CST
Hiya! Nakon 06:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
PST
Crappy Glue Smear, everyone!
Wait, that's not it... HalfShadow 16:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Solar
The new Anomalistic year started a few hours ago, with Earth's perihelion having taken place at 19:00 UT today. Happy nerd new year! 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
AkankshaG COI and sockpuppetry
Happy New Year everyone! Now on to business as usual...
AkankshaG has been editing/creating articles in a fashion that seems only to be one-sided puffery. I also have evidence through mywikibiz.com (which is down at the moment) and another website, that she works as an executive for Ciplex, an article that she has heavily edited against wp:COI. I also think that she is either contracted through Ciplex or Mywikibiz to create and edit articles for specific corporations without notifying the COI noticeboard. Vector Marketing, Ken Goldstein, CJ Environmental, Tonny Sorensen, and the list goes on, but these are affected.
Another situation has arose that she Sockpuppeted as user:sanfernandocourt [12], in an attempt to influence a AfD. [13] Possible other socks are currently changing stuff as I type. Hold on... Seems under control for the moment.
The point I'm try to make is that AkankshaG has shown that she is not here to create neutral articles. She has shown by her own behavior that she is only interested in maintaining the ones she has made or completely redone wp:OWN with primary unreliable sources WP:RS and fighting off AfDs through the use of meat puppets and sock puppets. As for evidence, (for the Ciplex COI) look at the photos she uploaded for Vector Marketing, Google the author of the photos along with the term "Ciplex" and you will find what I'm talking about. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever the merits of AkankshaG, this seems like outing - should it be zapped? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at this closely enough yet to see the outing you're referring to, but if something looks like an outing, that's an automatic yes to zapping, and e-mail oversight (and preferrably remove any evidence of the outing from heavily-trafficked boards like ANI). It can always be unrevdelled if found not to be an outing after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- 1. This isn't outing as all of this evidence comes directly from Wikipedia 2. I say AkankshaG needs an indef block as a promotion-only account. He has been confirmed by checkuser evidence as having used sock puppets in the AfD, and its likely there are meatpuppets there as well. The other recent AfD of one of his articles (also, in my opinion, a puff piece) likewise had a ton of spa's flock to keep the article. I can attest to the fact that Vector Marketing hires individuals to up its "net presence". These guys just basically go around the web and insert friendly comments about the organization everytime somebody high on google's search ranks starts to complain about the company. The promotional intent of AkankashaG's edits is a major cause for concern, but the behaviour during his AfDs is beyond the pale. Anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not only Vector Marketing. A quick search of some of these companies shows that they allegedly maybe engaging in unsavory activities, whilst remaining under the radar of authorities. Whenever exposed online, astroturfing trolls attempt to spin, whilst personally attacking the the complainant. I was subjected to such attack on wikipedia awhile ago [14] Phearson (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
CU
A formal SPI case has confirmed Alison's findings. Though Chase is requesting a more experienced checker to look at the other socks surrounding the AfD's, as these are more likely Meat-Puppets. I was wondering if the community was fine in looking into these, as they may not be Specific to AkankshaG. I'd recommend it because of WP:DUCK. Phearson (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Indef. Ban Proposal
I personally would like AkankshaG to respond to the accusations here and SPI, but in the meantime, I like to propose that she be blocked indefinably until she is able. Phearson (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh dear; that's going in my permanent file. An indefinable block. HalfShadow 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's "indefinitely" not "indefinably". Are you asking for an indefinite block or ban? Doc talk 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Would a Ban appropriate in this situation? She did sock. Phearson (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- NP :> I would think an indefinite block would be easier to obtain than a community ban, but I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time. Doc talk 07:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's "indefinitely" not "indefinably". Are you asking for an indefinite block or ban? Doc talk 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't a banning offense, but I do think a block is in order. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that blocks can be imposed by community !vote, or I've never encountered it anyway. It would set a troubling precedent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reblocks can (it happened not long ago), but I'm also a bit leery of what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- The community can only impose a block if some admin is willing to implement it, so a "community-imposed" block is no different from any other: an admin has examined the evidence, and used their judgment before blocking. That said, I have no opinion on the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have only checked the vector marketing article so far, and I see both the insertion of excess promotional material, and the insertion of way overbalanced derogatory material, along with the removal of what seem to me usable sources. It's important to keep balance. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The community can only impose a block if some admin is willing to implement it, so a "community-imposed" block is no different from any other: an admin has examined the evidence, and used their judgment before blocking. That said, I have no opinion on the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reblocks can (it happened not long ago), but I'm also a bit leery of what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that blocks can be imposed by community !vote, or I've never encountered it anyway. It would set a troubling precedent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose ban. That's way too harsh. Just block them and move on - Alison ❤ 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A lizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.28.11.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.189.177.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.82.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.28.99.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.195.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.208.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.27.238.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.108.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone please look into this editor again. Edit summaries such as this are a clear violation of WP:CIVIL, and this is not the first time either. 92.28.11.13 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
See [15] for previous reference. 92.28.11.13 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- What's your connection to the other user IDs? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, since IPs don't have watchlists, it would seem that the OP in this case has some identity he is trying to mask. The OP did not make their first appearance at Wikipedia today, since they are obviously familiar with Rodhullandemu's past behavioral issues. I would like to know who the OP is so we can more fully investigate any conflict between him and Rodhullandemu. --Jayron32 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The IP's all emanate from England, which figures, as we seem to get a lot of trolling from there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- You truely are a prat. Ceoil 02:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- And you truely/truly are funny. Thanks for giving me some new material. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just an observation. Ceoil 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Likewise. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just an observation. Ceoil 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- And you truely/truly are funny. Thanks for giving me some new material. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- You truely are a prat. Ceoil 02:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- note - this is just Bugs personal opinion, there is no evidence or support for it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, strictly anecdotal observation. Certainly we have trolls from around the universe. I just seem to have run into the British ones more often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The IP's all emanate from England, which figures, as we seem to get a lot of trolling from there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, since IPs don't have watchlists, it would seem that the OP in this case has some identity he is trying to mask. The OP did not make their first appearance at Wikipedia today, since they are obviously familiar with Rodhullandemu's past behavioral issues. I would like to know who the OP is so we can more fully investigate any conflict between him and Rodhullandemu. --Jayron32 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Point of fact: I am not located in England, but in Canada. My IP address is 69.157.228.180, which is nothing like any of the above. If somebody in the UK is trying to impersonate me, then s/he is doing a very poor job of it. Bugs, I would really like to know where you came up with the notion that connected me to those trolling IPs and what your motive behind these assertions is. I have no idea who Baseball Bugs or Rodhullandemu are and I never had any communication with either one of them in the entire history of my existence on WIkipedia in any way, shape, or form. Who is being the real troll here? A lizard (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I made the possible connection based on the IP OP appearing from nowhere and complaining about an edit summary made in response to Lizard's ill-advised comments at Wales' page.[16] And notice below that I was skeptical that the IP's had any connection to Lizard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The OP's been trolling AN/I and other editors for the past hour. I've blocked them, the trolling's been unrelenting [17], [18], [19]. Acroterion (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lizard has a sporadic editing history, although the last few edits prior to today's seem normal, and even today's wasn't horrible. Hard telling if the IP's are actually him, or are simply that British bloke trying to get him in trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
92.30.26.120
92.30.26.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
He's been blocked for a year. I think this is unfair. Someone down it to a week. (No I am not him) --Hinata talk 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- He's been blocked for a month, not a year, but you're right - it's not fair that his other socks, listed above, are only blocked for a few hours. A month for all of them would be fair. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's no point blocking for more than a few hours since he just moves onto a different ip address. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention this is the first time that IP has been blocked. --Hinata talk 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- A 92.30 prefix block would probably help here, since most of the attacking IPs are under that prefix, but I wouldn't know how much damage that would do. HalfShadow 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- also, I didn't know that it 2011, I thought it was 2010. My mistake --Hinata talk 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's actually 2012. You overslept. :)
- A 92.30 prefix block would be an interesting experiment. Maybe just for a day or so, to see what happens, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- It'd certainly be interesting for those answering the unblock list, because even the 92.30.0.0/16 is too busy. However, it's actually a much wider range anyway, as you can see from the list above - 92.24.0.0/13 to be precise, which is bigger than we can block. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is a British ISP, who generally "own" a block of ip's that they allocate on a "first come, first served" basis - log off and log back in and you have a new addy. (This is not WP:BEANS, since the only UK users who don't know this are unable to understand what is written here.) This is just a troll who bounces around a few ip's trying to get a rise out of Rod - likely a thwarted vandal. Aggressive RBI is all that can be done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I think I understand Black Kite's post – the range is actually too wide, wider than what is possible to block on Wikipedia. HeyMid (contribs) 23:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It'd certainly be interesting for those answering the unblock list, because even the 92.30.0.0/16 is too busy. However, it's actually a much wider range anyway, as you can see from the list above - 92.24.0.0/13 to be precise, which is bigger than we can block. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- also, I didn't know that it 2011, I thought it was 2010. My mistake --Hinata talk 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- A 92.30 prefix block would probably help here, since most of the attacking IPs are under that prefix, but I wouldn't know how much damage that would do. HalfShadow 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention this is the first time that IP has been blocked. --Hinata talk 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's no point blocking for more than a few hours since he just moves onto a different ip address. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- DOES IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT NO ONE'S NOTIFIED A LIZARD? I have done so: User_talk:A_lizard#ANI_thread. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- All that trolling and user:A lizard still remains unblocked?!? 85.210.61.162 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is it certain that the named user is also those IP's? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- All listed IPs are located in Great Britain. The 174.xxx IP is unrelated, but the 85.xxx IP is located very closely to the other ones, also in Great Britain. But I believe a CheckUser is needed here. HeyMid (contribs) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dude why are you checking my IP? I'm as pissed as you guys are! 85.210.61.162 (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- All listed IPs are located in Great Britain. The 174.xxx IP is unrelated, but the 85.xxx IP is located very closely to the other ones, also in Great Britain. But I believe a CheckUser is needed here. HeyMid (contribs) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is it certain that the named user is also those IP's? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- All that trolling and user:A lizard still remains unblocked?!? 85.210.61.162 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Am I screwing up?
I'm in the process of working through old images uploaded to Wikipedia with the deprecated licenses {{No rights reserved}} and {{PD-release}}. Whenever there's any kind of halfway-credible sourcing or assertion of user creation I'm moving the images out to the Commons.
The sets I'm working through now were uploaded back in 2004 when image policies were considerably different, and uploaders were not expected to pass permissions on to OTRS when they were not the creator of the work. In some cases the sources have succumbed to linkrot and the status cannot be verified.
I had an admin drop a note on my talk page saying these old images should be left alone because they were uploaded in good faith. An example image of the ones he is talking about would be File:Elliptical leaf.JPG. I understand where he is coming from and sympathize, but this type of photo should be able to be replaced with another that is unambiguously free.
Anyway, I welcome feedback on whether I'm doing the right thing here. Kelly hi! 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Policy-wise, your placement of a no permission tag is correct. File:Elliptical leaf.JPG cites a source, but it does not appear to be helpful in determining the copyright status of the file. When it comes to copyright, there is no middle ground; the file either meets the criteria, or it doesn't. Although I must agree that tagging deadlinked-sourced files with no permission tags is not particularly constructive to the project, it is still our responsibility to protect the rights of authors and anyone who wants to reuse files uploaded to Wikipedia. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the case of the leaf picture, the uploader is active even today, so a direct question about that picture (uploaded in 2004) would seem to be in order. The rules weren't nearly so strict in 2004 as they are now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- This particularly image was a copyright violation. Good catch. But you are also tagging images like File:Gudis Argenteus.jpg, that are quite obviously PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to add my voice to the support: No, no you're not screwing up. It's perhaps not work that will make you popular, but it's work that needs to be done. Good luck. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where was it decided that {{No rights reserved}} and {{PD-release}} are deprecated? They both seem valid and helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- They redirect to {{PD-author}} now, which is more specific. Kelly hi! 00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- PD-release doesn't redirect to anything. PD-author, once a name is added, refers to the author, not the copyright holder, and they may not be the same. Where was it decided that the others are deprecated? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- They redirect to {{PD-author}} now, which is more specific. Kelly hi! 00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Xebulon adding irrelevant info
Dear Admins, as I don't have twinkle - I can't change some of these made up references by Xebulon (talk · contribs) on Shusha and Fatali Khan Khoyski articles. Could you please remove the information which is made up from out of the head and fake references by this user. Or at least please restore my twinkle to tackle with vandalism. Best regards. --NovaSkola (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you've notified the editor; I left the notification template on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bzzt. Something odd going on here, my COI light is flashing. Can someone with knowledge of Armenia take a look? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I always cite reliable sources. Fake references, pardon me? NovaSkola: if you have concerns about the sources, please feel free to write to authors directly or leave info on discussion pages. Xebulon (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Clan of Xymox (the article, not the band) needs your help
Help! Clan of Xymox has almost more conflicts of interest than it had band members--I think three of the four founding members may be involved in editing. At any rate, the edits made by Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) are getting to be disruptive, and I'm pretty sure I'm at 3R already. The persistent introduction of unverified information, information that contradicts published sources, personal jabs, fan talk, etc. is getting to be more than I can or am willing to handle, and I could use your advice. I can provide diffs of individual problematic edits if needs be, but a recent edit, this one, is a deliberate change of fact (and a stab at a former band member and possibly former romantic interest, if I may venture boldly--see this also), and this edit pretty much contains everything else, including such gems as this:
January 2006 the EP" Weak In My Knees", included are remixes of Azoic, Destroid ,Grendel and Siva Six plus a video .followed by the release of the album " Breaking Point" which got again all praise and glory , entered high on all charts possible and imaginable , COX embarked on a further tour , this time operating from Germany, where the album Breaking Point got finished.
Now, this wouldn't be such a big deal if the article didn't have a long history of being unverified and fluffy, and if the editor in question didn't reinsert these edits again and again. I have tried opening up discussion on the talk page, left notes here and there, and now I am resorting to warnings, including a 3rd-level warning for a personal attack and a final warning for deliberately adding incorrect information. Again, your help is appreciated--goth fans worldwide will thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hablador (talk · contribs) seems to be involved in this, as well. Creating blp-violating articles about the members of the band. Corvus cornixtalk 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- They're one of the three I suspected. The articles they created, however (Pieter Nooten and Anka Wolbert), are typical newbie articles (they actually copy text from the main article that I think I wrote, haha) without evil intent. BTW, I don't think that Knowitall is of evil intent, but they are very hard of hearing, and I don't want to shout any more or harder. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read all the edits that occurred in the last 24 hours regarding Clan of Xymox and related pages. I would like to ask the administrators here how to deal with these abusive, personal attacks made at me by Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) in this encyclopedia; on my user page, and on the Clan of Xymox page. In earlier edits Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) has vandalistically removed information, deleting Anka Wolbert from the article (this edit). On a separate, more recent occasion, I have used the Wiki warning system to request Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) to desist from altering information about Anka Wolbert User_talk:Knowitallfortoday, but these warnings have had no effect since personal attacks have continued to be made over the past 24 hours. Anka Wolbert (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
THERE WERE ONLY 3 FOUNDING MEMBERS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hablador (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Block evading sock puppet?
Any chance that Thus Spake Good (talk · contribs) is a block evading sock puppet of ActuallyRationalThinker (talk · contribs)? Corvus cornixtalk 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like they are the same person to me, from doing a CU. –MuZemike 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not likely it's ActuallyRationalThinker, but it is likely it's Historys Docs (talk · contribs) / POV Detective (talk · contribs). Jayjg (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jayg. They seemed to be more than an innocent bystander who never posts to anything but Talk pages, stirring up things. Corvus cornixtalk 06:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- He's pretty much openly admitted to editing using a previous account, though when confronted directly he's so far resorted to bafflegab. Jayjg (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I concur with Jayjg's analysis. The pattern of vague hostility towards other editors combined with quasi-philosophical musings against WP policy are absolutely characteristic of the editors he mentions. It wouldn't hurt to have some more eyes on the talk page; my guess is that the user's mildly disruptive misuse of talk pages seems unlikely to stop without encouragement. Also, I believe Dick Scalper (talk · contribs) is another alias for the same editor. Jakew (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The hostility he displays towards other editors is, in my view, "overt", rather than "vague", and he still refuses to respond to questions regarding his previous accounts. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've gone and indef-blocked the user; even if he's not a sock (highly unlikely) his entire contribution history has shown he has no intention of constructively collaborating. If he's not a sock of a blocked user, unblocking could be a remedy assuming he's willing to cooperate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The hostility he displays towards other editors is, in my view, "overt", rather than "vague", and he still refuses to respond to questions regarding his previous accounts. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jayg. They seemed to be more than an innocent bystander who never posts to anything but Talk pages, stirring up things. Corvus cornixtalk 06:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not likely it's ActuallyRationalThinker, but it is likely it's Historys Docs (talk · contribs) / POV Detective (talk · contribs). Jayjg (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Walled garden of hoaxes-in-waiting
Smith20111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Someone has just brought this editor to my attention, or more specifically, the marvellous collection of hoaxes that they are building up in userspace, including a first for me, a hoax image File:Heather Vesey The Writer.jpg (the artiste, the album and the source do not exist). In all cases, the articles contain apparently convincing sources that all go nowhere, and google searches reveal that the article subjects do not exist. As this user has apparently come here only 2 weeks ago, for the sole purpose of creating all these extremely well written hoax articles, I think I'll be a big blue meany and delete them all. Question is, does this look like a sock - I'm sure I recall at least one other editor who had a thing for pop culture hoaxes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Antandrus thinks it might be Jake Picasso - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jake Picasso--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- G3 applies to userspace. If they're clear hoaxes (and the one I looked at certainly seems to be) then lets axe them. No opinion on whether the user is a sock, but shouldn't we just indef block a user who only appears to be here to create hoaxes? --Mkativerata (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just about to do it :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just hold on I wanna Read some of these LOL The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok go for it, That a dedicated Troll The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wait...wait...if these are hoaxes, then who is coming off the potty here? It's on the internet, not on Wikipedia, so it must be true. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The hoaxer, of course. Or their g/f. Or some random they snapped coming out of a polyjohn at a festival. It's a Wordpress blog. That's marginally less reliable than something written on the wall in a pub toilet. You try to find any other references to Heather Vesey, or her two bestselling albums, or the Simon Cowell show Break Into Music (watched by 20 million in the US, now in its second series) that she's supposed to be a judge on with Usher and ShontelleElen of the Roads (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think Drmies was taking the piss. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The hoaxer, of course. Or their g/f. Or some random they snapped coming out of a polyjohn at a festival. It's a Wordpress blog. That's marginally less reliable than something written on the wall in a pub toilet. You try to find any other references to Heather Vesey, or her two bestselling albums, or the Simon Cowell show Break Into Music (watched by 20 million in the US, now in its second series) that she's supposed to be a judge on with Usher and ShontelleElen of the Roads (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wait...wait...if these are hoaxes, then who is coming off the potty here? It's on the internet, not on Wikipedia, so it must be true. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok go for it, That a dedicated Troll The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just hold on I wanna Read some of these LOL The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just about to do it :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
<--Pottymouth! But who is this? The answer when we come back, from the potty of course. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Heather Vesey is a fascinating internet hoax. There's just enough there to convince you she's a real person, until you click through for the next level. For example [21]-notice the username of the person uploading the info. The Youtube link has comments disabled - to stop people pointing out its a hoax. The Myspace page exists, but has no followers, Songlyrics has had the 'album' info set up, but there are no actual lyrics, MP3 raid has been primed, but there are no MP3s to download, and so on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just to add to the gaiety of nations, there is a real Heather Vesey - works for some church organisatin in Norwich [22] (name is at the bottom of the page). One of the Facebook accounts is hers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- multi-talented woman it seems. Remarkable amount of effort put into this, I'm almost impressed. Trebor (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- My god, this is fascinatingly sick/brilliant. Good Work Elen, I knew we put you on arbcom for a reason. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's astonishing, isn't it. This is the 'official website' of the hoax Heather Vesey [23]. Poor girl, neither Atlantic nor Polydor will spring for a proper site, so she had to have her kid brother do this in Wix. You'll note she had a top ten hit with "All I Did" in the UK (only made it to #12 in Eire - must have been the distraction of chasing those tickets about), and she was a judge on Australian Pop Idol in 2010 (shame the show was cancelled and nobody told her). It's a positive internet meme is this. People will write postgrad theses on it in years to come. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- "People will write postgrad theses on it..." Geroffit. I spotted it first! If I can't get a doctorate out of it, I can at least claim to have got one ;-) The sad thing is that The Heather Vesey hoax would make an excellent article, if only we had some reliable sources on all this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's astonishing, isn't it. This is the 'official website' of the hoax Heather Vesey [23]. Poor girl, neither Atlantic nor Polydor will spring for a proper site, so she had to have her kid brother do this in Wix. You'll note she had a top ten hit with "All I Did" in the UK (only made it to #12 in Eire - must have been the distraction of chasing those tickets about), and she was a judge on Australian Pop Idol in 2010 (shame the show was cancelled and nobody told her). It's a positive internet meme is this. People will write postgrad theses on it in years to come. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- My god, this is fascinatingly sick/brilliant. Good Work Elen, I knew we put you on arbcom for a reason. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- multi-talented woman it seems. Remarkable amount of effort put into this, I'm almost impressed. Trebor (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just to add to the gaiety of nations, there is a real Heather Vesey - works for some church organisatin in Norwich [22] (name is at the bottom of the page). One of the Facebook accounts is hers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest that it might be fruitful to use the edit filter to block additions of "Heather Vesey" in mainspace, and possibly track it elsewhere. We shouldn't be used to spread this hoax. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Might be. Its not an area I work in, so I dont know much about the necessary criteria. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest that it might be fruitful to use the edit filter to block additions of "Heather Vesey" in mainspace, and possibly track it elsewhere. We shouldn't be used to spread this hoax. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is Lady Lashes a real band? Everywhere I look online for Heather Vesey, she's connected to them. The so-called fans who are following her on facebook (and who don't seem to post about anything else) also are fans of Lady Lashes. Corvus cornixtalk 06:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Lady Lashes is a hoax as well. One giveaway is that on their Myspace page [24] all their 79 friends are bands. Myspace doesn't distinguish between people you have asked to be your friend, and people who asked you to be their friend. Bands will autoaccept all friend invitations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This one was added by an IP whose other edits also look like potential subtle vandalism. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could be another IP used by the Jake Picasso account - the sockmaster uses quite a number. Stopped editing on 28th Nov - can't really do much about it at the moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, one obvious idea is to check all of that IP's contributions for further hoaxes, or alternatively, just revert them all. Maybe it's enough to notify some music-related wikiproject about the issue, that would have members who could quickly spot hoaxes. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like Jake Picasso (I recently uncovered his latest sockpuppet army), there's more than one hoaxer around. Fences&Windows 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, Antandrus said it seemed like another JP sock, and the IPs this one is editing from were from the same providers as JP. At that point, it didn't seem worth any further digging (it was about 3am my time). If you want to poke around further and prove its someone else, I won't take it in any way amiss.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Somebody might consider contacting the management of Justin Timberlake, T.I., etc., and let them know that they're supposedly collaborating with this person. Corvus cornixtalk 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- You hear about these sorts of thing in movies that heavily feature exploding cars and satellite surveillance. And chases - lots of chases. I agree, this is a wonderful catch.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Subtle image vandalism
User CNNG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been digitally inserting fake faces into photos from articles, uploading them with incorrect copyright tags, and replacing the photos in the original articles with the digitally manipulated versions. Examples:
- Titanic: Original image, fake image, replacement of original photo with fake image
- Great Depression: Original image, fake image, replacement of original photo with fake image
Account apparently made some real contributions earlier, but recently is only used for subtle vandalism. All contributions should be scrutinized, and the account warned or blocked. --LK (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've nuked the images. Nakon 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Deliberately undermining the accuracy of the project is, in my opinion, the worst kind of vandalism. It can go undiscovered for some time. He indicated on 12/27 that the Titanic vandalism was a result of leaving his account logged in unmonitored on a public computer. He indicated this would not happen again. The Depression image vandalism occurred on 12/30. The contributor has been notified of this thread; lacking some very good explanation why we should not presume either that his account is still compromised or that it never was, I believe he should be blocked until we have some plausible reason to believe that he will not vandalize Wikipedia again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Difficulties at Schapelle Corby
Could an outside admin take a look at User:Kimpatriciabax and her discussions at Talk: Schapelle Corby? I think everyone's been most patient with her but it is getting tiresome. I can deal with the pov pushing, it's the constant threats to put us in her blog (she has) and there will be all these media investigations of Wikipedia which will reveal our secret identities. Editor noticed, as of about one minute from now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since she's autoconfirmed, it won't help with this particular issue, but I've raised the question of semi-ing the talk page at WP:AN#Semi-protecting an article talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- And she became autoconfirmed, by random edits to other articles, for the sole purpose of becoming autoconfirmed to get around the semi. Her blog, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's a well-known endaround the protection system, most notably seen at the Virgin Killer a few years back. I raised concerns at the time but got a "hardly anyone knows about that" response". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 15:14, January 3, 2011
- And she became autoconfirmed, by random edits to other articles, for the sole purpose of becoming autoconfirmed to get around the semi. Her blog, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The point is, media investigations into the identities of people editing at Wikipedia have already taken place (there are multiple articles about this on the net). Further, it's something of joke that a news "Source" like Wikipedia (which I assume wants to be taken with a degree of seriousness), allows editors and moderators to operate anonymously. By all means, do as you please (as I'm sure you will), but be aware, that when publishing on sensitive political issues, it grossly undermines any claims to authority or reliability. I'm just pointing out the obvious, a bit like pointing out the weather. And again, I don't have any power to instigate a media investigation into "Who" you are, I'm just pointing out the obvious, e.g. when the films, books and spin-off articles about Schapelle hit the streets (internationally), including all the info about the way this Wiki page is sliced and diced within seconds, by people who have also extensively edited on John Howard's page, then I'm sure there will be number of interested media people. It's also interesting to see you're openly discussing ways to block me. Go ahead, be my guest (if you can, save me a lot of work, I can simply say I was deliberately blocked), and again, it's no skin off my nose - evidence is evidence, whether it's new material added to the Wiki page (which is great, I note a lot more people will now be reading Ray Cooper's evidence for instance), or gross slicing and dicing of new material (within seconds), or you blocking/banning me. Any avenue you take is completely fine with me. Kimpatriciabax (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The last sentence is the key. This editor seems uninterested in writing an encyclopaedia (which she confuses with a 'news source') but it's a win-win for her. If her edits remain she gets one thing she wants, if they are removed she gets screencaps for her blog. I think we just have to play with anabsoultely straight bat, stick to policy and
take our cheques from the Indonesian security service. Whoops - did I say that out loud? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) - Wikipedia is NOT a news source. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- ...and LHvU has indefed for tendentious/chilling effect editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, news travels fast - I enacted the block after reviewing the editors talkpage, which did not then include the commentary above, and spent time constructing a comprehensive rationale. The question of sprotecting the talkpage over at AN may be held/archived until we determine what the response to my action is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- ...and LHvU has indefed for tendentious/chilling effect editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support LHvU - my immediate thought is that 'I will out you/diss you on my blog' is not substantially different to 'my lawyer will be in touch', and we would indef for the latter.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, moreover, the block has aught to do with the editor's PoV on that topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Elen has hit it on the head at its root no difference what so ever. It has a demonstratorable Chilling effect on collegial editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support LHvU; I agree that stuff like this is as intimidating as having battle-lawyers armed and ready. Particularly when this editor conflates "Internet encyclopedia" with "News source". I don't think she's cut out for WP; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a bungling PR manager! —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong support. The chilling effect is, well, chilling. Threatening to keep files on constructive editors in order to enforce one viewpoint is simply not acceptable. I look forward to answering the 'tidal wave of publicity' when it hits the volunteer response team, and think I can already guess what the response will be. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- (Comment) Jeremy - have a look at the blog pages, there's no way a PR manager could be that
frothy mouthedintense. SPA all the way, baby. a_man_alone (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- (Comment) Jeremy - have a look at the blog pages, there's no way a PR manager could be that
- Support Although I will miss the opportunity to ask her why my pay cheques haven't arrived lately (or at all), and to discuss with her my genuine love affair with John Howard (that's the really laughable bit!). HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support I've worked on the Gough Whitlam article, if it's any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - bear in mind though that my user name is that of an Indonesian mountain(!!!!), I've worked on articles related to Indonesia, and I have edited John Howard's article. Kim Bax has vigilantly worked all this out and pointed it out on her blog, (as well as asking many times who is paying me). What she doesn't know, is that I have also edited Kevin Rudd's page, the Bali page, the Architecture of Sydney page, and most significantly, Bono's page - full disclosure here from me. On a serious note, a number of us spent a lot of time trying to help her through - almost none of it appears to have been heard, let alone understood and acted upon. Indeed, her rhetoric just gets ratcheted up. To me, her blog suggests similar combative yet incessantly clueless dealings with other parties.I guess I'm saying I don't hold high hopes of her turning into a productive editor (and I don't think that's why she's here anyway - she's just looking for more "evidence" for her blog) --Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sarong-shaking support She's all ash and no lava. Never fear - my hero shall save us all! KrakatoaKatie 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support (FWIW, at this point it seems to be a pile-on.) Maybe Corby is the victim of justice gone awry. But as I see it, the issue with this user is that she doesn't trust foreign legal systems. Simple as that. (Occasionally I hear about this case of a Seattle girl whom the Italian courts found guilty of killing her roommate. Maybe it happened during a sex crime; I don't remember the details or her name off hand. But the newstories make the Italian legal system seem as good as the Italian army.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Amanda Knox. See also Lori Berenson, the three "hikers" in Iran, the nutsos who keep crossing the North Korean border to get in, and the kid in Singapore who got caned. No reason why an American, Brit, or Aussie should face one of those third world courts. Just send her home. Can't you see she is crying?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support for the record. This was a very good block. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
86.157.75.69 (talk · contribs) was continuing the same conduct, so I've blocked them for block evasion per WP:DUCK. The personal attacks and soapboxing were blockable in their own rights anyway. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Kim Dent-Brown has hit the nail on the head. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - that a long standing editor has had blog space focusing upon and attending to his few edits in one area with such vitriol and hysteria suggests blog space might be just - the place to be in this weather (wherever you are - flooding east states or boiling western side) - either way - either a dry out or hosing down sounds close enough to a block SatuSuro 12:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - "gross slicing and dicing within seconds" - how many times have I read that stupid phrase now? Makes me think this editor is a former salesman of the Slap Chop. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
173.48.16.187
173.48.16.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I would like for someone smarter than me (which is most of y'all) to evaluate the entries from the above IP, especially the recent ones, and in particular his comment to the currently-blocked Grapefruit account. Thanks, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess we should just go and investigate anyone you happen to disagree with then? As far as I know, I have violated no policies. Do you have a specific concern in mind, perhaps before elevating it to this level you could adress it on the pages in question. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Baseball Bugs - Investigate for what? This seems like a sorta odd and general request.
- After a quick glance, I do not think this user is a sock puppet. The editor should probably be warned that naughty language is not appreciated on WP, and should be advised to create an account. Otherwise, I see no need for action here. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Warning given. If anyone wants to advise them to create an account, please do so. Fences&Windows 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Other than the IP's childish obscenities, the most eyebrow-raising thing was this promise to a blocked user to do some sort of canvassing on his behalf.[25] If y'all don't think that stuff is of concern, then fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've welcomed our new colleague, with the suggestion that they consider creating an account, as suggested by Nick and Fences above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Baseball Bugs "his promise to a blocked user to do some sort of canvassing" - The user should be directed towards WP:CANVAS. Bugs, it's likely this person is new. Give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they will follow the rules once they are aware of them. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- He immediately went after the Glenn Beck article, making accusations that Beck's fans have a stranglehold on the article. That approach sounded a little too familiar. But we shall see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Baseball Bugs "his promise to a blocked user to do some sort of canvassing" - The user should be directed towards WP:CANVAS. Bugs, it's likely this person is new. Give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they will follow the rules once they are aware of them. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Warning given. If anyone wants to advise them to create an account, please do so. Fences&Windows 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Return of Hullaballoo again
It seems Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) will not let go of me. More recently, he has undone several bold edits of mine which redirected unsourced BLPs of individual members of Smash Mouth — edits that I doubt anyone else would argue are in the wrong, as they seem to fall in line with WP:BAND. His edit summary called my edits "undiscussed, indiscriminate, inappropriate". The last time I tried to talk to him, I felt that I was civil enough, but he plowed right through my discussion with an edit summary calling my comments "paranoid, incompetent and inaccurate". The most recent discussion on his talk page is KWW warning him not to violate WP:CIVIL. I filed an RFC about a month ago but all we did was talk in circles and go absolutely nowhere. His edit summaries towards other users show that he is just as incivil to everyone else, although I still seem to be one of his primary targets of incivility.
My point is: Hullaballoo has gotten away scot-free with blatant WP:CIVIL violations way too many times. Everyone keeps dropping him friendly warnings not to act incivilly, and he blatantly shuns them and goes back to his same shenanigans. I don't know why he's apparently got carte blanche now, but it MUST stop now. I think it's reached the point where a block is in order, but either way, We MUST find a way to stop his gross misbehavior. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this doesn't fall under WP:BRD.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because every time I try to talk to him on his talk page, he just wipes out my discussion and calls me paranoid. I can't invoke BRD if he won't follow through on the D part. The issue is far beyond BRD anyway — it's not just his blind reversions of my edits, but also his outright refusal to change his behavior after umpteen warnings and his hostile attitude towards other users in general. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you discuss it on the article talk page he can't wipe it out. You call it a blind reversion, but it looks thought out to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because every time I try to talk to him on his talk page, he just wipes out my discussion and calls me paranoid. I can't invoke BRD if he won't follow through on the D part. The issue is far beyond BRD anyway — it's not just his blind reversions of my edits, but also his outright refusal to change his behavior after umpteen warnings and his hostile attitude towards other users in general. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've notified him since you didn't. I see no benefit to a block in this situation, his comments are blunt but not egregious. He has the right to remove what he wants on his own talk page, and it would be better to discuss it in a more appropriate place anyway. Trebor (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about the fact that he's been doing this to me, on and off, for two years? Repeatedly calling an editor "paranoid and inaccurate" isn't an ad hominem attack to you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The examples that TPH provided don't cause me much concern: typical editing disagreement. I was concerned by this edit, which does cross WP:CIVIL.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time I try to talk on his talk page, no matter how nice I am, he blindly reverts me and calls me incompetent/inaccurate/paranoid. Every time. If that's not repeated, blunt attacking of an editor I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then focus on that, and provide us with a list of diffs. His reverts of your redirects aren't going to lead to any clear-cut consensus.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just stop commenting on his page. He obviously doesn't want you there, and any discussion of the page redirects and other edits should take place on the talk pages of the article, anyway. I'm not really concerned about HW's blanking of his talk page from you, but if he can't actually discuss things on the correct page, that would be another matter. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd be happy enough to just start blocking every editor that starts the "stay off my talk page" garbage. It's a sign of a refusal to participate in mature discussion, and is generally a very accurate pointer as to where the real problem in an interaction lies.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well right or wrong I'd advise against that without community backing.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not normally a great sign, but we give users free reign to manage their userpages how they want. A refusal to discuss on his userpage is not the same as a refusal to discuss; obviously if he edit warred without being willing to discuss it anywhere, that would be blockable. Trebor (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have never seen him discuss any of his reversions anywhere. Check his talk page; there are several cases where he pruned references, including such reliable sources as the New York Times, without explaining why besides "they're not reliable". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry: I'm well aware of the distinction between "things I'd like to do" and "things I'm permitted to do". That said, user pages are a fine place to discuss things, and forcing all discussion to article talk pages isn't a reasonable strategy when you are questioning behaviour that spans multiple articles.—Kww(talk) 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have never seen him discuss any of his reversions anywhere. Check his talk page; there are several cases where he pruned references, including such reliable sources as the New York Times, without explaining why besides "they're not reliable". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd be happy enough to just start blocking every editor that starts the "stay off my talk page" garbage. It's a sign of a refusal to participate in mature discussion, and is generally a very accurate pointer as to where the real problem in an interaction lies.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just stop commenting on his page. He obviously doesn't want you there, and any discussion of the page redirects and other edits should take place on the talk pages of the article, anyway. I'm not really concerned about HW's blanking of his talk page from you, but if he can't actually discuss things on the correct page, that would be another matter. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then focus on that, and provide us with a list of diffs. His reverts of your redirects aren't going to lead to any clear-cut consensus.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time I try to talk on his talk page, no matter how nice I am, he blindly reverts me and calls me incompetent/inaccurate/paranoid. Every time. If that's not repeated, blunt attacking of an editor I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unwelcome and rude (admittedly, he's right on this one)
- Unwelcome and unwelcome — he told me "read the edit summaries" which in no way explained how he thought the sources in question were acceptable
- paranoid ranting
- Unwelcome ranting after I pointed out that he seems to stalk me at AFD and !vote "speedy close" on lots of things I nominate
- unwelcome ranting after I politely asked why he undid one of my redirects, and then followed it up with an equally polite explanation that I had made a mistake that time. I also politely asked why he never discusses anything with me, and he still bulldozed it.
- unwelcome, also stemming from my redirection of a very short article, which he undid without any sort of discussion
- unwelcome, admittedly this one was a bit uncivil on my part
- Unwelcome, gross exaggerated after I kinda snapped at him for seemingly wikistalking me and calling all my redirects "disruptive"
- "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" after someone politely asked him to archive his ginormous talk page; the same editor tried to instigate an unrelated discussion about IMDb but HW bulldozed their edits and called the user rude.
- "Unwanted" after another user acted in good faith and archived his talk page (which, for the record, is 465 KB)
And most recently, I politely asked him yet again to discuss his reversal of my redirect, and he very falsely accused me of "harassment". That one is the last straw. Admittedly I'd been rude to him before, but even when I'm civil, he makes the falsest accusation I've ever seen in the five years I've been here. My last edit was in no way harassment, and he has no right to make such a bald-faced lie and get away with it! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here is some proof that he almost never discusses any changes made to an article, and is in general very rude when he does:
- 1.) One of my first run-ins with HW and his refusal to discuss beyond laconic circular-logic arguments was at this AFD. He argued that because it was an "Album released last week by notable group" that it was automatically notable, and pointed to listings at CMT.com and Rollingstone.com that were nothing more than track listings. When I pointed out that the "sources" were only directory listings and that the label's page didn't even mention the article, his response assumed bad faith in my source-finding abilities.
- 1b.) In between those two sections, you'll find him being just as curt and circular-logical about his blunt removal of generally valid references from countless other articles.
- 2.)Another time, I asked how he thought that the meager sources in the Jerome Vered article were insufficient. At the AFD, he called my comments "inaccurate" when I told him that I didn't think the trivial mentions in Google Books were enough, and refused to elaborate on his talk page.
- 3.)The last time I saw him discuss content on a talk page, he replied to me calling a source unreliable. I said that the author "doesn't seem to have any sort of credibility" and he redacted it as a WP:BLP violation and usage of "weasel words" when it clearly wasn't. I told him that his edit summaries were vague and didn't properly explain why he thought the source was reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've warned HW that I will block him for refusing to discuss edits. I see that TPH has reinstalled the redirects that HW refused to discuss, and I'm not going to take action now. If he edit wars and won't discuss, I'll take action then, and I will monitor this problem.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- As an aside, I reinstated the redirects and discussed on the talk page why I think they should stay redirects. (And as an other aside, it also irks me that HW has gotten away with a 465 KB talk page and outright refuses to archive it.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that there's an active proposal to give a limit to unarchived talk pages. DGG is another "offender", but I'm not about to block him for it... It is probably about time that Hullaballoo was placed under some editing restrictions, he's been repeatedly uncivil and often edit wars and refuses to discuss edits. Can we formulate some requirements that would keep his excesses in check? Fences&Windows 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)There's a fair bit of dickery going about through all these diffs...some of which, as you have noted, involve some snippish comments of your own...but I don't think AN/I is flexible enough to deal with this sort of thing, though it would be nice for a change if it would. If you're upto the Byzantine challenge, and RFC/U along the lines of what had to finally be done with Colonel Warden recently may be the way to go. If not, then try leaving all of the discussion attempts off his talk page and on the appropriate article talk pages. If he ignores the discussion attempts there and still reverts out of hand, then that would likely gain some traction here. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I already filed an RFC/U and it went absolutely nowhere. There was lots of discussion, but nothing came of it at all. I don't think another RFC/U would help, especially since the last one was about a month ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it obtained the necessary traction: if HW refuses to discuss an edit again, he will be blocked until he agrees to discuss edits. Does anyone really think more should happen at this moment?—Kww(talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, I had no recollection of RFCU #1, and I even commented there; maybe this is a good day to quit drinking. Well, if a bright-line "one more and he's toast" comes out of this now, then that sounds good. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree w/the above comment to the effect that if HB does not wish to discuss the matter on his talk page, that is within his rights, and I would in that situation suggest article page discussion be initiated.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone thinks that an interaction ban is a good idea here? T. Canens (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The problem is that Wolfowitz won't interact with Hammer, he just reverts his actions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am goddamn sick and tired of being treated like dirt here. In the last two years I've made about thirty thousand edits, none using automated tools or scripts, concentrating on BLP and copyright policy enforcement, two areas that are among the highest priorities, as established both by on-Wikipedia consensus and by Wikimedia Foundation action. These are pretty much thankless jobs these days, as my repeatedly vandalized user page and talk page evidence. Yet obviously this counts for nothing, and that quite a few people are never going to give me a fair shake because I became an involuntary Wikipedia Review poster child as a victim of admin abuse over an incident where no less than Jimmy Wales eventually weighed in support of me and the admin who blocked me, for an edit made by another user, stomped off Wikipedia in the face of criticism. It's evident that a double standard is being applied here.
With regard to some of the specific points made:
- TenPoundHammer claims that he filed an RFC/U against me recently, but that it "went nowhere." That's hardly accurate. The RFC, which wasn't ever even properly certified, ended up with four users endorsing TPH's position generally, five endorsing mine generally, and a dozen or so rejecting most of TPH's claims particularly those relating to stalking and harassment, but finding some of my AFD comments too harsh, in particular my comment that when TPH says he can't find sources on a subject, it's because he hasn't bothered to look for them. (I didn't participate in the RFC precisely because it was never properly certified, so the community's rejection of TPHs accusations was based only on his presentation of his case, underlining just how unfounded the accusations were.) I think my comment is accurate and within the general range of comments accepted at AFDs, but I've respected the expressed opinion of the community and have not since used that formulation. TPH does not respect the community's determination and has repeated, here and elsewhere, the accusations rejected, by a wide margin, by the community in the RFC. The RFC, focusing on my responses to TPH's AFD nominations, reflects a pretty strong community consensus that TPH's deletion proposals are too often destructive. As one admin noted in a lengthy ANI discussion regarding TPH only a few days ago, "I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. . . . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't." [26]
- It is absolutely false that I "refuse to discuss edits." My talk page shows scores of discussions, and my contribution list shundreds of talk page discussions. What I won't do is waste my time responding to uncivil, peremptory comments that aren't made with any intent to engage in an encyclopedia-building process, but to make editing unpleasant for an editor who's disagreed with the commenter. Comments like these, from TPH:
- "Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived?" [27]
- "oh so now you're being a douche too? let's just have a big douche parade across his talkpage" (edit summary) [28]
- "and you wonder why I'm never fucking polite to you" (edit summary) [29]
- "why are you only ever this big a douche to me?" (edit summary) [30]
- "So in other words, what we have is an editor being a single-minded, bullheaded, tendentious douchebag and no one can be bothered to do anything about it." (under the heading "Wolfowitz") [31]
- "fine, Hullaballoo Doucheowitz... if you insist on undoing every damn edit I make. Undo this. I dare you." (edit summary) [32]
- "What the hell is your problem? You're labeling ALL my edits as disruptive. Whatever happened to good faith, hmm?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=387402805&oldid=387402473
- "What the hell is your problem? Every time I make a nomination you're here to bitch about it." [33]
- "You just have a grudge and a half against me don't you? I looked and didn't see anything that said "Emmy". Clearly my google-fu is abysmal." [34]
- "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer." [35]
- "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?" [36]
- "*Seriously man, do you have some sort of agenda against me? It seems like no matter what I do, you're there to undo it. And answer me already. WHAT NEEDS DISCUSSION" [37]
- "Are you gonna answer me or what?" [38]
- "*Great. So you're bulldozing all my edits AND giving me the silent treatment. Way to be civil." [39] (Note that the last five comments were posted over a 45-minute period.)
- I made repeated attempts to dialogue with TPH over at least a year. Note the extended discussion in this AFD, for example. After a long period, TPH dropped any vestige of rational conversation and shifted to summary invective. As I recall, the shift came in mid-September, after I posted a comment/warning on his talk page regarding disruptive editing practices -- in that case, reinstating about two dozen disputed redirects, marking the edits as minor, and using edit summaries suggesting he was reverting vandalism. His accusations and nasty talk page posts began almost immediately afterwards.
- A substantial portion of TPH's editing, particularly as related to deletion/removal of content, is incompetent, well beyond the point of being disruptive. This is behavior which actively damages the encyclopedia, impairs its value to users, and drives good faith contributors away. TPH admits regularly that his ability to use Google as a search engine is deficient (his own descriptions of his competency level include "abysmal" and "I still suck". Yet he continues to make AFD nominations and create redirects, despite his awareness that his basis for doing so is unreliable. Just yesterday, taking one of the articles which provoked his post here to this AFD, only to have it snow-kept within an hour, shortly after he withdrew another AFD, where he'd claimed no sources "seem to exist", only to be quickly overwhelmed by proof otherwise (leading to his admission "Clearly I still suck at using Google, I would think a reasonable, constructive editor, conscious that his analyses were regularly misleading/inaccrate, would stop employing those analyses until they figured out what was going wrong. TPH doesn't. Two other examples are instructive: TPH nominated Jordyn Shellhart for deletion, saying that "Thorough searching of Google News turned up only an interview and no other reliable sources." [40] Yet the Google News search results [41] actually turn up several dozen news hits, some trivial, but many substantial, including full profiles, and showing that the article subject received national press attention for her televised performance of the national anthem at an NFL game. Only today, TPH unlinked the term "sheoque" from an article on Irish mythology [42], claiming "google doesn't know what a sheoque is." However, a basic Google search [43] immediately turns up relevant hits at the top of the search results, as well as, further in what appears to be detailed commentary by Yeats. Nor are the problems limited to Google use. In this AFD TPH claimed "I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations" for the article subject, although all he needed to do was click the appropriate link in the (already wikilinked) article on the award. Here he insists hat an album was released on a "non-notable label," even though the label had an article soundly establishing notability. And here TPH argued that HBO was a "redlinked network," on which no further comment should be necessary. This is highly disruptive behavior, and there's fundamentally no other way to refer to it other than variations on "incompetent." Or worse.
- TPH regularly refuses to engage in discussion after I have responded to his attacks. For example, the first time TPH raised similar matters at AN/I, he refused to provide any substantive response to my reply (reproduced below). Instead, he forum shops, abandons discussions when they don't immediately produce the results he wants, then renews them in hopes of finding a more receptive audience. It's not a coincidence that his attacks on me closely follow significant complaints being made regarding his editing practices; he's trying to divert attention from his repeated and very serious misbehavior, pointing to the alleged venial sins of the Big Bad Wolfowitz because I'm not a very popular guy with a bunch of admins. TPH has never responded in any way to my previoys response, which bears repeating here:
- I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre, and slightly Byzantine, attempt to game the system as this complaint. TPH has been posting uncivil, borderline profane tirades (other users have recently described similar TPH comments as "tantrums") to my talk page and elsewhere, for the last week or so, on most occasions where we're on opposite sides in editing disputes. As is the acceted practice of many experienced editors, I generally ignore such comments, especially when they ask for nothing more than the same information I already set out in the edit summaries, comments, discussions, or whatever that such posts respond to. No editor in this project has an obligation to respond to comments like "What the hell is your problem?", "answer the damn question," or "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?!" (caps in original).
- In the immediate dispute, TPH responded to statements I made in opposition to an AFD he started by making an uncivil post to my talk page (which I deleted) and striking my post from the AFD with the inflammatory comment Struck out as blatantly false accusations of bad faith. Bawwwwwwwww. [44] TPH then vandalized the article involved, removing the wikilink to the page on the music label involved, apparently to buttress his spurious claim that the label was not notable. (I had recently corrected the link, which had earlier pointed to a dab page rather than directly to the label's page.) I reverted TPH's edits. It might well have been better for me to have left TPH's inflammatory comment in place, but in the moment I viewed it as the sort of pure vandalism that I'd seen removed from other AFD discussions.
- TPH continued to make uncivil posts to my take page, but continued to ignore the substantive issues in the underlying dispute, so my response did not change. Finally, TPH posted his complaint here. He then placed an ANI notice on my talk page, but immediately removed it, replacing it with what appeared to be an apology for his earlier posts, characterizing them as his being bitchy. [45]
- TPH then returned to ANI, continuing to press his complaints, rather disingenuously avoiding mentioning his apparent apology and his removal of the ANI notice from my talk page. Having left the impression on my talk page that he was letting most of the conflict drop, he simultaneously complained here that I was not engaging in the conflict. I've never seen anything like this in WP dispute resolution, whether in complaints from experienced or inexperienced users.
- With regard to the particular matters TPH raises:
- My comments in the Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album) AFD are self-explanatory, and their accuracy is easily verified. As is made even clearer from other users' comments in the AFD, TPH's claims that no sources could be located were false. In particular, TPH's claim that AllMusic provides only "a one-sentence summary" is conspicuously untrue [46]. It's also rather curious that TPH applies a rather different deletion standard when it comes to other articles; in the current AFD for "Hello Mannequin," he argues that the subject is notable because it was "released by a notable act on a blue link label,"[47] precisely the standard he rejects here.
- The Reggie Young AFD is a simple matter. TPH initially performed a substantive AFD close on an AFD which he initiated (and in which I participated), with a dubious rationale that did not accurately reflect consensus. After my objection, he reclosed it as a simple withdrawn-by-nominator, which addressed my objection.
- The Big Time Rush discography question is equally simple. The exact resolution of the matter is not terribly important, but a collaborative project is always better served in cases like this when such matters are resolved by discussions with the editors actively working on the articles, rather than by a drive-by editor who pronounces "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer."[48] Let them decide whether the discography should be merged, of if similar content be removed from the artist article.
TPH's account of our interactions is grossly incomplete and misleading. As I recall, the first time we crossed swords was in [Atlantic Records discography RFD], where multiple users characterized TPH's actions as inappropriate/disruptive, a theme that is hardly unique to me. In more recent disputes, I was one of several users who criticized TPH's edit warring, with misleading edit summaries, over a large set contested redirects.[49] In [recent AFD], I criticized TPH's apparently spurious claim that certain claims ogf notability could not be verified.
In fact, TPH's recent history regarding AFDs and redirects shows other clear incidences of dubious if not disruptive behavior. For example:
- TPH nominated Trey Bruce for deletion after removing the (imperfectly) sourced claim that Bruce had won a songwriting Emmy Award from the article; he avoided mentioning that claim in his nomination. His rationale was "doubt it won HIM an emmy,those don't go to songs." The claim was, of course, easy to verify, and there is at least one Emmy Award given annually to a songwriter for his/her song. TPH made no effort to edit responsibly on this point.
- TPH redirected Robb Royer to Bread (band), asserting the songwriter had no notability outside the band. In fact, as the relevant articles clearly state, Royer had won an Academy Award for Best Song.[50] This situation is particularly problematic; while TPH typically removes all backlinks to redirected articles (itself a practice of dubious value), he stopped removing such links to this article at about the point where he would have reached the relevant Academy Award article, an indication that he recognized the inaccuracy of his lack of notability claim but was unwilling to correct himself. Instead, he apparently opted not to remove backlinks, when removal would highlight the incorrectness of his action.
- Without discussion or notability tagging, TPH summarily redirected award-winning or award-nominated episodes of CSI, including "A Bullet Runs Through It" (Edgar Award nominee)[51]; "For Warrick" (Emmy nominee)[52]; "Gum Drops" (Emmy winner, inexplicably redirected to the candy rather than the relevant episode list) [53]; "Blood Drops" (WGA award nominee)[54]; and many more. TPH's s actions here and in similar redirection controversies also violated the Arbitration Committee's "Episodes and characters 2" decision, particularly with regard to the "Fait accompli" principle.[55]
TPH's talk page shows that, in the last few weeks, his editing practices have been criticized by a significant number of editors and administrators. For example:
- Sept 9; two editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for a grossly inappropriate edit summary [56]
- Sept 9; two different editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for uncivil/insulting edit summary(ies) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Longhorns_.26_Londonbridges
- Sept 18; multiple editors criticize TPH for systematic redirects of a large set of articles without following procedures established by consensus [57]
- Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for misusing TWINKLE by leaving explanation field empty [58]
- Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for edit warring without discussion over disputed redirects [59]
- Sept 18; two admins cite TPH for "multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes" and threaten him with loss of TW and rollback and possible blocking if abuses recur [60]
- Sept 19; admin warns TPH over disruptive editing, stating that "multiple editors are expressing concerns about your recent editing practices." TPH responds by commenting, inter alia, "Have we all gone stupid or something?" and "Being civil hasn't been any more effective, so what do I lose if I scream?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Concerns
- Sept 21; called out for referring to another editor as "Douchey McNitPick" in edit summaries [61]
- Sept 21; another editor criticizes TPH for "an enormous number" of uncivil comments in edit summaries [62]
- With regard to certain claims of edit warring: WP:BLP and WP:BRD are inconsistent. But BLP is an important policy with strong consensus support, while BRD is an essay. BLP calls for certain classes of material to be removed "without discussion" or "without waiting for discussion"; such material is not to be restored without achieving consensus for its restoration. Similar standards apply to nonfree content. In both cases, enforcing the relevant policies is exempt from the edit warring limits. There are editors who do not agree with the current policies, and believe that BRD principles are more important. But policy says otherwise, and criticizing or threatening to sanction any editor acting under those policies is not appropriate.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Massive advertisements by User:Kleinjj
See all non-notable things he created and continue creating despite several warnings. They all belong to non-notable Summit Business Media which led me to doubt that this account is only used for advertising.
- AdvisorOne
- Research (magazine)
- Investment Advisor (magazine)
- Credit Union Times
- InsideCounsel
- Futures (magazine)
- Treasury & Risk
- Summit Business Media
People from Summit Business Media.
And some templates. We need to delete all. Soewinhan (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The account seems to have stopped editing (and at the risk of outing, appears unlikely to continue editing in this pattern should they resume) so I don't believe a block is in order and the rest can be taken care of through the usual XfD processes if they are not speedy candidates. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- These are all still bluelinks, so aren't you putting the cart before the horse? It'd be better to deal with the articles and demonstrate they are non-notable (and follow WP:BEFORE) or else clean them up before seeking action against the editor. Fences&Windows 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- If nobody has begun a process to delete the articles, then apparently they're good articles and not advertising? Corvus cornixtalk 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- AdvisorOne is an obvious case. It's at AfD now. ThemFromSpace
Topic ban violation
Rave92 (talk · contribs) was ARBMAC related articles topic banned on 15 July for 6 months by admin Toddst1 (talk · contribs) (Restriction imposed here). Later, as he edited articles in question, i reminded him about his topic ban, and as he told that he "totally forgot about that", i let it go. But as you may see from his contributions, he was editing related articles, almost during entire ban length, so i am asking for some admin intervention now, as his edits, with his pushing of disputed Montenegrin language was the exact reason why he was blocked and banned in the first place. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- We seem to have been pretty shoddy in uploading his topic ban, as ARBMAC covers all "Balkans-related" articles and all his edits were to these articles. However, the scope of the ban wasn't explained to Rave92 when it was imposed and the scope is not immediately clear from WP:ARBMAC. I think the lesson is to be clearer when imposing sanctions. I think we should reimpose a clear topic ban, if it is considered needed, and make clear that breaching it will result in a block. Fences&Windows 20:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree and think this editor should be blocked to enforce the topic ban. He edited the article Montenegro. No article could be more clearly within the topic ban, which was explained clearly enough. The editor is clearly aware of the topic ban having been warned about breaking it in September. The only thing that would make me hesitate is that the topic ban only has 10 days left on the clock. But I think it should be enforced here nonetheless. I should add that it's normally best for these reports to go to WP:AE but as it's not a strict requirement, and this isn't a complicated request, I don't think this report needs to be moved. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- While on the other hand, Fences, you may be right about scope, but the WP:ARBMAC scope is Balkan Peninsula, if we look broadly. Therefor, article about Montenegro, country in Balkan, is clearly topic ban violation. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not opining on this particular case, but I'd just like to throw in that it's not generally a good idea to impose WP:ARBMAC sanctions covering "the whole of the Arbmac topic area". The Balkans are a big place, with many, very very different disputes along different ethnic frontlines. Nationally motivated problematic behaviour of individual editors typically focusses on just one or two of these, say, a particular pair of countries or nationalities, and such editors are very often quite able to edit constructively in other sub-areas. While the Balkans as a whole are the theoretical frame within which Arbmac sanctions can be imposed, it is most often preferable to tailor sanctions to something a lot narrower than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, Future! The main (and only) problem here was Montenegro and Serbia related articles, nothing other. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't my ban expire? And how is "WhiteWriter" neutral in this discussion since you are from Serbia. Rave92(talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your ban expires on 15 January - it was clearly notified to you as lasting six months from 15 July 2010. I don't think WhiteWriter is purporting to act neutrally here, he/she is merely seeking assistance from neutral admins.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought it was June, not July, but if it helps anything, I can stop editing 'till that date on anything Wikipedia, not just Balkans. Montenegro article was in total mess, starting from state name calling it "Montenegrin state" etc... and none seem to edit it or reverting it. Rave92(talk) 22:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you thought that it was June, then can you explain you edits from November? Or from September, after my reminder on your talk page? As you just said that you thought it was June, you then violated topic ban purposely... --WhiteWriter speaks 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought it was June, not July, but if it helps anything, I can stop editing 'till that date on anything Wikipedia, not just Balkans. Montenegro article was in total mess, starting from state name calling it "Montenegrin state" etc... and none seem to edit it or reverting it. Rave92(talk) 22:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your ban expires on 15 January - it was clearly notified to you as lasting six months from 15 July 2010. I don't think WhiteWriter is purporting to act neutrally here, he/she is merely seeking assistance from neutral admins.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't my ban expire? And how is "WhiteWriter" neutral in this discussion since you are from Serbia. Rave92(talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, Future! The main (and only) problem here was Montenegro and Serbia related articles, nothing other. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not opining on this particular case, but I'd just like to throw in that it's not generally a good idea to impose WP:ARBMAC sanctions covering "the whole of the Arbmac topic area". The Balkans are a big place, with many, very very different disputes along different ethnic frontlines. Nationally motivated problematic behaviour of individual editors typically focusses on just one or two of these, say, a particular pair of countries or nationalities, and such editors are very often quite able to edit constructively in other sub-areas. While the Balkans as a whole are the theoretical frame within which Arbmac sanctions can be imposed, it is most often preferable to tailor sanctions to something a lot narrower than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- While on the other hand, Fences, you may be right about scope, but the WP:ARBMAC scope is Balkan Peninsula, if we look broadly. Therefor, article about Montenegro, country in Balkan, is clearly topic ban violation. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree and think this editor should be blocked to enforce the topic ban. He edited the article Montenegro. No article could be more clearly within the topic ban, which was explained clearly enough. The editor is clearly aware of the topic ban having been warned about breaking it in September. The only thing that would make me hesitate is that the topic ban only has 10 days left on the clock. But I think it should be enforced here nonetheless. I should add that it's normally best for these reports to go to WP:AE but as it's not a strict requirement, and this isn't a complicated request, I don't think this report needs to be moved. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor changing naturalist/physiologist etc to biologist
This is a bit odd. We have an editor, using 79.5.238.156 (talk · contribs) and 78.13.26.209 (talk · contribs) and identifying themselves as a biologist [63] changing various scientific fields to biologist [64] [65] [66] and more. I'm not sure if there's anything to worry or not, but another eye or two might help. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It does seem a little bit strange. de:Alfred Brehm describes Brehm as unquestionably a zoologist, for example. Those edits seem at minimum slightly tendentious. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree - English isn't their first language. I didn't see Dougweller's 3RR warning to one IP before I added my own warning to the other. At least that's covered, and I'll bet they'll be back. I'll go through the earlier edits shortly, as he's been at this for a while. KrakatoaKatie 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Many of his previous edits have already been reverted or changed. The ones that were not have now been reverted, as they lacked sourcing. It's like he clicked all the pages in Category:Zoologists and started typing. KrakatoaKatie 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - I was a bit hesitant about this given the number of changes it didn't seem quite right. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Many of his previous edits have already been reverted or changed. The ones that were not have now been reverted, as they lacked sourcing. It's like he clicked all the pages in Category:Zoologists and started typing. KrakatoaKatie 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree - English isn't their first language. I didn't see Dougweller's 3RR warning to one IP before I added my own warning to the other. At least that's covered, and I'll bet they'll be back. I'll go through the earlier edits shortly, as he's been at this for a while. KrakatoaKatie 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Harassment/sockpuppetry/talkpage vandalism
АБВГД (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [67] and other edits from this user are talkpage vandalism/harassment. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Иваныч/Archive. Could you also semiprotect my talkpage and User_talk:Pessimist2006 (he asked me to request so) to avoid future harassment? Thanks. Ilya Voyager (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- User:Alphabits went from first edit to indef in 24 minutes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that's not a record; he should have tried harder. HalfShadow 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nowhere close to a record. There was one yesterday that went from creation to indef in less than 5 minutes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that's not a record; he should have tried harder. HalfShadow 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed:
- Krible-krable-bums (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- АБВГД (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Арктодус (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Г-Ф-2-0- (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Дедушка Джо (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Иваныч (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Фкд100 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
IP blocked –MuZemike 10:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
BuddyX
I reported BuddyX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at AIV as they vandalised after a fourth level warning but somehow the report was deemed too complex for AIV and I was advised to bring it here. Can someone please handle this block request? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- He's adding information that's either not yet published or simply his own opinion. If he resumes after block expires, let us know. KrakatoaKatie 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
BLP violation and modifying my talk page comments
In a recent discussion on Talk:Pamela Geller, User:Will Beback inserted a very contentious claim about Geller which was a blatant misinterpretation of the source he provided (I won't reproduce the violation but it's available in history: the executive summary is that Geller made an ironic statement of what others accuse her of; Will stated that she had described herself as such, and that it wasn't clear whether or not it was ironic. A brief read of the interview makes it very clear, imo.) I removed the BLP violation and left a (signed) BLP vio removed in its place per guidelines. Will Beback first modified this comment, and then removed it entirely, despite the fact that I asked him not to. They've made it clear on my talk page that they intend to continue to modify my comments since I removed part of theirs [68], [69]; therefore I'm requesting comment from others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- First, the New York Times writes:
- In conversation, Ms. Geller habitually refers to herself as a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” — all one word in her pronunciation — which hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona.[70]
- Other media have also reported on the NYT article. For example, the Catholic magazine Commonweal has a posting titled "Pamela Geller: self-described `racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot’" I wrote, on a talk page thread discussing the NYT article:
- Looking more closely at the NYT article, it says that she self-identifies as a "racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot" based on this interview.[71] It's not clear whether she really embraces that term or is just using it ironically. Will Beback talk 01:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- In response, user:Giftiger wunsch deleted part of my comment calling it a BLP violation and inserting his name in the middle of my comment. I tried various ways of refactoring that without restoring the material, but he insisted on retaining the BLP violation allegation and his signature. I don't think there was any BLP violation and I don't think that GW's edit warring over my comment was helpful. Will Beback talk 01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is totally clear without any doubt it is satirical, Will seems to have been attempting to use whatever low quality claims to label the subject with quite contentions claims , there is clearly no need for this and Grifter removed a comment, I didn't see which one but there were a couple of close to the bone additions from Will Beback that would never have made it into the article, and its just unnecessary to post such weak contentious claims to the talkpage of a BLP and experienced contributors should know better than that.Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the part where administrative action is warranted. WP:WQA maybe, but may I suggest instead that it is not that big of a deal either way. What I'm seeing here is two fine editors who were both acting in good faith having what is really a very minor disagreement. Shake hands and move on is my advice. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I admit that the removal of the comment and exclusion of the BLP vio was less problematic to the original rewording of my comment by Will, but since it came after I asked Will not to modify my comment, and following the comment they seemed to be attempting to suggest that they had said something rather different to what had actually been said, it seemed to me like an attempt to make my subsequent comments appear unreasonable by hiding my note that it was a BLP violation and by posting quotes which actually made a completely different point to what they had made. Since they apparently didn't disagree strongly enough with my removal of the content to revert it, I see no reason why my grounds for removing it should be altered or removed. I don't think this is going to warrant a block or similar sanctions, but I do think that the user's actions were incorrect, and since they won't take my word for it, reinforcement of that from an uninvolved editor would at least be helpful, if only to persuade Will that their edits really were problematic; of course if you disagree that the edits were problematic then fair enough, but they certainly appeared so to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the part where administrative action is warranted. WP:WQA maybe, but may I suggest instead that it is not that big of a deal either way. What I'm seeing here is two fine editors who were both acting in good faith having what is really a very minor disagreement. Shake hands and move on is my advice. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is totally clear without any doubt it is satirical, Will seems to have been attempting to use whatever low quality claims to label the subject with quite contentions claims , there is clearly no need for this and Grifter removed a comment, I didn't see which one but there were a couple of close to the bone additions from Will Beback that would never have made it into the article, and its just unnecessary to post such weak contentious claims to the talkpage of a BLP and experienced contributors should know better than that.Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I still don't see how my comment could be construed as a BLP violation. I think that Giftiger wunsch overreacted and then insisted that his allegation had to be kept in the middle of my comment. BLPs are a serious issue, but quoting a New York Times article is not a BLP violation. Will Beback talk 05:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have had my disputes with Will, and I actually came here expecting to find an opportunity to offer an olive leaf by defending him. However, I have to say, the interaction described above is all too familiar. The best way I can describe it is "annoying obtuseness". I mean, how else does one characterize reading that material and concluding that, "it's not clear whether she really embraces that term or is just using it ironically." Will seems to have a tendency to grab on to untenable positions like this, presumably initially not realizing the indefensibility of his position, but continuing to hold on to it long after it's absurd to keep defending the position. In the disputes like this I've been in with Will, including one yesterday at WT:PLACES, I usually end up sensing that he chose his position simply to take on a contrarian position and to be argumentative, but I can never tell for sure, and have no idea whether that was a factor in this case. I'm just throwing in out there in case others have suspected the same in their interactions with him, because if that is what's going on, it's a serious problem. The real revelation here is that Will is willing to go to the extreme of continuing to hold on to a clearly untenable position even in an ANI. I'm guessing this indicates his behavior probably does not stem from a fully volitional decision, but perhaps is some form of denial.
As to whether there was a BLP violation in Will's original comment prior to redaction, I went back to the pre-redaction version to see the full context, and I agree that the sources as quoted above make it clear the self-identity is satiric, while this is not conveyed in Will's comment about it. I know if I had just read that part of the discussion I would have been left with the impression that that self-identification might not be intended to be ironic, because that's how Will presented it. I agree that's a BLP violation, but suggest an admin more knowledgable in BLP issues formally confirm this. Regardless, I recommend and request that Will be more careful with BLP related statements in the future, and in general to try to become more aware of his apparent tendency to take on untenable positions, and hold on to them long past the point of absurdity. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, talk about carrying a grudge. Will Beback talk 06:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you see it that way. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, talk about carrying a grudge. Will Beback talk 06:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No BLP violation, and no reason to mess with other people's talk posts in this way. Will quoted an authentic report, in a context where it was clearly relevant to an editorial discussion. The debate here about whether it "unambiguously" is satirical is a red herring – that's what the talk page debate was to clarify, and that has now been made near impossible by making Will's comment unreadable. Clear case of overreaction and clumsy intervention by G.w. Please don't do this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Except the way Will quoted it, it wasn't possible to ascertain whether it was intended to be satirical. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Clumsy intervention? Just read this interview. If you honestly believe that the individual was "admitting" to being an anti-Islamic bigot, and despite the sources which Will himself provided on my talk page which stated the contrary hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona., then I'm not convinced you've actually read the source being used in support of the statement. Indeed, in other sources being discussed on the subject's talk page, she has stated that she considers it slander to be called anti-Islamic; do you still think it is not a BLP violation to state that she has defined herself as an anti-Islamic bigot when she has stated, in the interview in question, "Now someone somewhere decided that we’re going to make it about her and we’re going to demonize her and marginalize her and call her a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot so that anybody that agrees with her is a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot."? Frankly I can only see a single possible interpretation of that, and stating that she has "admitted" to being a racist anti-Islamic bigot is not it. In fact, looking at the source, she never once says "I'm a racist anti-Islamic bigot", says that "If you don’t lay down and die for Islamic supremacism, then you’re a racist anti-Muslim Islamophobic bigot." (same source), and that that's what others call her. Point me to anywhere in this source where there's any reason to believe that the individual has "admitted" to being racist. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the page to discuss the fine points of BLP. However, regarding Gw's last question, I'll point to a tertiary source, the Commonweal magazine's blog, which discusses the NYT article. It says "Her approach to Muslims – she calls herself a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” – ought to strike any Catholic familiar with Vatican II’s statements on Islam and subsequent papal teachings as obviously wrong."[72][emphasis added] So there is more than one possible interpretation. See Google for indications of how other bloggers have interpreted her remarks.[73] There seem to be a variety of views. My posting on the talk page suggested she might not have been speaking seriously, based on my own "original research" conclusion. I don't think it's a BLP violation to quote the NYT and Commonweal in the course of discussing which material to include in an article. I suggest we move the BLP discussion to BLPN. Will Beback talk 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think Willbeback was wrong when he said that it wasn't clear whether she embraced the term - but being wrong on a talkpage is not a BLP violation. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the page to discuss the fine points of BLP. However, regarding Gw's last question, I'll point to a tertiary source, the Commonweal magazine's blog, which discusses the NYT article. It says "Her approach to Muslims – she calls herself a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” – ought to strike any Catholic familiar with Vatican II’s statements on Islam and subsequent papal teachings as obviously wrong."[72][emphasis added] So there is more than one possible interpretation. See Google for indications of how other bloggers have interpreted her remarks.[73] There seem to be a variety of views. My posting on the talk page suggested she might not have been speaking seriously, based on my own "original research" conclusion. I don't think it's a BLP violation to quote the NYT and Commonweal in the course of discussing which material to include in an article. I suggest we move the BLP discussion to BLPN. Will Beback talk 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've discussed this via e-mail with Will and we've agreed there this single incident won't prevent us editing collaboratively in future, and since Will stopped refactoring my comment just prior to me filing this, and discussion on the talk page is continuing constructively, it no longer appears to be an issue. Thanks to all for their input. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sanity check
Just a quick request for an opinion - should I drop a template on the talk page of Hauskalainen (talk · contribs) for using the talk page as a forum on Talk:Death panels (political term)? The user has been around for years. Feel free to delete this message if I'm totally off base. Kelly hi! 02:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't really relevant to ANI, but since it's here I'll answer it anyway. If they've been around a while, it's usually considered good practice to leave a handwritten notice; it's less likely to be seen as patronising, and it's always better to know that someone's taken the time to leave a handwritten note than simply using a template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You might consider making similar queries at WP:HD or by using a
{{helpme}}
request on your talk page in future, by the way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)- Understood, I already asked all the editors on that talk page to stop. Kelly hi! 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Gee, thanks for the condescending response. Forget it. Kelly hi! 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Sorry, cranky. Kelly hi! 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)- Uh? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing. Seemed like a helpful response to me. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Uh? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies all, it's just that it's one of the articles under community probation that's under-served by admins and tends to devolve into flame wars. Kelly hi! 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Understood, I already asked all the editors on that talk page to stop. Kelly hi! 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
K.O.K Kev
I originally came across K.O.K Kev (talk · contribs) in early December after he added a poor quality watermarked copyrighted image to an article resulting in this discussion. Since them, I've advised him various times on what constitutes as reliable sources and non-free content in the user space. These and some other issues (mostly involving his inappropriate but good faith image uploads) resulted in these two comments on my talk page that resulted in a 12 hour block on his account.
The other day, I discovered he had added a poorly referenced (read unreferenced) section to an article, explicitly stating me in his edit summary. As it was unreferenced (and not very well written), I removed it. Tonight, he has been adding it back repeatedly, and left me these two comments (second one in response to this). He has broken 3RR just now and added a bunch of YouTube links copyright violating copies of this film (he has since self reverted after I told him he broke 3RR).
I don't think he's mature enough to continue as a part of this project. This is the second time he has become overly emotional and incivil due to reminders I have left him of the rules.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Concur. Indef block needed. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Macr86 and the White Rabbit
I have no idea why, but User:Macr86 is obsessed with moving White Rabbit pages around - to the point of being disruptive. I've come here to request a topic ban.
- See the plethora of rapid-fire move requests at Talk:White Rabbit. (I'm assuming 75.142.152.104 is also Macr86 per WP:DUCK).
- See some more requests at Talk:White Rabbit (disambiguation).
- When these failed, he started asking administrators directly to move the page:
Note that the AjaxSmack request was brought up by Macr86 himself at Talk:White_rabbit#Obsequious_move_request_by_Macr86_.281_January_2011.29, so I can only assume this is some sort of silly game. --JaGatalk 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't we had problems at White Rabbit before with someone making strange page movies? It seems oddly familiar. Dayewalker (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The IP listed above (75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is the author of numerous disruptive move requests including many related to various "White Rabbit" pages, and that is probably what you recall. I agree with JaGa, by the way, that Macr86 and the IP are likely the same, and that their recent actions with regard to the White Rabbit pages amount to pure disruption at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I concur, the IP and Macr86 are pretty clearly the same person. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The IP listed above (75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is the author of numerous disruptive move requests including many related to various "White Rabbit" pages, and that is probably what you recall. I agree with JaGa, by the way, that Macr86 and the IP are likely the same, and that their recent actions with regard to the White Rabbit pages amount to pure disruption at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Jarmo Gombos
I would appreciate if an uninvolved person could review this. At first I suspected a possible compromised account; now it appears that it may be a new user account created with the same username as the old account, but I'm not certain.
Several months ago, I had interacted with Jgombos (talk · contribs), which that user account redirects to Jarmo Gombos (talk · contribs). I hadn't noticed the page redirect at the time; but today I received a post on my talk page from Jarmo Gombos claiming that the posts by Jgombos were not by them.
Per history, the account had been renamed from Jgombos to Jarmo Gombos in December 2008 [74]. Because of this, and the claim on my talk page, I had initially blocked the account of Jgombos as a possibly compromised account. But, I don't know if that's correct - I've now looked at the log, and it appears a new account was created under the same username after the move.
I've now unblocked the account; but would like someone else to review. Should Jgombos user/talk pages be deleted/reset? Should the discussions be moved from user talk:Jarmo Gombos? I don't see any overlap in pages edited between the two accounts, so I've chosen to AGF and assume they are in fact two distinct persons - but would appreciate opinions of others to ensure they see it the same way. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Given clear evidence of confusion, I'd say block user:Jgombos per WP:UNCONF, leave a talk message ({{unb}}) explaining the situation with Jarmo Gombos. but per usual, don't delete anything unless bad stuff needs redaction. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this vandalism?
Please see this edit, the second time they put a poster-size image in an article, and the editor's comments on their talk page, here, after I explained to them why I changed the image size and put it in the infobox: "And who do you think you are to tell anyone what to put where?" I'd love to hit "[rollback (VANDAL)]", and I'd love to tell them where they can stick that poster and the entire band, but I will refrain. Maybe one of you more diplomatic folks can step in and explain, or do something else, or nuke the article for all I care. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted them again. And posted to their talk page where I've asked them to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same here, but they're not stopping. Dayewalker (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Given a 3RR warning and reverted again. They don't seem interested in discussing this. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same here, but they're not stopping. Dayewalker (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
(←) 31 hrs. 7 07:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I left a note asking the user to contact OTRS Permissions if he is really the photographer. I think that's unlikely enough that I also reported the image on Commons.[75] I don't know if I put the Commons report in the right place there, but I'm sure they'll figure it out. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- They also added a duplicate image under a different name, which I added to your report at Commons, as well as tagging the images as copyvios. Heiro 07:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- See also thread #Clan of Xymox (the article, not the band) needs your help further up this page. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please do: the article still needs your help: I invite editors to compare this version and this version. Look at grammar, footnotes, what's referenced, etc.--the little things. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
IP 96.245.189.195 again
(contribs) After multiple warnings about adding spam and after this AN/I discussion this user was blocked for 31 hours. They're now back and doing it again to the same articles: Dysphoria Self-medication Anthony (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
And again. Dysphoria Self-medication Anthony (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked. Thank you Materialscientist. Anthony (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Fraud accusation and legal threat from user Frankkfong
User Frankkfong (talk · contribs) accused me of fraud and made this legal threat on my talk page for having removed new content per possible wp:COI and wp:NOR at article Calvin cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user seems to have no idea about how Wikipedia works although some of the policies were explained and (i.m.o.) sufficient pointers were provided, both on his and on my talk page. I suggested twice ([76], [77]) to propose the edit on the article talk page, but it looks like the user does not intend to do this. Not knowing what to do with this threat, I wonder whether I should just ignore it and remove part of the section from my talk page?
User notified on talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I left Prof. Fong a note which might or might not help. A little Googling shows that he was in a complicated dispute with Purdue University in the 1980's, that I'm too bleary to read right now, but it does sound like we have to be careful about COI edits and off-wiki battles that he might be fighting. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, he does seem to be quite capable of reading the wikipedia policies carefully if he is pointed to them. He has some points about the fact that the COI policy does not necessarily mean that he he is not allowed to contribute that bear consideration and response. As to the possibility of a legal threat being leveled here, I would imagine that pointing him to the appropriate guideline will inform him sufficiently and that he will act in accordance with the guideline. If I have a chance, I will leave it for him myself. We all at some point knew little of how wikipedia works; it is not intuitive, and certainly our legal threats policy is not something we can expect people to anticipate unless it is brought to their attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I mentioned NLT. Did you see what I left him? Was it ok? 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Editing User DVdm's actions and my inquiries are as found at Message from Frankkfong and Reply to DVdm's Response. The underlying fraud issues are found at The Calvin Cycle Website. Wikipedia's representation of the Calvin cycle was shown in 1989 by the National Science Foundation to be deception, made possible by omitting Melvin Calvin, Francis K. Fong and their co-workers' original papers. It was shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission. In anticipation of his seeking your acquiescence to "ignore it and remove part of it," hours ago I emailed myself DVdm's User Page for incorporation in a report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Director Bobby Hunt, Executive Division of IRS, and Dr. France Cordova, Member, National Science Board, c/o NSF General Counsel Lawrence Rudolph. Respectfully submitted, Francis K. Fong Frankkfong (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. The intervening messages above (and the one below) came in as I was saving mine, creating edit conflicts. I have no intention of taking legal action, but would suggest that you do not acquiesce to DVdm's intention to "ignore it and remove part of it." I'm in a meeting, but will respond to all the messages and notify DVdm of the above and other responses on his User Page at a later hour. Frankkfong (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where is it "shown that DVdm intentionally misused wp:COI and wp:NOR in furtherance of said omission"? We require evidence of allegations of this nature. Please see Help:Diff if you are unfamiliar with the process of linking to specific actions on Wikipedia. Without evidence, our policy requires you to assume that User:DVdm and other users are operating with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The note that 67.122.209.190 left you at DVdm's talk page includes a little more detail on Wikipedia's purpose and several other points related to your notes there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I mentioned NLT. Did you see what I left him? Was it ok? 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, he does seem to be quite capable of reading the wikipedia policies carefully if he is pointed to them. He has some points about the fact that the COI policy does not necessarily mean that he he is not allowed to contribute that bear consideration and response. As to the possibility of a legal threat being leveled here, I would imagine that pointing him to the appropriate guideline will inform him sufficiently and that he will act in accordance with the guideline. If I have a chance, I will leave it for him myself. We all at some point knew little of how wikipedia works; it is not intuitive, and certainly our legal threats policy is not something we can expect people to anticipate unless it is brought to their attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Prof. Fong, I'm confident that DVdm didn't intentionally misuse any WP policies. He may have made a mistake with them but in any case, a lot of subjective judgment is involved in handling such things. Also, when he mentioned removing part of it, I read that as meaning he wanted to focus on the article issue rather than raising a fuss because you had (maybe inadvertantly) broken the NLT policy. Note that "removing" something via normal editing doesn't make it unavailable. It's just like editing an article. You can still see the old versions, including "removed" material, by clicking the history tab at the top of the page, and people do that all the time. So he was't trying to cover anything up. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: with "removing part of it", I meant indeed removing the part of the message containing the legal threat from my user talkpage. I know that I can and may do that at will, but I was wondering whether I should do that. Thanks Anon67 and others for looking into this. DVdm (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I left a note at Talk:Calvin_cycle#Fong_papers asking for uninvolved biology editors to look over Prof. Fong's addition and use any appropriate material from it in the article. My guess is some parts of it are usable but other parts not. The stuff from scientific journals directly about the Calvin cycle is probably fine. The stuff about the Purdue dispute really needs independent secondary sourcing, not a blog belonging to an involved party. I'm not able to look for that right now but I might try a Google Scholar search sometime later. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Legal threats are absolutely forbidden. Why is this
Carl LaFongFrankk Fong still being allowed to edit? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because he has clarfied that he is not going to take any legal action in the above post.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The legal threat is still sitting there on the OP's talk page. He needs to go to that page and retract it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- He is a new user with what is apparently a valid concern and who is currently in a meeting - I think it is ok to give a little leeway. I am definitely not going to take administrative action as long as his retraction of the threat here at ANI stands.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- He may be 100 percent right from a factual standpoint, but that does not matter. Legal threats are forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Folks should really read the website linked to by User:Frankkfong to gain an understanding of the user's particular POV. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The above comment by Frankkfong regarding saving DVdm's page for forwarding to government authorities (including those related to scientific-fraud investigation and taxes) is also IMO well into the realm of WP:NLT chilling effect. Those groups have no sway over WP content and are not being indicated as reliable sources on the content. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. He should be blocked immediately until or if he retracts anything that looks like a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- He is a new user with what is apparently a valid concern and who is currently in a meeting - I think it is ok to give a little leeway. I am definitely not going to take administrative action as long as his retraction of the threat here at ANI stands.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The legal threat is still sitting there on the OP's talk page. He needs to go to that page and retract it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a brief response to ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC). I'm on a short break from the meeting, which may go on for some time. And then I'll need time to digest the input. I have no intentions of taking legal action as stated in the above post. Thanks for your sharing with me an apparently valid concern involving possibly the single most important chemical reaction on earth. Your article on the Calvin cycle was based on one, and only one, paper published in a reputable research journal, Ref. 1 Bassham, Benson and Calvin (1950), which Calvin et al in all of their subsequent publications had refuted. Frankkfong (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- As the above editor refuses to fully retract his various legal threats, he should be indef'd immediately, pending an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Is (name redacted) HIV-positive?
Does anyone know (her)? Do you happen to know if she is HIV-positive? Because we are saying she is. I can't be the only person who thinks that List of HIV-positive people needs permanent semi-protection. I suspect (she) would agree. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree, unless there's some kind of meta-shame above the normal BLP concerns for being portrayed as HIV positive. For at least the past few weeks, there were a few run of the mill IP vandals but it wasn't like several-a-day aside from this morning. If you were concerned about the BLPVIO on (her), why did you not revert that along with the vandalism to Arthur Ashe's name [78] prior to posting here? Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I don't even think such an article should exist, is there something notable about having HIV? If it has lead to notable events (like"the namesake for U.S. federal legislation that addresses the unmet health needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS") then it can be covered in the parent article, do we collate a list of people who suffer from cancer or swine flu? Rant over. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The item cited by the OP looks like an attempt to place a non-notable person, probably a fellow student, on that list as some type of prank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but shouldn't the diff linked at the top of this section be revdeleted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect to the unnamed target of the BLP violation (and to you): do we revdel every time an IP or a throwaway account edits Michael Jackson and says 'Dom Frizzle is a poopy head!'? Please keep in mind that I myself am not asserting that Dom Frizzle, whoever that may be, is a poopy head by any means. Syrthiss (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but shouldn't the diff linked at the top of this section be revdeleted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
BigStripyKitty & Paedophilia content forks
BigStripyKitty (talk · contribs)
User has created (and recreated after they were deleted under A10) Pedophilia (psychiatry) and Paedophilia (sexology) as content forks of Pedophilia. They also keep recreating Pedophilia (disambiguation) as some sort of "overview" of these two new topics. I'm busy this afternoon so apart from tagging the articles haven't got time to look into it - would somone warn/explain to BigStripyKitty what the issue is here and keep an eye on them. (uh, there are also a mass of redirects and so forth they made or changed, fixing a few) --Errant (chat!) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had been doing so, but they seem adamant that the existing pedophilia article is "wrong", and also seems to be making a confusing claim that paedophilia and the variant spelling pedophilia are two different things. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note that the user has now blanked the article again after a final warning so I've reported it at WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Paedophilia wears bow ties and Pedophilia chews gum. Anything else? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, while the spelling is just contrariness, they do have a point about the article. 'Paedophilia/pedophilia' has a number of meanings, and the article is very light on non-medical. In journalism and through a great deal of law enforcement, paedophilia is the term used for engaging in criminal activities relating to children and sex. So viewers of kiddie-porn are paedophiles, but makers of kiddie-porn (who may not have the medical condition) are also paedophiles. Men who have sex with 12 year old girls or 14 year old boys aren't medically paedophiles, but that's the standard (printable) term used for them, and so on. This is an attempt (misguided, but one can see how it could be done better) to separate out the medical phenomenon from the social usage, probably because while the medical phenomenon can be written about non-judgementally, it is impossible to write about the social usage of the term and not state that the ultra-majority view is disapproving. That article annoys a lot of people for this very reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- but makers of kiddie-porn (who may not have the medical condition) are also paedophiles; ah, hmm FWIW no that is not correct. We generally refer to them as Child sex abusers (formal guidelines from the Met use that wording for example). However point taken; the article needs work. I only noticed the badly done POV forking and refusal to engage on the talk page properly, that method is never going to work --Errant (chat!) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The strict definition is the medical one, but from what I can see of the article, the other usage of the term is also given some weight in the article; there are sections dealing with its use in legal systems, for example, where it is usually used to describe those who commit sexual crimes against children, ranging from rape to "grooming" or possession of child pornography, as well as being applied to a range of ages of children which are beyond the strict definition of a term: though not technically correct by either the legal (in most localities) or medical definitions, individuals who commit statutory rape with, say, a 15 year old, would frequently be considered a paedophile by law enforcement. I'm aware this is slightly weaselly but paedophilia isn't exactly my favourite subject so I won't be participating in content discussions anyway. In any case the content discussion should be taken to Talk:Pedophilia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've given the kitty a one-day break break for edit warring. Hopefully, the message gets through, otherwise we'll have to escalate. Favonian (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note, there appears to be an WP:SOCK active here too.Legitimus (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fittingly, a "big stripy kitty" would be another name for a skunk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Open proxy check
A number of IPs were caught by the edit filter (here), and I have given a short block to each for the harassment. The IPs are geographically scattered so they are presumably open proxies. Can someone knowledgeable in this area please check and apply {{blocked proxy}} blocks if necessary? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Page move reversal
User:UKsrilanka has just moved Wikipedia:Starting an article to Shanuka Shasthri Fernando, after creating an article with a similar titles to the latter and having had it removed several times. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, they've created versions of the article nine times now - is it time to show them where the door is? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Someone has moved it back now - but it looks like this user needs some attention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The above article is currently the subject of a slow revert war between two single purpose accounts. The article concerns a controversial police operation in the UK against child pornography on the internet and has been subject to the attention of opposing campaigning groups since its creation and has received the attemtion of many SPAs. For this reason as well as its BLP-implications, it might have benefited from being put on review. In the absence of that option, could someone consider protecting the meta:Wrong version and considering which SPAs may need talking to.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- ErrantX (talk · contribs) would appear to be making useful edits: for that reason, I am reluctant to protect. If the edit war restarts again I'll start doling out the blocks and prots. Best, Moreschi (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeh, I've made some tweaks as best I can, the paragraph being edit warred over was a typical mess ;) See what happens? I'm loathe to do extensive work (which probably is needed TBH) if neither editor will work on the talk page. --Errant (chat!) 16:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, ignore them. Act as you would otherwise and if they start making trouble the page will have eyes attendant now. Moreschi (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should be ok with Eyes on to help :) most of the content is there and ready. Just needs a good spring clean :) --Errant (chat!) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks both. The SPAs do at least seem to have been in communication on each other's talk pages although not in the most constructive way. A few regular Wikipedians who aren't committed to one side or the other should help keep things under control. I can remember adding one sentence to the article but I think most of what I have done is reverting contributions that reek too much of propaganda.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should be ok with Eyes on to help :) most of the content is there and ready. Just needs a good spring clean :) --Errant (chat!) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, ignore them. Act as you would otherwise and if they start making trouble the page will have eyes attendant now. Moreschi (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeh, I've made some tweaks as best I can, the paragraph being edit warred over was a typical mess ;) See what happens? I'm loathe to do extensive work (which probably is needed TBH) if neither editor will work on the talk page. --Errant (chat!) 16:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Stonewalling
Not sure how to proceed with User:GoldDragon. There is a content issue on Roger & Me (see Factual Inaccuracies). The aforementioned user keeps adding low quality sources to the article (a WordPress blog and a book that nowhere mentions the film). The content issue is less of a problem than GoldDragon's stubborn refusal to acknowledge and address the problems identified on both article and user talk. This user responds instead by reproducing huge blocks of text that has zero relevance to the problems described. It seems GoldDragon has been warned and blocked for refusing to discuss contested edits in the past. Moreover, I am now being pursued to articles this user has never edited before, for the single purpose of harassing me. diff diff diff One other editor has express concern that, by refusing to engage, GoldDragon is driving new editors away. diff It would be nice if someone could offer a word of advice to said user in the hope of improving the situation. Wikispan (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- My response is that Wikispan has been whitewashing articles, removing sourced material just because he/she feels that it is too critical. This is not only on Roger & Me (where Wikispan refused to acknowledge film critics like Roger Ebert as well as the CBS article), but also Criticism of Noam Chomsky, here are some editor comments who have complained about Wikispan about Chomsky.
- 13:06, 12 October 2010 PokeHomsar (talk | contribs) (84,769 bytes) (Undid revision 390220469 by Wikispan (talk) you can't justify that much removal in one fell swoop) (undo)
- 21:12, 3 December 2010 TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (67,501 bytes) (How are these two books and the newspaper article "self-published" sources? They both are explicitly critical of Chomsky--I do not see why he is so immune from criticism, unlike US officials?) (undo)
- 01:02, 13 December 2010 TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (67,502 bytes) (Chomsky has attempted to attribute all deaths in the entire war to America, but this is inaccurate.) (undo)
- 13:44, 30 December 2010 Jprw (talk | contribs) (73,268 bytes) (Undid revision 404844102 by Wikispan (talk)New Criterion is a serious publication and the author is notable) (undo)
- (cur | prev) 23:21, 29 December 2010 Chrisrus (talk | contribs) (73,090 bytes) (Undid revision 403378541 by Wikispan (talk)Please see talk and reply before undoing) (undo)
- GoldDragon (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- After a cursory review GoldDragon does appear to be playing a little fast and loose here, which is surprising as he's been around for a while, and should probably know the rules by know. Gold's instigated fairly significant edit warring and likely WP:WIKIHOUNDed User:GoldDragon. This type of aggressive behavior from such an experienced editor is disappointing. Perhaps an AE might be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- (chuckle) I found this sorta interesting. I'd recommend AE and move for a moderately long block so that User:GoldDragon has some time to carefully read WP:DR. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sanctions enforcement
User:Wikidea was previously sanctioned to stay away from me because of incivil behavior: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Sanction_proposal. Nonetheless, he started edit-warring to remove a tag I had added, complete with rude edit summary. I would have settled for an apology, but he's the opposite of apologetic, so I ask for administrator involvement. THF (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- And this was his response to the required ANI notification. He's been repeatedly blocked for other WP:CIVIL violations. THF (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I forgot about that "sanction proposal". I didn't meant to do that. The problem is, THF started by commenting on me, which (from past experience) displays more of his typical, sneering sarcasm: "The solution to an NPOV tag is to fix the NPOV problem, not to blindly remove the tag." I don't personally think there's any difference in the incivility of this sort of thing. I'm probably just more overt.
- But I said his method of placing neutrality tags everywhere was "fat-headed" because I think it's an unproductive way of editing the encyclopedia. I didn't say anything about him personally, until he shoved another of his silly little warning tags on my discussion page. Anyway, I'm happy to apologise to THF for the offence I am clearly causing him, if he will apologise for his own ongoing rudeness. In the meantime we might both do something useful. Cheers, Wikidea 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked 72 hours. If he hadn't just made that "running to Mommy" comment, I might have bought the attempt to apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why has the above page been completed protected from editing [79]. There is an ongoing debate, I feel the user has been banned long enough, others feel differently - fair enough. Stifling debate is les than helpfull to all. Incidentally, I need his help on a very serious page which I am writing, and I don't do "off-wiki." However, it seems Admins are still editing it. Giacomo 18:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Giacomo, its a shame, he was at one point attracting a fair bit of good faith support but he just didn't seem to really want it and fell at one of the last hurdles and has been directed to the WP:BASC , as he is community indeffed and made three rejected unblock requests there is little need for him to continue commenting on his talkpage, a better less stress free option for the user is the email and WP:BASC request. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Email to whom exactly? Giacomo 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The three members of arbcom pressently sitting on the unblock commitee, User:Chase me is one of them. I don't know if you have seen it but there is additional discussion today at the WP:AN here - Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Email to whom exactly? Giacomo 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- - The Ban Appeals Subcommittee considers appeals from banned or blocked users, generally when all other avenues of appeal have been exhausted. It consists of three arbitrators (currently Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, PhilKnight and Cool Hand Luke). Shell Kinney is the subcommittee coordinator. Arbitrators typically spend three months on the subcommittee, with a staggered rotation; one member is replaced each month. - brought from the arbcom page - Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't follow the doings of the Arbcom, far too dull. The fact that VK remains blocked on the say-so of a few admins while another (and involved Admin) has unblocked his adversary all seems very odd, but then who am I too understand the doings here? No wonder there is so much animosity surounding The Troubles! I blame Wikipedia's ignorant admins for most of it. Giacomo 19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that broad brush there. Find your own email links from now on. Syrthiss (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Too much is done by email and in secret already! VK is not accused of pedophaelia, outing, stalking or international espionage, nothing else warrents this secrecy. Giacomo 19:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that broad brush there. Find your own email links from now on. Syrthiss (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't follow the doings of the Arbcom, far too dull. The fact that VK remains blocked on the say-so of a few admins while another (and involved Admin) has unblocked his adversary all seems very odd, but then who am I too understand the doings here? No wonder there is so much animosity surounding The Troubles! I blame Wikipedia's ignorant admins for most of it. Giacomo 19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Request (block me for 2 hrs ASAP)
Could you block me for a period of 2 hours? I need to focus on my schoolwork. Thanks! Perseus (t • c) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about deleting it from your Favorites list? Then you won't be so tempted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not done, just log off or use the wikibreak enforcer. Nakon 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Logging off doesn't help. I did it years ago, and nothing has changed. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Take it off your favorites list and clear your browser history. That will at least make you work at it if you get the urge to come back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will agree with him...it doesn't help whatsoever to remove it from favorites or whatnot, especially seeing as it's just a Google search away. What's really necessary is either a block or a wikibreak enforcer, but the block is the less easily undone of the two. I recommend he see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- That would be fine, although it's important to keep in mind the axiom that "wikipedia is not therapy". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will agree with him...it doesn't help whatsoever to remove it from favorites or whatnot, especially seeing as it's just a Google search away. What's really necessary is either a block or a wikibreak enforcer, but the block is the less easily undone of the two. I recommend he see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Take it off your favorites list and clear your browser history. That will at least make you work at it if you get the urge to come back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Logging off doesn't help. I did it years ago, and nothing has changed. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not done, just log off or use the wikibreak enforcer. Nakon 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Oddity with when a banned user, who got a 2nd chance, hunts the sockpuppets of one another banned user
The user is notified about being discussed:[80]
User:Iaaasi had been blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing, in the meantime he had been made numerous sockpuppets [81] but in a magnamimous gesture of good will, he got a second chance to return. His disruptive editing was in connection with Hungarian and Romanian related issues, and that leaded to his former block for indefinite time.
Yet, when he had spent his indefinite block,a Romanian Ip user emerged on the talk page of administrator JamesBWatson to let him know about the block evasion of a Hungarian user,User:Stubes99, and to make a demand the block of Stubes99 to be extended to indefinite time. [82] Perhaps it is important to note that Iaaasi is Romanian as can be seen on his user page. Then User:YellowFF0 commenced a checkuser against Stubes99 which resulted in having him blocked for indefinite time [83] [84] but it also came to light by checkuser that YellowFF0 is one sockpuppet of Iaaasi.[85]
During this, Iaaasi was about to get a second chance to return to the Wikipedia and his attempts were crowned with success eventually, due to his intrepidity and the benignity of administrator Ronhjones.[86] After his return, he has also been resumed his sock hunting instead of flattening to a sequestered corner.
09:38, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "( unreferenced info, sockpuppetry (Stubes99))"
09:42, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "( unreferenced info, sockpuppetry (Stubes99))"
22:09, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"
22:10, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"
21:28, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"
21:29, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"
11:32, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"
On 27, December 2010, Iaaasi got warned by administrator Wifione that "You call the ip a sock again and you will get a warning from me - and this will lead to a definitive block on you. How can you avoid that situation? File an SPI and list all ips/editors you believe are socks along with definitive behavioral evidence. If you're not ready to do that, stop calling editors/ips socks from this moment onwards! I cannot emphasize this more as an administrator who has already left a note on your page." [87]
Today, on 4, January 2011, it seems that Iaaasi hasn't learned from his previous warnings as he has made 4 edits on Talk:History of television saing that
"Note: The IP 84.1.210.189 is probably the sockpuppet of the banned user Stubes99. He edited recently the article using the IP 84.0.146.116 (Iaaasi (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC))".[88] [89]
And perhaps it needles to say that if administrator Wifione had had any preliminary knowldge of the user, she/he would havn't warned him(=Iaaasi). Once one of his confirmed sockpuppets,User:Rogvaiv1, warned User:Squash Racket ->Reminder [90] providing a wikilink to it made by administrator Tiptoety-> [91] "Instead of blindly reverting those who you think are socks, I might suggest you file an SPI case and request a CheckUser. Thanks," as early as 29 July, 2010.
--Nmate (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Van Epperson, vandalism, legal stuff
A note to readers about vandalism was placed on this article's main page. I reverted with a message to seek page protection. It looks like the ip who left the note is the article's subject, and he was still upset about a pretty blatant vandalism from a month ago and a long history of vandalism from which led to a month of page protection. (The ip then also left a note at the vandal's talk page indicating he was seeking punitive action). With page protection expired, the ip put up his warning, which I took down. Then I got a message on my talk page raising legal issues with detailed contact info. Please advise. Ocaasi (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Update, the note was placed back and reverted again. This looks unpleasant. Perhaps someone could protect the page while we figure out what's going on. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Have protected against IP editors for 2 weeks, as a first-line response. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps this alleged Mr. Epperson should read Wikipedia:No legal threats?
- But seriously, I'd point this guy towards Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject) then move on. NickCT (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd do that if it were a normal editor, but this appears to be the subject of the article, which has been repeatedly vandalized, so I sympathize with his frustration. Does the legal issue need to get passed on the the foundation? Ocaasi (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've left a message for the editor who initially had the concern about vandalism. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good, now we've covered User_talk:76.246.159.39 both of his ips. I think this is today's. Ocaasi (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- He had left me his phone number, so on a lark I called. He was nice and just doesn't know what to do, so I gave him the OTRS email and hopefully they can help him. This vandalism has been persistent and from one ip which might have a personal connection, so I think he's trying to get to the bottom of it. Also, he's a Wikipedia novice, so obviously not versed in legal threat protocol or other editing issues. The article doesn't have much activity, so maybe page protection could be extended, or, it seems like an ideal candidate for a Pending Changes BLP. Ocaasi (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have requested oversight to remove the content of the offending edit from the page history. I could have done this myself but it didn't seem to be out and out defamatory, more mischievous (though still quite inappropriate of course). If enacted, hopefully this will cover his concern about the page history. Of course he has now left his full contact details on your talk page, which should probably be redacted too, in a hideous infinite-regression-of-mirrors kind of way...Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- He had left me his phone number, so on a lark I called. He was nice and just doesn't know what to do, so I gave him the OTRS email and hopefully they can help him. This vandalism has been persistent and from one ip which might have a personal connection, so I think he's trying to get to the bottom of it. Also, he's a Wikipedia novice, so obviously not versed in legal threat protocol or other editing issues. The article doesn't have much activity, so maybe page protection could be extended, or, it seems like an ideal candidate for a Pending Changes BLP. Ocaasi (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good, now we've covered User_talk:76.246.159.39 both of his ips. I think this is today's. Ocaasi (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've left a message for the editor who initially had the concern about vandalism. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd do that if it were a normal editor, but this appears to be the subject of the article, which has been repeatedly vandalized, so I sympathize with his frustration. Does the legal issue need to get passed on the the foundation? Ocaasi (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Creating socks to spam
Northmoor (talk · contribs) spammed Gil de Ferran about "Northmoor", a band. After being warned for spam, user returned with Meandyou95 (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)