TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) m →User:Matt Lewis: tyop |
Jack forbes (renamed) (talk | contribs) comment |
||
Line 788: | Line 788: | ||
:*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC&oldid=344903635#Being_Bold_-_I_intend_to_submit_.27Community_de-adminship:_The_original_Uncle_G_proposal.27_for_RfC_no_later_than_Friday.2C_Feb._19 From the same page, a few days later]. In an ironic twist, I believe he's overreacting to my observation that he doesn't have a good grasp of when RfCs are appropriate, or an understanding of what happened to his uncertified RfC/U of Ben MacDui. This time, it's a screaming threat (my italics, but otherwise his formatting: "''<u>IF YOU EVER GROSSLY MISREPRESENT ME DIRECTLY LIKE THIS AGAIN I '''WILL''' TAKE AN RFC/U OUT ON YOU. I AM ALLOWED TO DO THAT. DO '''NOT''' SUGGEST THAT I AM NOT!</u>. Who are you to suggest that people are not allowed to do as many RFC/u's they feel they need to?''" |
:*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC&oldid=344903635#Being_Bold_-_I_intend_to_submit_.27Community_de-adminship:_The_original_Uncle_G_proposal.27_for_RfC_no_later_than_Friday.2C_Feb._19 From the same page, a few days later]. In an ironic twist, I believe he's overreacting to my observation that he doesn't have a good grasp of when RfCs are appropriate, or an understanding of what happened to his uncertified RfC/U of Ben MacDui. This time, it's a screaming threat (my italics, but otherwise his formatting: "''<u>IF YOU EVER GROSSLY MISREPRESENT ME DIRECTLY LIKE THIS AGAIN I '''WILL''' TAKE AN RFC/U OUT ON YOU. I AM ALLOWED TO DO THAT. DO '''NOT''' SUGGEST THAT I AM NOT!</u>. Who are you to suggest that people are not allowed to do as many RFC/u's they feel they need to?''" |
||
:He sees Wikipedia's dispute resolution tools as blunt instruments — cudgels to be used to try to get his own way. (In the last two weeks, he's threatened three RfC/Us, and filed one more.) It's a decidedly destructive and disruptive attitude. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC) |
:He sees Wikipedia's dispute resolution tools as blunt instruments — cudgels to be used to try to get his own way. (In the last two weeks, he's threatened three RfC/Us, and filed one more.) It's a decidedly destructive and disruptive attitude. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
::I've known Matt on wiki for a couple of years now and very early on had a wee run in with him. I have come to realise though that Matt is here because he wants to improve Wikipedia, whether that's articles or in this case policy. I have also come to realise that he can come across occasionally as a little confrontational but, I believe that's because he really ''cares'' about this project. I think it would progress things further if everyone laid off the 'he said that but he said this' type of discussion. If everyone could draw a line under any bad feeling from before and talked in a more collegiate manner then this Ani thread could be archived. Anyone? [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 18:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Notifying of discussion at village pump == |
== Notifying of discussion at village pump == |
Revision as of 18:14, 20 February 2010
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Request from Chuck Marean for review of ban
Banned user Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) has asked for the following to be copied from his talk page:
Please move this appeal to ANI for consideration. I understand why I was community banned and I’ll do constructive edits instead. My community ban was because I did some major edits without a consensus and sufficient preparation. For example, I reworded a Current Events blurb to say the victims of the Madoff investment fraud had not received a government bailout (when the references merely stated they had lost a lot of money). I’ve been thinking of ways to find consensus, such as working in my user space and getting my edits reviewed, looking at edit histories to try to find out who wrote what I want to edit, mentioning the edit idea on the article’s talk page, and putting forth more effort when reading sources and writing. I apologize for editing Current Events without knowing for certain I had a consensus. Rather than asking, I supposed everyone would agree with my edit. I believe it is uncivil to call people disruptive or vandals or uncivil or stupid or not neutral or bad editors, and so forth, although I can understand a writer being upset when someone else edits or corrects his writing. So, to improve my editing, I could ask if I have a consensus and I could read the policies I haven’t read and I could find and read a book on how to find sources and so forth. I think my community ban is no longer needed, as I’ve just explained. Chuck Marean 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
For reference, the most recent AN/I discussion seems to be here. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is the guy who thought it was a news item that the European Union existed. Also, the issue with Madoff was nothing to do with bailouts - the user thought it was 'biased' to report that Madoff had pleaded guilty to criminal fraud by running a Ponzi scheme, and been sentenced to a lot of years in jail for it. Marean thought the article should only say that Madoff had somehow managed to accidentally go bankrupt. Basically, he did a lot of edits that inserted utter nonsense (or possibly an alternative reality of some kind) into articles, causing a lot of time end effort to be wasted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Unban request does not show that he understands the problems with his edits, and as Elen states above, it also misrepresents the proximate reason for the ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, I was the Admin who blocked him. However, reviewing the WP:AN/I thread that led me to this sanction, I find that he simply didn't get it then & I have to wonder whether he even gets it now. (WP:NPOV doesn't mean that if someone confesses to a crime, experts have verified that he did the crime, & a legal court found him guilty & threw the book at him for the crime, Wikipedia must say something a lot less definite & incriminating.) But if he can find a mentor who will help him understand the actual problem, I'm willing to withdraw my objection. But according to the earlier thread, he already burnt out one mentor by that point. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No per that AN/Bernie Madoff thing that got him banned in the first place. I'm sorry, lack of clue is one thing, but complete and willful ignorance is another. –MuZemike 18:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- But enough about [personal attack on politician redacted]. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMPETENCE. I remember the ban and this editor just isn't able to be productive. I think he actually means well, but as mean as it is, even well-meaning people who harm the encyclopedia can't be allowed to edit it. -- Atama頭 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose after reading the long AN thread; I think he still doesn't get it. There's a large gulf between being bold and being completely wrong. Mr. Marean was completely wrong, to the point that not even the person whom he cast in a better light Bernie Madoff would agree with his edits. Big deal; revert and move on; except that Mr. Marean didn't get it at that point, and continued on AN to insist he was correct in his edits. Even in this unblock request there is an undercurrent of 'you just didn't understand my edits'. Further, that he wants to be unbanned and read policies is again, wrong. Read the policies first, understand them, and (now that his talk page is unlocked), try proposing edits there. If he can propose constructive edits that actually line up with reality for a while, then ask to be unbanned. Until he proves he can make constructive edits, I can't help but think this request is putting the cart before the horse. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite simply put, I believe he is simply saying what he thinks needs to be said in order to get unblocked. He still has not admitted that he made any mistake, simply chalking up this to 'not having consensus'. I'd like to say that a mentor could help, but if he can't understand what was wrong with the edits by now, I don't think a mentor will be much of a help. Sodam Yat (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I remember him, oppose, as mentioned above WP:COMPETENCE. One doesn't get community banned for a minor disagreement on the rules. A willfully ignorant and incompetent person, who I thought quit possibly was just a really clever troll playing Forrest Gump.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- [1]I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. I know which one my money's on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- 'Whoever heard of the United Kingdom'?! You're shitting your Uncle HalfShadow, right? That's Newfie joke dumb. HalfShadow 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, he's either too incompetent, or a plain ole garden variety...... you get the point. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Nobody lost money underestimating the intelligence of the US public," to quote one of our sages. We have people who doubt Hawaii is part our nation, so I'm no longer surprised at the ignorance of my fellow citizens. (I don't know what those eople think the 50th state is in that case. Canada? God, if that were the case, I hope those 34 million people would rate more than 2 senators & 2 representatives.) -- 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, he's either too incompetent, or a plain ole garden variety...... you get the point. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- 'Whoever heard of the United Kingdom'?! You're shitting your Uncle HalfShadow, right? That's Newfie joke dumb. HalfShadow 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- [1]I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. I know which one my money's on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reject appeal; he still doesn't get it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Oh sweet Jesus, oppose. This is one we do NOT want back. --Smashvilletalk 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose He's either monstrously stupid or a clever troll; either way, we can do without him. HalfShadow 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I feel bad for the guy, but I have to concur with the above. It's not worth the effort if he is going to act like that. Wikipedia is not for everyone. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's worth mentioning that the user has requested mentorship (on the condition of their return) on their talk page. Swarm(Talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I note that the diff he cites as some of his best work was immediately reverted for destroying the formatting [2] on the Character Formatting section of How to edit a page. I think he would need a tutor, not a mentor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I've been misreading, but didn't he have a mentor when he was blocked? --Smashvilletalk 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I seem to remember something like that, and maybe something about them giving up in frustration. [3], ah ha, yup, here it is. I think it was actually part of the reason this editor retired last year. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I've been misreading, but didn't he have a mentor when he was blocked? --Smashvilletalk 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I note that the diff he cites as some of his best work was immediately reverted for destroying the formatting [2] on the Character Formatting section of How to edit a page. I think he would need a tutor, not a mentor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what: In the interests of fairness (just in case Chuck has had a Flowers for Algernon experience, how about asking him (a) to say how he'd explain now what Madoff had done (because I honestly still don't think he understands); (b) to explain why he now thinks that changing the article title to Queen Elizabeth II of England would be a bad idea; and (b)select a couple of topics where he'd like to make edits, and tell us what those edits would be. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Lifting community ban on Petri Krohn
This user has been banned for a year from Wikipedia as a result of a community ban, imposed, as it was discovered later, as a result of wikistalking campaign by the so-called EEML cabal group. (see this evidence: [4]. The only his guilt was that he suggested that the recent creation of the so-called Historical Truth Commission by the Russian government may be in part, triggered by the Digwuren's group (later discovered to be EEML conspiracy) activity in Wikipedia.
He also has been previously banned as a result of WP:DIGWUREN case which was also abused by the EEML group by demanding the remedies were "symmetric" and accusing the arbitrator Kirill Loshkin of ethnic prejudice towards Russian cause. Petri Krohn was completely irrelated to the cause of that arbitration (which was good article promotion shopping in IRC by Digwuren), other than being political opponent of the EEML group. He was inactive in political topics for 3 months by the time of the arbitratiuon.
It was discovered lated that hounding political opponents and driving them off Wikipedia is a common tactic of the EEML group, other case being Russavia (see evidence here:[5]).
It has been suggested by the Arbitration Committee members that the victims of the group (Russavia and Petri Krohn) to apply of lifting of their respective bans, Russavia already did and the ban has been lifted.
I personally know no Wikipedia's rule Petri Krohn ever broke and suggest him to be unblocked.--Dojarca (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just noting that the Arbitration Committee's one-year ban on this user was imposed in 2007 and expired in 2008. According to the block log, the user is currently blocked/banned as the result of a different discussion. Also, before spending time on this discussion, do we know whether Petri Krohn actually wishes to return to editing? Not commenting on any other aspect at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just re-read my post. Second time he was "community-banned" by the Wiki-stalking campign by the EEML members which is evident from their mail archive:[6], submitted to the Arbcom. There are posts where they discuss how to better drive him out of Wikipedia and how to better vote on his ban to avoid suspicions of stalking. The formal reason for the community ban was his mention that Digwuren's group behavior in Wikipedia maybe played role in the creation of the Historical Truth Commition by the Russian government. Currently he is under this ban which was clearly discovered to be canvassed.--Dojarca (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no canvassing was discovered by the ArbCom, which was the reason why ArbCom did not remove his ban. Also, I believe that the current ArbCom needs to be notified in this, as there may be a separate issue with Krohn's ban not being lifted. --Sander Säde 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Canvassing was discoverad by the Arbcom.--Dojarca (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, can you please link the relevant (about Krohn's block) finding of fact by ArbCom and not delusional musings? --Sander Säde 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - If we are chiming in to determine if Petri Krohn is to be unblocked and allowed to return, I support that. Looking at the thread in his block log, it looks like he was blocked very soon after coming off his 1 year ban for allegedly making threats [7]. I don't really see a direct threat though, it looks more like a misunderstanding blown out of proportion... the editor even apologized and removed the alleged threat but was blocked anyway. A number of EEML partisans pile on at that discussion, which kinda makes it seem corrupted to me. PK was active at his own talk page as recently as last January, so it's safe to assume he is checking in now and then and perhaps still interested in participating. He has something like 27,000 live edits, which is fairly prolific... I say let him come back and contribute. Additioanlly, the ArbCom ban was over long ago, he is currently community blocked and can be unblocked by consensus, as noted at the bottom of the block discussion from last May. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. The admin that decided the ban is apparently not around, having
invoked the right to vanishrenamed his account and retired (see User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired). I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal. Pcap ping 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC) - Support - well-worth giving another chance. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- "It was teh Cabalz!" is not compelling when considered in the context of an editor who has already been banned once by ArbCom. I think an independent review of the evidence is indicated and would suggest that if this user wants to return to editing then they should contact the ban appeals subcommittee, who will judge the case dispassionately on its merits. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at the face of it it's fairly clear what happened. I don't think anyone is making such a simplistic statement blaming it on only Cabals, but the current block is somewhat tainted, IMHO, based on what I read in the block discussion. I don't know the blocked editor, so have no personal opinion of him one way or the other, I just think it's a shame to leave such a prolific content contributor blocked. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support lifting the ban, although making the un-ban provisional/conditional may not be a bad idea. I have taken a look at the original AN/I thread where the ban was imposed. The number of users who cast !votes was relatively small and a significant proportion of them were EEML-related users. There was a valid misconduct case with respect to the banned editor, but it does look like the discussion was tainted. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments made in violation of current topic bans |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Oppose Petri Krohn was blocked for making threats. See this archived thread, and the one after it. Cardamon (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support with caveat As with myself, Petri was a target of the WP:EEML - the email archive (freely available online) is full of emails between EEML members with tactics and the like on how to off content opponents such as Petri, and the thread linked to by Cardamon is but one example of gang tactics by the EEML. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Russavia#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus I make note of "In "20090424-1635-[WPM] GFDL", Biruitoral claims, blazenly, that any accusations that they make against myself, even if knowingly false, would only help the team." The same holds true towards Petri - he didn't make any threats - he simply pointed out that people who push some points of view could be banned from entering Russia - it is a fact, except it was totally blown out of proportion, and in no small part due to the EEML web brigadiers. Wikipedia is full of editors who have a bias - hell, the EEML was set up specifically to push an anti-Russian bias on Wikipedia, and to off editors who opposed them. My experience with Petri is that although some information he introduces into article does not conform to the view of the world held by several nationalist governments, his edits are sourced to reliable sources. This is where people such as Martintg and Vecrumba have to realise that points of view which do not conform to their own point of view are allowed on Wikipedia. Or are those two editors arguing that editors with an agenda should be banned from Wikipedia? Vecrumba, especially, should be careful how he answers this, as his own agenda is well known, and by looking at his website, he too is promoting fringe views which equate communism with nazism. Back to Petri, I would support his unbanning with the caveat that he try to refrain from editing articles where he has a direct conflict of interest, meaning those articles relating to organisations he is involved with, and the people of those organisations - any edits he wishes to make to such articles should be discussed on the talk page first, as per normal COI procedure. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 02:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- No objections to unblock because he was a productive contributor. Yes, it's true that Petri identified Digwuren's identity in real life and intimidated him. But Digwuren is gone. Who else Perti is going to intimidate? Biophys (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support unblock. Krohn's ban was not genuine community decision, but result of harassment and block-shopping by secret mailing list group (EEML case). DonaldDuck (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. ArbCom did not find any problems with this particular episode (indeed, in the non-ArbCom EEML "evidence" Dojarca links, there is a suggestion not to support Petri's ban). Making threats (the reason for his block) is not acceptable. Eastern European topics have noticeably calmed down without Petri's POV-pushing and hoaxes (which also go beyond Eastern European topics, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moderated_nuclear_explosion). And I do believe that for a first thing Petri should also notify if he wants to resume editing using this particular account. --Sander Säde 17:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
False information on Gregorian and Julian calendars
62.31.226.77 insists upon inserting an incorrect procedure, based on original research, for converting between the Gregorian and Julian calendars into Gregorian calendar. The error is shown at Talk:Gregorian calendar#Novel conversion procedure. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This series of edits have extended to Julian calendar, with statements indicating that the USSR adopted the religious New Calendar despite the fact that the USSR changed calendars in 1919, four years before the New Calendar was created. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
After what period of administrator inaction may an issue be taken to arbitration? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above claim is false.
62.31.226.77 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Have patience, I think going to ArbCom would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think it would help if you explained how the IP is being disruptive in more detail, provided more diffs. You're assuming that admins will understand this content dispute and side with you. Fences&Windows 23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- In several edits including this one to Gregorian calendar 62.31.226.77 (who also edits as 156.61.160.1) added a method to find the difference in dates between the Julian and Gregorian calendar. It is well know that the rule is that centurial years (ending in 00) are always Julian leap years, but not Gregorian leap years unless they are also evenly divisible by 400. The years 1200 and 2800 are leap years under both systems, so the difference should not increase in those years. When 62.31.226.77's procedure is followed (and all divisions are integer divisions, remainders are dropped), the results are:
- For 1199 and 1200:
- ((1199 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 6
- ((1200 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 7
- so the difference increases, which is wrong.
- For 1199 and 1200:
- Similarly, for 2799 and 2800:
- ((2799 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 19
- ((2799 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 19
- Similarly, for 2799 and 2800:
- As for the Julian calendar, 62.31.226.77 made a series of edits in which he mixed up the meanings of civil and religious calendars, and indicated countries adopted a religious calendar, the New Calendar, when that is plainly impossible. The most recent pair of such edit is here.
- He/she changed
- The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but it has generally been replaced by the Gregorian calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.
- to
- The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but thirteen days have been excised to make the date the same as in other countries. This is described as the "New calendar". Research will be needed to establish which leap year model has been adopted (if any), but the civil calendar is identical with the new calendar of fixed holy days in Orthodox countries.
- which is nonsense for several reasons, including
- If thirteen days are excised from the Julian calendar, it isn't the Julian calendar anymore.
- Russia retained the Julian calendar into the 20th century, but when the USSR took over, they certainly didn't adopt the New Calendar because it didn't exist until 1923, and the USSR government was hostile to religion.
- Civil calendars don't have holy days, so it is nonsense to say they the civil calendar and New Calendar are identical in this respect. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I find this arithmetic rather odd:
- ((1199 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 6
When I add 1199 and 300, I get 1499. When I divide that by 100, I get 1.499. Then I multiply that by 7, getting 10.493. Then divide that by 9, getting 1.1658888... (with the "8" repeating). Finally, subtract 4 from that, getting −2.8341111... (with the "1" repeating). How is that equal to 6? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- As state above, "and all divisions are integer divisions, remainders are dropped". 1499/100 = 14. 14 * 7 = 98. 98/9 = 10. 10 - 4 = 6. Integer arithmetic, the floor function, and the ceiling function are all quite common in calendar calculations. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Legal threat
I interpret the edit summary in this edit to be a legal threat. It states "(Certain individuals have been telling lies about me to the administrators and on talk pages. Be careful what you say as your remarks are disseminated worldwide and libel suits are not unknown.)." Jc3s5h (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- A registered user would be indef'd for that comment, which is probably why some editors prefer to remain as IP's, as they can get away with more. An IP is seldom indef'd, but a lengthy block would seem to be called for. Possibly with a fitting comment such as, "Certain individuals have been making legal threats, and lengthy blocks for such threats are well known." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's the same IP address for the last month, safe to say it's static. Say a 6 month block for legal threats? Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked for 3 months, and neutral block comment and notice provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's the same IP address for the last month, safe to say it's static. Say a 6 month block for legal threats? Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Block evasion
The blocked user continues to edit using his other IP address, 156.61.160.1 Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just blocked that one for 3 months to agree with the original block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
SPI followup
Since the thread above where this was previously discussed was closed:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp followup
The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp cleared one editor of socking (User:Constitutional1787); for some reason this editor remains indeffed. The SPI concluded that one editor (User:Scalabrineformvp) had created two socks, User:Markweisbrot and User:Kriswarner - an excellent example of naive use of checkuser. What kind of sockmaster previously operating with undisclosed COI creates two aliases using the real names of people associated with the relevant articles (hence raising COI issues), and then uses those socks entirely independently of each other and of the "sockmaster"? It does not take a long look at the edit histories to divine 3 people in the same location. (Given that the accounts have not supported each other in any way, claims of meatpuppetry are so far equally off base - though this would need to be monitored in future.) User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, the situation being acknowledged; the other "sock" and supposed "sockmaster" remain blocked. Does anyone feel like, at some convenient time, unblocking these 3 accounts? One exonerated of being a sock by CU, one clearly not a sockmaster, one clearly not a sock and also the author of an OTRS ticket. Anyone? Rd232 talk 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Very embarassing for Wikipedia. :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would think it more embarassing that someone can get their article cleansed by writing to Wiki OTRS, even though COI and meatpuppetry policies were violated. That would seem to damage Wiki's credibility more than blocking editors who violate policies. There are still outstanding meatpuppetry questions here, but that's for tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- As Sandy states, very embarassing. I don't know the situation details enough to point out which act is the most embarassing only to know that Wikipedia is getting a black eye. :( or x( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would think it more embarassing that someone can get their article cleansed by writing to Wiki OTRS, even though COI and meatpuppetry policies were violated. That would seem to damage Wiki's credibility more than blocking editors who violate policies. There are still outstanding meatpuppetry questions here, but that's for tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Very embarassing for Wikipedia. :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It seems unwise and uncalled for to block a renowned, international journalist, a regular columnist for The Guardian as well as a contributor to the LA Times and The New York Times, after he's complained via OTRS about the NPOV balance of his BLP here. It is not likely to enhance Wikipedia's reputation out there in the real world.
- I would think differently if there were a pattern of longstanding abuse; but looking at the edits that the Markweisbrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account has made here, I don't see it. Assuming the IP checked out, it seems he used his RL name and sits in the same building as his colleagues, one of whom also used his RL name.
- By all means, hand out all the appropriate warnings about COI and meatpuppeting and all the rest of it ... but let's also remember that we are hardly in a position to claim the moral high ground on neutral BLPs in general, and this one in particular. --JN466 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- There seems to be a fundamental understanding of Checkuser limitations here; Constitutional1787 may not have been editing from the same IP, but meatpuppetry is meatpuppetry, and they've admitted to that, as well as reverted other editors to add unsourced material to articles. Not to mention that all CUs haven't been run yet. On the other hand, I found it unfortunate that the Weisbrot account was welcomed with no mention of COI issues until I added it. And the fact that he complained to OTRS doesn't make the complaint valid; those articles have largely been edited by CEPR-friendly editors since their inception, providing a strange context for their complaints about the content. We still have Rd232 and JRSP disappearing at a time that Off2riorob and the Brazilian IP took up the same edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, they are newbies, probably three guys sitting in an office, and the term "meatpuppetry" most likely means nothing to them. --JN466 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, and was troubled that editors welcomed them without explaining the COI issues, but the other problem is that this has been going on for a long time, they don't seem repentant, and although they've been editing the articles for a long time, they're still blaming Wikipedia for the content. Someone should explain to them that they should add suggestions to talk pages, and we should still get to the bottom of the coordinated editing across all of these articles. Checkuser can't catch everything, and the statements that Constitional1787 is unrelated demonstrate some lack of understanding of CU. The way the OTRS report has been used to censor content is alarming, and sets a bad precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, they are newbies, probably three guys sitting in an office, and the term "meatpuppetry" most likely means nothing to them. --JN466 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, a glance through JRSP's contribs shows that he disappears for a week or more at a time not infrequently [10]. Also, if you're going to repeatedly raise suspicions, then do add him to the SPI. In fact, throw in Jayen466, User:Pohta ce-am pohtit (who AFD'd a Venezuela article of Sandy's); who else? Let's get some fire into this witch-hunt already! No-one who does anything Sandy dislikes shall edit unless approved by checkuser! (Which is infallible, because IPs are burned into our foreheads at birth...)
- You know perfectly well why I tried to semi-retire - and not editing for a week was quite an achievement for me; I was hoping to avoid it til March. But this OTRS mess - including blocking editors from the OTRS ticket-placing organisation as socks, despite this being pretty obviously ridiculous - forced me to start again. The sooner this can be resolved, the sooner I can slip back into semi-retirement and not edit til at least March.
- Claims that CEPR editors have had a hand in those articles ("this has been going on for a long time, they don't seem repentant, and although they've been editing the articles for a long time, they're still blaming Wikipedia for the content.") are without evidence. The only one of the accounts in question to have been around a while (User:Scalabrineformvp, March 2009) has a grand total of 30 mainspace edits. Looking at editor involvement at Mark Weisbrot [11] and CEPR [12] doesn't suggest major IP involvement or undiscovered sock involvement either.
- "Someone should explain to them that they should add suggestions to talk pages" - Well that's all user:Markweisbrot did - and he's still blocked. User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, having agreed that. user:Scalabrineformvp said the same but is still blocked.
- No evidence of meatpuppetry for User:Constitutional1787. The unblock requests from the Markweisbrot/Kriswarner/Scalabrine CEPR guys do not mention him; User_talk:Kriswarner is pretty clear in only referring to those 3 accounts. Constitutional made 5 edits to Mark Weisbrot before being blocked; those reverts came over 24 hours after Scalabrine's last involvement, so no impact on 3RR. This user was cleared by checkuser, and like all the blocked users mentioned here, has still not even received a block message such that they can properly request an unblock. Rd232 talk 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've added block messages to the relevant user talk pages such that they can request unblocking. Rd232 talk 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232, do you honestly fail to see how attacking, accusatory, assuming bad faith, and disruptive your posts are? Are you going to continue attacking me across multiple noticeboards,[13] are you going to retire, or would you like to stop attacking, start assuming good faith, and actually engage the first step in dispute resolution, which is your or my talk page, without removing my conciliatory posts from your talk page [14] or refusing to discuss with me because you're going on Wikibreak? [15] Your post above is full of bad faith and wasting everyone's time here, and you are misusing noticeboards to air your vendetta against me (although you don't seem to have noticed that no one else is buying your attempts to discredit me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I have had substantial support by email from people who understand what you can be like (I find it hard to believe you're *always* like this). The problem is that it would be a full-time job keeping up with your misrepresentations if you ceased repeating them when shown false; but you just repeat them regardless, steamrollering on, making the task beyond human capacity. Rd232 talk 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232, do you honestly fail to see how attacking, accusatory, assuming bad faith, and disruptive your posts are? Are you going to continue attacking me across multiple noticeboards,[13] are you going to retire, or would you like to stop attacking, start assuming good faith, and actually engage the first step in dispute resolution, which is your or my talk page, without removing my conciliatory posts from your talk page [14] or refusing to discuss with me because you're going on Wikibreak? [15] Your post above is full of bad faith and wasting everyone's time here, and you are misusing noticeboards to air your vendetta against me (although you don't seem to have noticed that no one else is buying your attempts to discredit me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Something for an admin to do now: I think the most urgent thing here, most appropriate for ANI, is to unblock User:Markweisbrot. I think it is pretty clear he was not involved in any malfeasance, and that it is the real Mark Weisbrot. These diffs, his only genuine edits: [16] and [17] clarify things. I think he now knows his account should only be used by him. If the subject of a BLP is bothered enough by its content to send in an OTRS complaint, we should be very circumspect about blocking him or keeping him blocked.John Z (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are still checkusers pending, including another new account continuing the CEPR edits. It is premature to say the CEPR crowd understands what they did wrong, and the representations of some of these blocks (example Constitutional1787) are incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's getting to the point where it would less of an effort to document posts by Sandy which do not contain misrepresentations. Here, Sandy is referring to User:RegisMordor, who may well be a sock (probably of User:Scalabrineformvp or User:Constitutional1787, both whom remain unjustly blocked), or else someone else at CEPR than the people involved previously; checkuser cannot distinguish that. Either way, the account so far has made 1 (one) talk page comment[18]. The entire gist of the CEPR/COI discussion was that these people (however many there are) should be limiting themselves to talk page comments. Rd232 talk 11:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- We block people as individuals for their actions, not as members of a group, and literary and editing style counts for something in identification. As I said, it is doubtful the Markweisbrot account will ever be used again, but it is important to give him, or any complaining real world blp subject the benefit of the doubt. It is very unlikely that the (co)boss of CEPR is doing anything untoward, he surely has better things to do. Unblock, if there are new edits, ask him nicely if he is MW, this is probably confirmable already by people with the tools, given the OTRS email. The damage to wikipedia of continued blocking is much greater than the microscopic probability of misuse of this account.John Z (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- But Kriswarner's recent post at Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research indicates that she/they/whomever still haven't grasped the situation ... hopefully my post there will illuminate. [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think your implications of meatpuppetry and nonunderstanding are true. And as I just said to UnitAnode at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp, "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" - a point you quote yourself. Yet no evidence whatsoever has been provided that these accounts have interacted in ways that amount to supporting each other. I've looked into the edit histories and seen none, with the sole exception of 1 (one) occasion at Mark Weisbrot, an occasion which suggests that User:Constitutional1787 is actually a sock of user:Scalabrineformvp, unlike the other two accounts. Ironically, checkuser said no to Constitutional being a sock; maybe whoever did that could confirm how strong that conclusion was; on that one occasion, Scalabrine/Constitutional edited one hour apart. Rd232 talk 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has long since descended into the sort of petty bickering characteristic of every other discussion involving this particular set of users. In the interest of making progress, I have a few simple requests. Sandy, your COI and meatpuppet concerns seem easy to address with a warning, so please provide diffs showing why each of the following should not be unblocked. I'm not looking for a rehash of your arguments going into the SPI or any recitation of policy. I just want to know what exactly you think they have done (especially since the SPI, but not exclusively) that makes you think unblocking these accounts would harm or potentially harm the project:
RD232, please let me know if there are any editors I have missed on this very narrow issue of people blocked during this mess. Both of you, please do me the favour of not responding to the other's comments until I've had a chance to do so. You antagonize each other, seemingly, without effort, and I don't want to get sidetracked in another argument. -Rrius (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's it. Markweisbrot and Kriswarner (the only account unblocked) are clearly distinct from Scalabrine - for reasons I've elaborated repeatedly. However I noted above that it seems Constitutional might be a sock of Scalabrine, but that checkuser had given a clear "no"; maybe a re-examination could see how definite that no is, since it might be a location nearby (home/office type thing). However in the heated OTRS circumstances and given the nature of the edits, if Constitutional is a sock of Scalabrine, I think Scalabrine should still be unblocked and warned. The issue is really what to do about Constitutional, who checkuser cleared, but remains blocked, and may be a sock. There is actually also one other account (User:RegisMordor, not yet blocked) who is certainly a sock of somebody at CEPR... it only made one talkpage comment, and I'd suggest just blocking it without worrying about who it is (since the many-people-in-one-office thing makes it impossible to say). Rd232 talk 11:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Simon-in-sagamihara blocked for disruptive CSD tagging - comments welcome
Simon-in-sagamihara (talk · contribs) has a history of making poor CSD taggings. Numerous editors have spoken to him about it, and he's showed little to no interest in improving his work. See various sections here, here and here (sorry if these overlap a bit - Simon's habit of archiving talkpage discussions to "/dev/null", i.e. removing them without archiving, makes it rather difficult), and in general the history of his talk page.
Earlier this month I gave him this notice, which suggested that he take some time to look of the CSD criteria before doing more tagging; I also offered to help 'mentor' him in CSD work. He removed it without response.
More recently, he was given this warning by PanchoS (talk · contribs); his initial reply was "Generic reply", followed later by this clear indication that he still saw no problem: "Some other guy gets butthurt because his article got tagged as spam and spergs out, whatever". I warned him that if he continued with inappropriate taggings I'd block him (having also reminded him of my mentoring offer). He made no direct response to that, but said he'd start using the article incubator (sorry, I can't find that diff right now).
Today, he began speedy tagging again - including A7s on several comedians with claims of importance. Most striking is this one, containing the sentence "He has also gained international recognition through winning Best International Show at the New Zealand Comedy Festival". Given the multiple editors' attempts to persuade him to stop bad CSD taggings and his repeated failure to respond positively, I have blocked him for 24 hours. It's my hope that he'll take this time to reflect on how he can improve his CSD work: because he does have a lot of good taggings in his history but all these bad ones are becoming disruptive. Any comments on the block are welcome (I'll be going offline for the evening quite soon, so if my block is deemed bad feel free to reverse it without waiting for my input). Olaf Davis (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good block, I endorse it entirely. I've declined a few of his speedies myself, I think - while he seems well-intentioned, he does tend to be quite inaccurate and it's clear from his responses to previous warnings that he doesn't really acknowledge the problem. Hopefully he will take this opportunity to review his behaviour and correct the problem. ~ mazca talk 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have also declined several speedy deletions by this editor and have put messages on his talk page, which he has blanked with no response. He is of course, entitled to blank talk page msgs when he as read them, and they remain in the history, but I could wish for some indication that he understood that such careless use of speedy tags is a problem, and can violate WP:BITE. DES (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this is excessive. The taggings are poor and the failure to take criticism on board worse. However, no warning was given of the block. Also, given this is a first block, would not a one hour shot "across the bows" have sufficed - increase duration if he fails to take heed?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Scott - Olaf gave him a clear warning, which is linked in Olaf's opening post in this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I jumped to his talk page and missed that. I've posted to the user's talk indicating that what we need is an indication he "gets it" and will discuss and learn before resuming tagging. The bottom line is that if he gets the message, then we can unblock him now, if he doesn't then he's liable to wind up blocked for a lot longer than 24 hours. The timescale is probably irrelevant - we just need him to understand.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll certainly consider your comment about warning shots in similar situations in future, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if the admins in this case are aware, the term "sperging," which this editor uses liberally, does not mean 'whining' or 'griping' (or anything to do with brewing beer, but specifically means 'behaving like someone with Aspergers syndrome", and relates to a belief that people with Aspergers syndrome are excessively concerned with attention to detail. I fail to see why this is any different to describing someone in offensive racial or sexual terms, something for which a block is often forthcoming. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is a fairly full list of diffs bearing on this matter. DES (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Allegations of personal attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=319549260-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=326462719
- Warnings on WP:NPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=329840234
- Complaints about improper speedy tagging
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=333253080
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342619742
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342636926
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342650693
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342741787
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342839803
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342899203
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342901950
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342903074
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343030312
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343059509
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343112101
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343516191
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343520162
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343521087
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343522562
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343523546
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343531676
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344182074
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344198267
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344203388
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344204174
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344204477
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344291852
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344341667
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344342744
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344508197
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344818373
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344843456
- Complaints about procedure when placing speedy tags
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=prev&oldid=342650930
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342656015
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342698287
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342883186
- Warnings of accumulated problems with speedy deletion and related issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344344364
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344401405
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344402603
- Complaints about improper WP:PROD tags
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342650386
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=343118462
- Inappropriate responses to talk page msgs
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=326462799
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=329289378-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=330024604
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=330235751
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=333068363
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342901156
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=342902994
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344180791
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344399754
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon-in-sagamihara&diff=next&oldid=344401705
- Innappropriate msgs to other users
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cameron_Scott&diff=next&oldid=344197627
This may be worth considering. DES (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- He's been skating on thin ice for a while now. I noticed his incivility before, but it wasn't quite at block levels. He needs to realise that if he doesn't behave better and be more careful with his speedy tagging, his account will be blocked indefinitely. He's not shown much sign of acknowledging his problems. Fences&Windows 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I left a civility warning. More admins commenting on his talk page, emphasizing the issues, may help get the point across. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He blanked his talk page with the comment "turning over a new leaf". Hopefully his future behavior is consistent with that sentiment and we're done here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be very good. DES (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, let's hope so. Thanks for having the patience to compile that list, DESiegel. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be very good. DES (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He blanked his talk page with the comment "turning over a new leaf". Hopefully his future behavior is consistent with that sentiment and we're done here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I left a civility warning. More admins commenting on his talk page, emphasizing the issues, may help get the point across. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just one comment to add to the above discussion. I totally disagree with the suggestion that Olaf's action was excessive, and that a token one hour block as a shot over the bows at first would have been better. Considering the huge number of times this editor had been given friendly advice, the contemptuous way in which he had dismissed such attempts to advise him, the fact that he had explicitly stated that he doesn't care about his errors, I think a 24 hour block was a shot over the bows, and far less than he might have deserved. In fact I think Olaf's handling of the matter has been exemplary: giving very courteous advice and an offer of help, followed by a very courteous warning, together with a repeated offer of help, followed eventually by a quite short block as a further warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback James. As a relatively new admin I listed this here exactly to get comments on whether I was too harsh or too lenient so it's good to hear what people think. Anyway it seems as though we're all agreed in cautious optimism about Simon's intent to reform, so hopefully this won't need to be brought up here again. Cheers all. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with James, this was good block. Pcap ping 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just deleted their userpage as ANOTHER attack page. It had previously been deleted as the same. The version I just deleted was a cunning (not) attempt to use rhyme to circumvent the NPA policy. I will watchlist the page to see if it comes back. GedUK 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well spotted, Ged. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hi,
This user that is editing from an IP address, 99.243.109.23, has been vandalizing the Care Bears: Adventures in Care-a-Lot article. I have reverted their edits twice in recent weeks, and another user has as well. I have sent them warnings, and since they vandalize the article on different days, not continuously at the same time, like some vandals, I'm wondering if I'm doing the right thing by sending them a first level warning the first day the vandalize, a second level the next time they vandalize, and a third level warning this time they vandalize. Their user talk page can be found here: 99.243.109.23's talk. Please help me with this issue, it would be appreciated. Abby 96 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing to do except have them run afoul again and get blocked. They've only vandalized it twice at the .23 address. Page protection won't work as there isn't a normal amount of vandalism right now. Keep continuing to warn them as they obviously know that they are doing something wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but since I seem to find the vandalism a while after it's been vandalized, would I still be able to report them? I should be able to get them blocked even if it's a few hours after their vandalism is discovered. Abby 96 (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, since they seem to be only vandalizing pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Tothwolf / Theserialcomma / JBsupreme
I stumbled into a multi-way civility incident and am bringing discussion here to a) get it off the least involved users' talk page and b) expose it to other uninvolved administrator review.
Parties are:
- Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Theserialcomma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This is my narrative; the parties and others may have different interpretations and are welcome to respond and challenge or clarify.
Tothwolf was the subject of an Arbcom finding and remedy about a month ago regarding uncivil claims and comments: [20]
- "1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."
The current incident started with Theserialcomma removing a wikilink to an old page containing critical comments Tothwolf made in December from the top of Tothwolf's talk page: [21]. Theserialcomma believed that the linked diff was a personal attack on him and other users, and violated civility standards and the edit restriction. Tothwulf disagreed and restored [22] and filed a warning on TSC's talk page [23]. This warning was reverted off Theserialcomma's talk page by TSC apparently using Twinkle and with the edit summary of "identified as vandalism" [24]. Tothwolf placed a slightly different warning - this time, reinterating a prior, standing request for Theserialcomma not to edit on Tothwolf's talk page [25] and threatening to ask ANI for a topic ban. Following this, Theserialcomma filed an Arbitration Enforcement request over the series of events: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tothwolf, responded on his talk page [26], prompting a large response by Tothwolf [27], which Theserialcomma again removed with Twinkle with the edit summary of "identified as vandalism" [28].
At this point I warned Theserialcomma that elements of his behavior seemed to me to be baiting [29] and didn't specify how the comment violated the arbitration editing restriction, and commented similarly on the AE request [30]. TSC reinterated the claim that the earlier diff was a violation of the arbcom finding [31] to which I reinterated my concerns about baiting [32]. Uninvolved admin A Stop at Willoughby echoed the baiting concern at AE [33] following which TSC withdrew the filing [34]. Theserialcomma claimed in the withdrawl that they would file the issue on ANI but did not do so at the time.
TSC during this came to my talk page and insisted I was biased and demanded I leave them alone and stop watching their talk page, which I declined to do as I have no COI and am not biased against them. Uninvolved admins do not become conflicted out of enforcing policy by dint of having done so, etc. I have previously blocked TSC for baiting another user, for a period of time which was found to be excessive (reduced from a month, in parity with the baited users' block for their abusive responses, down to 5 days).
Around this time I received email from Tothwolf complaining of TSC harrassing him and his aquaintences via email. I took no action on that.
Fast forwards a bit - JBsupreme now steps onto Theserialcomma's talk page and with this edit claims that Tothwolf is harrassing and stalking him now. TSC agrees. As JBsupreme claimed to be being stalked and harrassed by Tothwolf I compared edit histories, finding the only point of significant overlap to be edits to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bots [35]. Tothwolf had been editing chat program and IRC related topics with about 40% of his edit history in the last 500 edits; it seemed difficult to sustain a claim of stalking when it was referring to their main article focus area. I advised JBsupreme of that and advised more AGF.
JBsupreme reinterated his position and states that he cannot AGF re Tothwolf anymore [36], followed by my reinterating [37], and his re-reinterating [38].
At this point Theserialcomma commented on JBsupreme's talk page, complaining that I was warning JBsupreme but hadn't sanctioned Tothwolf for his violation from the withdrawn AE case [39] and demanding that I unwatch TSC's talk page. TSC followed with [40] in which they claimed Tothwolf is still emailing them and harrassing them and trying to bait them (and further, [41]). I asked TSC if I should ask Tothwolf to stop emailing [42]. TSC said yes [43].
At this point, before I had a chance to make such a request to Tothwolf, Tothwolf commented in the thread on JBsupreme's talk page [44] making critical statements about the thread and both TSC and JBsupreme, including repeating his claim from the email to me that in fact Theserialcomma was email harrassing Tothwolf and Tothwolf's friends in real life, not visa versa. This was reverted off JBsupreme's talk page by JBS [45] who doesn't want to talk to Tothwolf (policy compliant), and then Theserialcomma took Tothwolf's now-reverted comment as yet another arbitration edit restriction violation and asked for enforcement [46]. At this point I determined that the situation is escalating and needs more eyeballs.
I would like to request additional input on the following questions:
- Was Tothwolf's link that started this ( [47] ) in violation of general Wikipedia civility and/or the edit restrictions he is under?
- Was Theserialcomma's removal appropriate or inappropriate?
- Were Tothwolf's warnings and edit restrictions reasonable or unreasonable / uncivil?
- Were Theserialcomma's "vandalism" reverts with TW reasonable or unreasonable / uncivil?
- Was the Arbitration Enforcement filing reasonable and well founded or unreasonable?
- Considering all the above, was Tothwolf at that time in violation of his edit restrictions or otherwise acting unreasonably and uncivily?
- Considering all the above, was Theserialcomma engaged in baiting or other uncivil behavior?
- Was JBsupreme's claim of harrassment and stalking (wikihounding) appropriate and well founded?
- Did Tothwolf's final complaint on JBsupreme's talk page violate his edit restriction or otherwise constitute abusive uncivil behavior?
- Does my history or participation here constitute a conflict of interest or bar under Admin policy or best practice to continuing to act in regards to these users?
- Finally, would it be appropriate for the community to issue a restraining order on all 3 participants in the form of an edit restriction that they cannot talk to or comment about each other? There's a similar ER in place for Theserialcomma and now-indeffed User:Koalorka - see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community
And finally, questions for the participants:
- Tothwolf
- Tothwolf, have you sent any email(s) to Theserialcomma in the last month, or are you aware of anyone you are associated with having done so?
- Tothwolf, are you willing to forward the emails you claim to have received to an uninvolved administrator for review (please DO NOT post them here)?
- Theserialcomma
- Theserialcomma, have you sent any email(s) to Tothwolf or people he is associated with, in the last month?
- Theserialcomma, are you willing to forward the emails you claim to have received to an uninvolved administrator for review (please DO NOT post them here)?
My apologies to everyone else for the size of the filing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Georgewilliamherbert, yikes mate, that's a heck of a tl;dr (although my reply here will be too). At least I was already familiar with the situation and knew what the diff links were... I can forward you the emails I've sent Theserialcomma if you'd like, although as I mentioned on my talk page they are the "Leave me alone" variety. You may want to re-read the email I sent you though as I didn't claim Theserialcomma had been emailing me directly. As I mentioned, one of the things that has been happening is a number of people I know have been receiving unusual emails which have been attempts to get them to give out any personal information that they might have about me (which won't work; they just contact me and tell me they are receiving suspicious social engineering type emails asking for my personal information). As far as I know, none of the people I know have responded to the emails they've received but there is obviously no way for me to know for certain.
- If you are proposing an interaction ban, please also add Miami33139 to the list as well since he is directly involved in the larger issue. I'm not sure an interaction ban will actually resolve the larger issues though, as these three individuals have systematically attempted to harass me to the point where I am unable to edit. My primary editing focus had been in the Computing and Technology subject areas, including online communications and software. As can be seen in their contribution histories, these three individuals did not edit in these subject areas prior to interacting with me and have not made any sort of constructive edits in these subject areas.
- For those who are not familiar with the larger issue, I made a statement here and the evidence backing up that statement can he found here, in the collapsed wikitable here (both of these are extremely long and detailed with 100s of diffs), and some simplified material can also be found here.
- Unfortunately, due to the case name, the material I presented was apparently thrown out and ignored by the person who wrote the draft decision. The original RFAR working name was "Hounding of Tothwolf" [48] but Manning Bartlett attempted to go with a more neutral name of "Tothwolf" [49] when he moved it from the RFAR stage to an open case. The case name discussion from Manning Bartlett's talk page can be found here. The diff link that Theserialcomma has attempted to remove from my talk page [50] details this and was a reply to the personal attack she made here.
- Now, partly due to how long this issue has gone on, I have very much become a "tell it like it is" person when it comes to this issue. As can be seen in the evidence I linked to above, when I claimed something I backed it up with diffs. In the statement I linked to above (written November 2009) I said: "I feel as though I've tried pretty much everything else possible to resolve this situation short of either leaving the project (such as what Ed Fitzgerald did and something I've been considering) or having ArbCom review this issue. I've tried taking this to AN/I without resolution and individual administrators have mostly suggested I collect diffs and document things. I really feel as though the community has failed me and left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself against the harassment from these three individuals. I will admit that dealing with these three editors has at times been rather stressful and at times I've made some comments I wouldn't have likely made otherwise, but by in large I've attempted to deal with each encounter without making things worse."
- My feelings on this have not really changed at all. I feel as though the community has left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself from the on-wiki harassment. While I certainly do have the ability to mitigate some of the off-wiki harassment, there seems to be no way for me to put a stop to the on-wiki harassment. Past AN/I discussions did little to resolve the larger harassment issues and unfortunately even an ArbCom case failed to resolve anything (had the EEML case and ArbCom elections not happened in the middle of the case things might have turned out very differently however). The decision the drafting arbitrator wrote (while throwing out all of the evidence I provided) only gave these individuals another tool with which to attack me. While I've unfortunately allowed myself to be baited a handful of times by these individuals, it hasn't happened all that often, and having been in this situation now personally, I have a lot more respect for people who have the patience to deal with issues of online harassment.
- I voluntarily stopped editing for awhile in an attempt to mitigate the damage these three individuals were doing to Wikipedia. [51] (You can actually correlate the drops in my monthly contributions in these graphs with the evidence I linked to above.) As can be seen in the evidence I linked to above, when I edited, these individuals targeted those pages and attempted to have them deleted. They still wouldn't leave me alone when I stopped editing though, so we are back here yet again. They've continued their attempts to damage my reputation and quite frankly, that is unacceptable. All three of these individuals have attacked me constantly with claims of WP:COI, WP:OWN, and so on but have never provided any diffs to back up their claims and no other editors have echoed such concerns or provided any evidence which would back up such claims.
- I'm tired of the harassment. Without going into too much detail due to WP:BEANS, I have in the past contributed to MediaWiki itself and I'm quite familiar with its internals. Because of this, it would be trivial for me to create new accounts which are completely separate from this one (and impossible to link via a CU) and set about editing again without being harassed by these three individuals. I've not done so however, because quite frankly no one should ever have to do such a thing in order to edit without being harassed. With as long as I've been using this particular username (outside of Wikipedia), I should not have to give up my username on Wikipedia simply because a few individuals wish to harass me and prevent me from improving Wikipedia.
- --Tothwolf (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- just to clarify, i've never emailed or attempted to contact tothwolf or any of his "friends" off-wiki, whether via wikipedia email or otherwise, ever. his claims that i've attempted to contact him or his "friends" off wiki should be carefully scrutinized, considering his specific arbcom admonishment not to make unsubstantiated allegations against other users. if tothwolf has any supposed evidence that his off-wiki-contact allegations are true, he can feel free to submit any such 'evidence' publicly or privately to any admin he wishes. if the evidence he submits does not pass scrutiny, or he avoids submitting any compelling evidence of off-wiki harassment, i would expect him to be blocked for violating his arbcom restrictions by making unsubstantiated allegations. as far as i'm concerned, tothwolf's delusional accusations without evidence should be treated as direct violations of his arbcom restrictions. wikipedia is not therapy, and allowing paranoid/delusional accusations without solid evidence is just enabling and assisting deviant behavior. show the evidence, tothwolf. we are all waiting.
- on the other hand, tothwolf has contacted/harassed/threatened me twice via wiki email since his arbcom restrictions, with both emails having been immediately forwarded to arbcom by me. i never responded to tothwolf's threatening email, obviously, so he doesn't know my email address or IP. any admin interested can get his harassing emails to me forwarded to them. the same admin should also request his evidence of off-wiki contact from me, which doesn't exist. his first email to me is publically documented at [[52]], which resulted in him being blocked. he thought he was outing me as a "woman blogger" or something, and felt so confident that he posted it publically without evidence. he was so completely wrong that i question from which planet he gathered the evidence. he was blocked for this attempted outing, but the fact that he failed so badly to come anywhere near outing me really makes me question his judgment when it comes to gathering evidence and making deductions. no idea what he was thinking, but it's a bizarre and creepy failure of an attempt to out me, regardless. check out tothwolf's backwards outing logic here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#User:Theserialcomma_and_Tucker_Max
- as for my 'vandalism' reverts, i apologize. i will use rollback or twinkle's 'good faith' rollback on my talkpage in the future. i thought it was ok because it was my talk page, but it won't happen again, regardless.
- tothwolf was restricted from making allegations against other users. linking a diff on his talkpage that calls me, miami, and jbsupreme 'harassers, wikistalkers, and gamers of the system' to me feels like unsubstantiated allegations which were rejected by arbcom and resulted in tothwolf being restricted from making these exact allegations. perhaps the fact that he is linking a diff that makes allegations on his talk page, and not making the allegations directly, somehow absolves him from his restrictions. that's up to the community to decide. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- just to clarify, i've never emailed or attempted to contact tothwolf or any of his "friends" off-wiki, whether via wikipedia email or otherwise, ever. his claims that i've attempted to contact him or his "friends" off wiki should be carefully scrutinized, considering his specific arbcom admonishment not to make unsubstantiated allegations against other users. if tothwolf has any supposed evidence that his off-wiki-contact allegations are true, he can feel free to submit any such 'evidence' publicly or privately to any admin he wishes. if the evidence he submits does not pass scrutiny, or he avoids submitting any compelling evidence of off-wiki harassment, i would expect him to be blocked for violating his arbcom restrictions by making unsubstantiated allegations. as far as i'm concerned, tothwolf's delusional accusations without evidence should be treated as direct violations of his arbcom restrictions. wikipedia is not therapy, and allowing paranoid/delusional accusations without solid evidence is just enabling and assisting deviant behavior. show the evidence, tothwolf. we are all waiting.
- Good grief Theserialcomma, your lies just never seem to stop do they? You know darn good and well what you've done. Your ISP took things seriously when they were notified of your off-wiki actions. I believe they also have a 3 strikes policy and you've already used up two.
- The IP address from the email headers that were shown to me match the IP address that attempted to breach my webserver (logs were emailed to ArbCom) which also matched the same IP address/netblock that Theserialcomma edits Wikipedia from. I could even point out some of her past IP edits on her "favourite" articles too if need be...
- Theserialcomma, you were already told that email is "offsite conduct" and does not fall under AE. Your statement above "his first email to me is publically documented at [[53]], which resulted in him being blocked." is an outright lie. [54] [55] [56] I was not blocked for any sort of email activity, nor was I blocked for "attempted outing". The block that was imposed on my account was also the subject of lengthy email discussions with a number of administrators, the summary of which boils down to the fact that while the block wasn't justifiable under the rationale used, it was short enough that contesting it while it was active would have only created further drama and thus not really be worthwhile contesting.
- Theserialcomma, I've never sent you a threatening email; I told you to Leave me alone. You revert of my on-wiki messages and warnings as "vandalism" so warning you via email seems to be the only thing that actually gets your attention. Your twinkle explanation regarding you marking of my edits as "vandalism" also doesn't hold water; you have to select "vandalism" as the reason for your revert.
- This is also more than enough evidence of your long term harassment of myself and it is trivially easy for someone to go through your contributions and find that you've done similar things to others for as long as your account has existed. It doesn't even appear that you've ever made any actual constructive edits; you pick fights with others, revert people who you dislike or with whom you don't agree (then report them for edit warring, or on SPI, AN/I, COI/N, etc). Your blog made it quite obvious why you do so...it gives you something dramatic to blog about which will bring in more readers (don't worry; I saved copies of those posts so they won't be lost "accidentally"...)
- You also need to stop referring to me as "paranoid", "delusional", "deviant", etc. That is a personal attack. You began attacking me with such statements after Miami33139 began making them. It's also quite obvious that you are not even medically qualified to make such claims; one of the very first things you are taught is: Don't diagnose unless you have a treatment plan.
- Theserialcomma, I'll tell you one last time: Leave me the hell alone.
- Theserialcomma...you know, given the sheer overwhelming amount of evidence taken directly from your contribution history it's no wonder you, [57] Miami33139, [58] and JBsupreme [59] didn't want any part of the ArbCom case and why you resorted to attacking my person [60] [61] and even others [62] [63] (full discussion) in further attempts to discredit me and damage my reputation.
- Now if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do with my time than put up with your abuse. I'd rather be forced watch a marathon of The Jerry Springer Show uncensored than respond to any more of your bogus claims. If someone needs to contact me, I ask that they please send me an email as I do not plan to monitor this AN/I discussion closely.
- --Tothwolf (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- i'm tired of tothwolf's bullshit accusations about me trying to contact him off wiki. i dont care about him. i have no interest in his personal life, and the allegations that i would care enough to email him or his friends is repugnant. if i've acted abrasively at any point here it's because i'm fed up with tothwolf's completely fabricated accusations. he just makes accusation after accusation, and no one steps in to say "evidence please?" that is his MO. he previously accused me, jbsupreme, and miami of hacking into his email address, his webserver, attempting to ruin his reputation off wiki, and even DDOS attacks[[64]], which are a felony. can you accuse people of felonies on wikipedia these days without evidence? where is the police report? cause i'd file one if I got DDOS'd. now i am trying to contact his friends off wiki. there is no other word for this than delusional. no evidence has been presented, just increasing amounts of unsubstantiated lies. tothwolf has to stop making crazy accusations with evidence. he is strongly violating civility guidelines here. we cannot play his game anymore.
- and while ill concede that my actions could appear like baiting, i actually asked him at least 4 times, with multiple posts to the arbcom clerk noticeboard to have tothwolf remove his attacks from his soapbox talk page. the clerks responded that i should take it to ANI. i didn't do so because i'm lazy, instead I removed the attack diffs myself. if that was wrong, i learned my lesson. i won't do that again either. but it wasn't baiting, it was a sincere attempt to get him not to link to a diff on the top of his talk page which calls me a wikistalker and a harasser - without evidence, and in violation of his restrictions. i approached that one wrong, but i admit to my error. but before chastising me for these minor transgressions, keep in mind that i'm fed up with tothwolf's delusional accusations and i want it to stop. even in his response above, he is continuing to try to OUT me. he calls me 'she' which is a reference to his ridiculous outing attempt for which he was blocked [[65]] i have never identified myself as a woman, and i've denied it repeatedly. but he continues to call me 'she' because he is trying to out me as some female blogger. he's wrong, he's speculating as to my identity even after being blocked for this behavior. he is, at best, further inflaming the situation with this outing BS. how can he get away with continuing to make unsubstantiated accusations and outing attempts?
- Theserialcomma (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- i'm tired of tothwolf's bullshit accusations about me trying to contact him off wiki. i dont care about him. i have no interest in his personal life, and the allegations that i would care enough to email him or his friends is repugnant. if i've acted abrasively at any point here it's because i'm fed up with tothwolf's completely fabricated accusations. he just makes accusation after accusation, and no one steps in to say "evidence please?" that is his MO. he previously accused me, jbsupreme, and miami of hacking into his email address, his webserver, attempting to ruin his reputation off wiki, and even DDOS attacks[[64]], which are a felony. can you accuse people of felonies on wikipedia these days without evidence? where is the police report? cause i'd file one if I got DDOS'd. now i am trying to contact his friends off wiki. there is no other word for this than delusional. no evidence has been presented, just increasing amounts of unsubstantiated lies. tothwolf has to stop making crazy accusations with evidence. he is strongly violating civility guidelines here. we cannot play his game anymore.
- Re 1) -- while the content of that diff wasn't terribly civil, linking to it documented the issues that Tothwolf had with the case name, and was not itself uncivil. Hence, 2) the removal was inappropriate. 3) Jumping straight to a level-3 warning may have been a bit iffy, though. Since "topic ban" is a term of art referring to a ban imposed by the community, it was inappropriate for Tothwolf to claim that there was one in place, when it was apparently a simple request not to edit his page. 4) Claiming "vandalism" in this case was inappropriate.
- That's all I've gone through so far -- I'm not sure if I'll be able to evaluate the other questions tonight. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
To answer GWH:
- It's not clear cut but given the arbitration ruling, it was probably unwise. Linking to accusations against editors, when the restriction from arbcom was: "Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." could be considered a breach of the ruling.
- Whether the removal was appropriate or not (I would say it was), it shouldn't have been theserialcomma who did it. If he was unhappy with it then he should have raised it elsewhere, and let others deal with it.
- Tothwolf should have raised it somewhere else rather than template the person he was in conflict with. It is obvious that doing so would only escalate the problem.
- Likewise, theserialcomma's choosing of the 'vandalism' revert option in twinkle would only further escalate things.
- The AE request was perhaps reasonable, and should have been followed in the first place rather then go directly into the dispute. It's difficult to judge how bothered people are about something, or whether it's simply furthering a dispute. To my mind it would have been best just to leave it, but I haven't been in a long running dispute and through arbcom, which is obviously going to colour ones view of the matter.
- Tothwolf shouldn't have carried on the dispute. I'd say this definitely breaches his restrictions.
- theserialcomma has done nothing in this situation to de-escalate things, but instead every action has made it worse. I think 'baiting' would be an adequate description.
- JBsupreme's claims do not appear well founded. I agree with GWH's analysis of that.
- Tothwolf's last reply is full of the same sort of accusations that got him sanctioned in the first place. It is in response to JBsupreme summarily removing stuff from a list, which should at least have been discussed first. Lists do not require every individual entry to be notable and can often be a useful way of presenting information for subjects which are not notable enough for an individual article. In other words, tothwolf was perhaps right to be pissed off, but his response violated his arbcom restriction.
- I can't see that GWH has done much wrong here.
- Given all the above, I cannot see any hope that these users will be able to work together at all, so some further restriction is probably warranted. Quantpole (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- What makes me think that it was baiting was the deliberate choice to use the ROLLBACK (VANDAL) option in twinkle. That was your decision and the only reason I can think of to do that in this dispute was to annoy the other user. I'm not saying that your only purpose in this dispute were to bait tothwolf, far from it, but some of your actions seemed to be baiting. If what you are saying regarding his accusations are true then that would appear to be a clear breach of the arbcom ruling, and I suggest you take it to AE. Quantpole (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- after tothwolf's accused me of DDOS, hacking his webserver, hacking his email, contacting his friends off wiki, libeling him off wiki, and then he continues to try to erroneously out me as a female blogger (he still calls me 'she' when i repeatedly mention i am a dude), it's highly likely that i could have been pushed to making a mistake in terms of which rollback button i pressed on my own talk page. i am frustrated, creeped out, and fed up. so if i came across as baiting, you'll have to keep in mind that he keeps accusing me of bullshit, and so i'm prone to make errors due to losing my patience. his talk page comments weren't 'vandalism', and i should have clicked the other rollback button. my bad. is this really the issue though? how many allegations and outing atempts can someone make against another editor before the accused gets some leeway in their responses. tothwolf is restricted by arbcom for this exact reason. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said before, if that is all true then I'd think it is up to arbcom to handle. I can understand you doing something in frustration, and I don't think using the rollback is that big a deal, especially since you have apologised for it. The only advice I can give is to try and rise above it. I know it's not easy when you're pissed off but it means things don't get clouded by relatively petty side disputes. Anyway, I think tothwolf's accusations in this thread go way past his restrictions, and should be sent to AE to deal with. Quantpole (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theserialcomma, can you provide diffs for each of the claims you are making above? I can (and have) been providing diffs and links regarding your behaviours towards me. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- unsubstantiated allegations, for which you should be blocked indefinitely: | their efforts off-wiki include attempts to damage my reputation. The efforts of one of these individuals to breach the security of my personal webserver to gain access to my email, personal information manager, project holding area, etc did not go unnoticed and their ISP's abuse group was notified and very cooperative. Logs of the DDoS attack. most recently, in this ANI, you accused me of contacting your friends off wiki. where's the evidence? is it in the same evidence database from where you 'discovered' i was a female blogger and keep trying to out me by continually calling me 'she' when i've only said i'm a man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#User:Theserialcomma_and_Tucker_Max . im not playing your games anymore. i am done with you. go harass someone else with your destructive imagination. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Some things just never seem to change... [67] [68] (full discussion) [69] (full report) --Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just noting here that ArbCom have received some e-mails about all this since the arbitration case closed. It's complicated and for some part of this, a full understanding of the arbitration case and decision is needed. I believe that various community sanctions were put in place at some point after the case closed. A listing of those community sanctions would help (maybe list them at the case pages?). If further community sanctions are needed, that should be discussed somewhere. If the arbitration case decision and its interpretation needs clarification or amendment, there are pages for that as well (see WP:RFAR and its subpages). I would also note that if people are not happy with the result of the case, they should file an on-wiki appeal with any new evidence, rather than insist they were right all along. I am posting this as an arbitrator, but I won't say more than this, as I'm meant to be inactive on arbitration matters at the moment, but hopefully this will help. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Unitanode block
Editor needs shrubbery for wanting to own an article and talkpage.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over at Talk:Perception, Dibrisim (talk · contribs) is trying to WP:OWN both the article and talk page, despite only having edited the article twice long ago. This morning, the talk page looked like this, with some "general rules", e.g. "* Anonimity is discouraged. Changes of an anonimus are likely to be reverted within 24 hours - automatically." and "* No direct interventions should not be allowed at the article itself. Each comment, change, real life example, citation, external reference etc. should be added here first, under appropriate section."
This was removed by me (reverted by Dibrisim), removed again by User:Maurreen (again reverted), and finally by User:Maunus. For this, he threatened me[76] ("I will report you to the hiearchy" and "That's bullining I am talking about. And I do have ways to stop that.") and Maurreen here ("And I have reported you for this.") and me again ("Fram asked me to whom I have reported him... Well he will see that."). No evidence of him making any reports to anyone though.
On reading Talk:Perception more closely, I noticed more unacceptable sections, which I removed here: "Every editor who successfully initiated a change to the article, has the right to sign here and describe the agreed change or changes. This is the only reward we can currently provide to serious editors. We also offer to the editors listed here a final say in the discussions and rights to implement the changes." The editors listed here are Dibrisim as "original author" and one other, although the article is from 2002 and has over 700 edits so far. If he had his way, he would implement his new version of the article on tuesday, and from then on he would decide who was allowed to edit the page and which edits were acceptable. Obviously, he reverted this as well[77].
People have tried to explain things to him on his talk page, on Talk:perception, and on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (the page that brought this to our attention). So far, to no avail. So if anyone has a spare trout or shrubbery, now may be the time to use them (a dose of patient and friendly explanation may be tried as well, but I fear that we have a severe case of Ididnthearthat here...) Fram (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He keeps adding a personal note about how to use the talk page above the headers. I've concluded that he really has no clue about Wikipedia, unless I've greatly misunderstood this that he's written on the talk page:
- "I have contemplated the following going live strategy:
- I would publish the article worldwide and wait few days until the article is replicated. In these few days we will have to be vigilant, though.
- After the article is replicated we could move under umbrella of the flagged revisions and pickup some jewels for discussion.
- I guess that from then on we could lose some valuable feedback. Could we have a proxy Percept page to pick up these"
- And what does this mean? "I have opted in Further Reading for online retailers. However this could be used as promotional tool by specific online retailers and there could be a contract with Wikipedia re this. Could you see if there is a preferred online retailer?".
- His rewrite which is now in the talk page archives is totally unencyclopedic and unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- It sounds like WP:COMPETENT is at issue. Encyclopedic or not, this is the English Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that pointer, Bugs, a useful essay. We have an editor unfamiliar with and dismissive of Wikipedia content, style, and behavioral rules, aggressively trying to push through a major redraft of a fairly important article on a difficult scientific / philosophical subject, in a mood to do battle rather than work with others, whose proposed draft introduces more problems than it fixes, and apparently not fluent enough in English to write standard authoritative encyclopedic prose. Even someone who plays by the rules and can write standard English typically needs to start small, copyediting here and there, making minor improvements, learning the style guidelines and markup, etc., before they are ready to tackle a big task like this. This editor isn't even willing to accept that they need to learn the rules. He's said more than once that he rejects the rules, and collaboration with other editors (who he is starting to accuse of obstructionism and bad faith), because they are getting in the way of his article redraft. The only solution is for the editor to do a 180-degree turn and start editing modestly, incrementally, and collaboratively - or simply losing interest in redrafting the article. If that doesn't happen voluntarily it will have to be imposed, hopefully without generating too much Wikipedia process. Their approach to talk pages is voluminous and idiosyncratic, so a discussion about what to do could spin out of control. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Consciousness/Archive 3#A call to discus intro might be useful reading for those involved in this discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- He's violated 3RR, so we have grounds to block him immediately. However, he seems to have stopped for the moment, so I'm hopeful. I'm watching him as is another admin. With luck, he'll take it upon himself to pause, read, and learn. If not, we'll provide an enforced pause. It's an open and shut case really, so there's not much need for further review here. Interested editors should provide recommendations, tips, and encouragement on the user's talk page. He clearly has an interest in helping. With luck, we can shape it into something productive. Rklawton (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I also see 3rr here. Moreover, the edit warring has been over a talk page notice which is straightforwardly beyond the pale of policy. No need for a block if they've stopped and there are indeed hints the editor isn't aware of the policies (rather than, say, knowingly trying to edit war through them and lay his own onto the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- In cases like this (WP:OWN or WP:COI) where I block, I often use an addendum along the lines of "please use this time to review [[''suitable link'']]. Should similar concerns continue to be raised, you will likely find that further sanctions of longer durations may be applied." Sometimes, it does take a block for someone to realise where the problem truly resides. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed Ancheta Wis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an admin, has been active in talking to Dibrisim and invited them to comment here. something lame from CBW 19:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I hate to be blunt, but I am bit concerned that we have an Admin writing "Your rewrite is in fact superior to the current state of the article, of course. But what about the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words? He might not understand it because he doesn't have the background. Would it help if you used the experience I described above as a concrete example?". That seems to be a lack of understanding of one of our basic policies. And what in the world is she trying to do on her talk page? I've seen her as part of the problem. By the way, her use of the tools has been minimal, 5 blocks, 15 pages deleted, 1 page protected, 2 restored. She became an Admin in 2005. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather and Dougweller, as I am sure you both know, it is not proper to project the authority of an admin on an article with which one has been involved (since 2005, before election), especially with an editor with whom the relationship is as peer editor. User:Dibrisim is a subject matter expert, with all that implies, and yet I detailed on the talk page what would happen if he violated policy. And yet, it is a delicate dance to encourage the participation of editors. I tried to redirect the edits to Flagged Revisions, as the machinery is there for editing, and where the relationships of subject matter expert with other editors can be unearthed and re-examined. What is clear is that we have a problem of scale.
- For my part, I have been trying to resurrect the chemistry of edits which I encountered in 2003, which was communal and enthusiastic, rather than rule-bound. I have documented (in Signpost talk) the case of an article which had 5 different edits by 5 different editors in its first 20 minutes of existence, 6 1/2 years ago. That is not the case today, as we well know. Instead, articles must pass a gauntlet of policy. As you know, it started to get bad in 2007. When an article develops, it passes through stages, as you well know, and sympathetic treatment is very often appropriate. Dibrisim gave his own assessment which was quite sympathetic to the encyclopedia if not to the state of the article he encountered. Today, in the article in question, the searchlight of attention was definitely not there until, of course, various editors were offended, and the parade began. And now the article is starting to be gardened again, after the searchlight of attention passed over it. Would that all articles enjoy this type of attention; the encyclopedia would become vibrant again. But the current scale of editorship is insufficient to address this. This is in the Signpost talk if you are interested. Drop me a line if you care to join me in re-invigorating the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- This comment does not in any respect address the problem of one editor attempting to lay down for others rules of editing fpr a specific article which differ significantly from those which have evolved with practice over time, which users are familiar with and prepared to operate under. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing, but a project with as many contributors as Wikipedia has now cannot proceed in the same way as it could when the number of participants was considerably smaller, which means the bulk of your comment is totally irrelevant.
I would suggest that if you're not really familiar with the way things run now, and the standards and practices currently in force, that you back away from this situation and allow other admins more familiar with how things work to deal with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- She's made it clear she isn't acting as an admin. Surely she's entitled to express her opinion here, and on the article talk page? I have doubts about Wikipedia 2010TM and Dibrisim being a good fit for each other, for the very reasons she describes, but if there is ever going to be a way to get it to work, I'd think we'd want someone like her helping explain things. The lack of respect (possibly unintended?) for a long term editor is troubling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- She's an admin, he's breaking policy. If she's helping him to do that, as opposed to getting him to stop, that's a problem, whether she says she's acting as an admin or not.
Further, I would like to know what grounds AW has to say that the editor in question is a "subject matter expert"? The book he cites on his talk page as writing is self-published, and the website he cites as his is basically a blog and has no CV on it that I can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to tone down my comment just above. I badly misread a comment AW made on the editor's talk page ("I need to think about a way to keep up the editing spirit on the Perception draft without stepping on any rules.") and thought she was actively collaborating with him on his new editing scheme (an impression I initially got from reading his comments on the article talk page). That was my mistake, and to the extent that it colored my comment, I apologize.
I'd still like to kow, however, what makes the editor in question an expert - a self-published book, a blog and no credentials does not an expert make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to tone down my comment just above. I badly misread a comment AW made on the editor's talk page ("I need to think about a way to keep up the editing spirit on the Perception draft without stepping on any rules.") and thought she was actively collaborating with him on his new editing scheme (an impression I initially got from reading his comments on the article talk page). That was my mistake, and to the extent that it colored my comment, I apologize.
- (ec)Entitled, sure, but a bit more of a realistic touch might be more helpful here. The project isn't going to return to the happy, tight-knit group of its origins any more than the post-Kent State hippy era could ever again return to be the Summer of Love feeling. We appear to have an editor who is effectively saying "fuck consensus", and the response to that should be pretty clear. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- She's an admin, he's breaking policy. If she's helping him to do that, as opposed to getting him to stop, that's a problem, whether she says she's acting as an admin or not.
- She's made it clear she isn't acting as an admin. Surely she's entitled to express her opinion here, and on the article talk page? I have doubts about Wikipedia 2010TM and Dibrisim being a good fit for each other, for the very reasons she describes, but if there is ever going to be a way to get it to work, I'd think we'd want someone like her helping explain things. The lack of respect (possibly unintended?) for a long term editor is troubling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- This comment does not in any respect address the problem of one editor attempting to lay down for others rules of editing fpr a specific article which differ significantly from those which have evolved with practice over time, which users are familiar with and prepared to operate under. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing, but a project with as many contributors as Wikipedia has now cannot proceed in the same way as it could when the number of participants was considerably smaller, which means the bulk of your comment is totally irrelevant.
- Well, I hate to be blunt, but I am bit concerned that we have an Admin writing "Your rewrite is in fact superior to the current state of the article, of course. But what about the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words? He might not understand it because he doesn't have the background. Would it help if you used the experience I described above as a concrete example?". That seems to be a lack of understanding of one of our basic policies. And what in the world is she trying to do on her talk page? I've seen her as part of the problem. By the way, her use of the tools has been minimal, 5 blocks, 15 pages deleted, 1 page protected, 2 restored. She became an Admin in 2005. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(resetting indents) Okay, I've been around Wikipedia since October 2002, & while there's a lot of things we used to do then that I wish we still did now, there's a lot of things we no longer do that I'm glad we abandoned & some things we do now that are better. But I don't know WTF all of that has to do with an editor who has, in the last few hours, slapped 50K of verbage on a talk page that I can't imagine anyone would want to wade through. If I remember the "good old days" of Wikipedia correctly (that time Tarc seems to think we all practiced free love & passed the pipe around while we wrote articles), someone who did this would have had his edits reverted & asked to find another cause to contribute to. (And the reason I don't just indef block him for that is that (1) he just might be a "recognized expert" in the field, & might be worth the effort of extending some diplomacy to, & (2) I don't know the subject well enough to take the time to sift thru his verbage to see if there is anything of value there.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- "re-slapped" the verbiage, it was a revert to a previous version. pablohablo. 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Time for a block or ban
Although Dibrisim announced at 01:22 he was 'suspending' his efforts, he's returned, almost doubling the size of the talk page to 103,844 bytes with long rambles which don't belong on the talk page. He's virtually destroyed it as a useful tool to aid in editing the article. It's time we either just block him or at least ban him from the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly, I think you're right. pablohablo. 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently "the top of the Wikipedia" is reviewing this case. Meanwhile Dibrisim continues to revert the talkpage to his preferred version. pablohablo. 09:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
After a look at his contributions, I have indefinitely blocked Dibrisim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The immediate trigger was what can reasonably be interpreted as a threat of violence on his talk page ("Your own skin could be at stake"), but in general the ranting and edit warring is indicative of a noncooperative approach to Wikipedia that is at odds with our community standards. Sandstein 10:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that I have been bold, and have moved the draft article the editor was working on from mainspace (Talk:Perception/draft) to his userspace (User:Dibrisim/Perception draft), where I believe it more properly belongs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Dibrisim's claim to fame is a self-published book and a self-published website. Other than that, I see no credentials demonstrating his expertise in any subject matter. His work here has been nothing short of disruptive of the WP:OWN variety. An indef block is certainly called for. Rklawton (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Request for permanent semi-protection of List of male performers in gay porn films on BLP grounds
This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
(outdent) You may not be aware of WP:RPP which is a more suitable forum. However as the list has had minor vandalism from Anon IPs 3 times in the last week I do not believe that counts as endemic vandalism for an article that has a topic that one would expect to be quite a vandalism magnet. Ash (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Done
OK, let's be pragmatic and not doctrinaire here. Is it in the interests of our encyclopedia to require people to at least create an account before they are allowed to add living people to a list like this? Surely, yes. This article is open to abuse in a way most are not, and it is highly unlikely a brand new user is going to want to add someone legitimately and with proper referencing. If they do, they can ask on the talk page. No brainer really.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
|
deltion
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
they keep deleting my work what i write —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshistory2010 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Several people have explained on your talk page what the problems with these articles were, and made suggestions for how to avoid losing your work in the future. Please read them, and try them out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Mrshistory2010 has been blocked as an obvious troll. Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Help: El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area
I recently created El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area and nominated it for DYK. User:Polaron put some banners on the article without explanation. When I insisted on explanation he/she provided what I consider WP:OR (no sources; personal opinions) and proceeded to rename the article, remove references and content, etc, etc. I requested that such changes not be made without consensus, particularly considering the article is up for DYK, and tried to revert the changes. Polaron promptly changed everything back and hasn't been willing to provided any more info as to the motives.
I don't want to get into an edit war but I need this restored before the article fails DYK. Basically I need a "don't do things unilaterally or you'll be blocked" intervention here.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.
--Mcorazao (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- This looks to be a content dispute. I don't see anything for admins to do here, unless you get into a move war. The Guest Life article seems to be a weak reed to hang the DYK hook on, and even if Polaron were not in the picture, passing verification at DYK would not be a simple matter. There is some discussion over at T:DYK. Better to try to persuade the DYK reviewers that the article verifies than to wait for admins to do something. I have notified Polaron of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm....and then when s/he gets into an edit war because nobody would help, s/he'll be roundly condemned as being just as bad as Polaron. Sounds familiar to me. Isn't there some way of instructing Polaron that he has to engage in discussion about things he wants changed when there's disagreement? His refusal to discuss before things reach the edit war stage is a repeated problem, as I know you are aware. It may be a content dispute, but if he refuses to discuss it, what's the other editor SUPPOSED to do? Lvklock (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lvklock, thanks.
- I removed the DYK nomination. Still this needs to be dealt with. EdJohnston, I am disappointed in your attitude. Your personal opinions about article content are not relevant. If you have concerns in that regard (and I welcome them) there is a place for you to discuss that but this isn't the place. The issues here are administrative. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Eckert Seamans
Eckert Seamans (talk · contribs) has been editing Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, an article for which is has an obvious conflict of interest. Seems to me it should be blocked a role/corporate account. --Blargh29 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since we're posting speculations about editors here, it seems to me that User:Blargh29 is an obvious sockpuppet of user:HoboJones. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's odd... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
User:NewOrleans4Life copyvios
NewOrleans4Life (talk · contribs) has been warned about uploading copyright violation images since 2007, and was finally blocked briefly in December, and yet, they continue. Woogee (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hrmm, I left the user a "this is totally, absolutely, completely your last warning" warning before I saw this, and without checking their block log. Trust that they will be handed a big fat block if they violate again. – Toon 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Question about editing
Hi,
I am editing an article called See You on the Other Side (Korn album). I only fixed the spacing, but no matter WHAT edit I make, the user Blackmagic1234 reverts my edits. I am not doing any harm, however, although this may be irrelevant, this user knows me in real life and dislikes me, so I believe that this is contributing to why he keeps reverting, since he won't say why, while I keep asking. I would like something to be done, although I don't know what can be done. Abby 96 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Your cyberstalking me
Black Rose (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm allowed to edit articles aren't I? And no, I'm not stalking you, I got better things to do then waste my time on YOU. And the world doesn't revolve around YOU. Just because I make an edit to an article that YOU edit, doesn't mean that it has anything to do with YOU(which it doesn't),therefore it doesn't give YOU The right to revert every edit that I make. Abby 96 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- the page has been protected to stop you warring, I'd just like to point out that the difference between the two versions is practically non existent, both of you are lucky not to be blocked. I suggest you find somewhere different to edit from each other--Jac16888Talk 00:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let me think not once did you EDIT the Slipknot article on-tell I edited it Then I went to the Necrophilia article and after I edited that BOOM you pop in there hell I bet If I edited the Lolicon article you would go there to
Black Rose (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- (multiple e/c)The easy thing to do, of course, is block both of you for 24 hours for revert warring a dozen or so times. But first I have to ask, Abby: if you know Blackmagic1234 in real life, and dislike each other, why would you edit
athree pages you've never edited before, 3 minutes after Blackmagic1234 does? - That said, you're both acting like fools, so I'd suggest blocking the first one of you to revert the other one, on any page, starting.... now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Blackmagic1234 has a point. I've given Abby a final warning for following BM1234 around just to bug him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm done with this. I've been harassed in real life(Blackmagic1234 can tell you plenty of this),and am no longer putting up with it on here. And, I think that there SHOULD BE a checkuser on Blackmagic1234 and the account Higgys that was made back in May 2009 to harass me on another account I had, "Kagome_77".Abby 96 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I need to say up front that I am very much not an unbiased party to this, but could someone take an objective look at this comment on another editor's talk page: [79]? User notified: [80]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've forgiven Matt. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- GD, you should be taking note too - you simply change track too much, and too easily sometimes. It's really disconcerting. I was pushed into losing my rag today by Tryptofish, and I think this is just a thinly veiled attempt to get me out of his way. Why speak for someone else otherwise? He has canvassing people today to revert me past where he can go (being up to 3RR) - that says it all I think. As it happens, GoodDay is one of the few friends I have on Wikpedia (if I have that many) so talking to him in that manner is something I wouldn;t do to Joe editor. He can say or do whatever he wants in reply. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I still think the comment was beyond the bounds of CIVIL, and nothing said above makes it acceptable, nor does Matt seem to understand that it was not acceptable. Yes, Matt and I are at odds with one another, but no, I did not make this report to get Matt "out of the way". And that canvassing claim is a very big stretch. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I want to add that I am only at 2 reversions in the matter to which Matt refers. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a "big stretch" at all - It was cut and dry. If I filed it with evidence you would be pulled up on it, esp given the context. I just don't capitalise on people's mistakes the way you clearly do. You clearly asked two editors on their Talk pages, one after the other, to help you when you were on 2RR. One had already stated he wasn't interested on editing on the article, the other hadn't edited it for a while. Your relief when another editor did eventually assist you was palpable. You said you had almost given up! Then you file this AN/I on the very person you wanted reverted!
- GD, you should be taking note too - you simply change track too much, and too easily sometimes. It's really disconcerting. I was pushed into losing my rag today by Tryptofish, and I think this is just a thinly veiled attempt to get me out of his way. Why speak for someone else otherwise? He has canvassing people today to revert me past where he can go (being up to 3RR) - that says it all I think. As it happens, GoodDay is one of the few friends I have on Wikpedia (if I have that many) so talking to him in that manner is something I wouldn;t do to Joe editor. He can say or do whatever he wants in reply. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's continual abuse of the spirit of Wikipedia by someone who never seems to properly adhere to the rules. It's like they are not there to you, as if you've seen to much in life to be effected by trivial technicalities, and you feel that CDA is 'far too important' to Wikipedia to be held back by awkward hindrances like abiding by the wider consensus, and technical editing rules. I'm bang on here - I've seen you too long now.Matt Lewis (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I consider the matter closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is generous of you GoodDay. For the record, whilst I may have led a sheltered life, User:Matt Lewis is without question the most uncivil regular editor of Wikipedia I have ever come across. See for example, User talk:Matt Lewis#RfC/U notice, the background to which was an RfCu he took out against me. Whether or not that was justified is another matter, and clearly as I am an involved party I intend to say nothing further unless requested to do so. Whatever the outcome here I can only suggest that uninvolved parties pay some attention to this ongoing issue before it escalates further. Ben MacDui 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I became aware of the RfC/U when I went to Ben MacDui's talk page. It was never certified and I offered to close it (when I finally did 71 hours had passed, much longer than the required 48 hours). For this I received a fair amount of invective from Matt Lewis, whom I strongly urge to focus more on writing the encyclopedia and less on drama. If this is the way he treats his friends, continued behavior of this sort seems destined to lead to blocks or worse. His work on articles is good, and he should focus more on that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Matt Lewis hasn't made a substantive edit to an article for weeks. He's been doggedly engaged with CDA since December, and this took over from an obsession with the British Isles Naming controversy. Matt, are you here to build an encyclopedia or to create drama? Fences&Windows 15:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I became aware of the RfC/U when I went to Ben MacDui's talk page. It was never certified and I offered to close it (when I finally did 71 hours had passed, much longer than the required 48 hours). For this I received a fair amount of invective from Matt Lewis, whom I strongly urge to focus more on writing the encyclopedia and less on drama. If this is the way he treats his friends, continued behavior of this sort seems destined to lead to blocks or worse. His work on articles is good, and he should focus more on that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is generous of you GoodDay. For the record, whilst I may have led a sheltered life, User:Matt Lewis is without question the most uncivil regular editor of Wikipedia I have ever come across. See for example, User talk:Matt Lewis#RfC/U notice, the background to which was an RfCu he took out against me. Whether or not that was justified is another matter, and clearly as I am an involved party I intend to say nothing further unless requested to do so. Whatever the outcome here I can only suggest that uninvolved parties pay some attention to this ongoing issue before it escalates further. Ben MacDui 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- (speaking as someone who has recently run into Matt Lewis during the CDA process) Matt Lewis has an unfortunate tendency to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, mistaking disagreement and differences of opinion for personal attacks on him. This thread on Matt's talk page is unfortunately illuminating. Matt filed the (above-mentioned) ill-advised RfC/U; three days later it was deleted by Ruhrfisch after failing to attract a second certifier. Normally, this would be a bit of uncontroversial housekeeping. Matt's immediate response was to attack Ruhrfisch and threaten another RfC/U ("this time [with] some oomph behind it") aimed at Ruhrfisch.
- This thread seemed to have a bit of tension behind it, but it was chugging along until Matt burst out with his "All this work you are making me do...is frankly an abuse of another human being".
- This discussion is interesting. Matt had started a poll about how to word some portion of the CDA text. When later analysis found that the poll outcome was ambiguous, he began going around asking the editors who had voted in the poll to clarify their intentions. (So far, so good, if a bit bureaucracy-heavy.) Matt's stubborn insistence on having Sswonk guess at his state of mind at the time he voted is counterproductive, as is his attitude in the ensuing discussion.
- This thread contains another pair of RfC/U threats, this time aimed at Tryptofish (another CDA proponent). "...I'll tell you right now that if I'm not happy with your reasons for disputing people's clarifications (and there is no way that I could be I'm afraid) I will take you to rfc/u and put eveything I have behind it." "If he does I will use an rfc/u on him..."
- From the same page, a few days later. In an ironic twist, I believe he's overreacting to my observation that he doesn't have a good grasp of when RfCs are appropriate, or an understanding of what happened to his uncertified RfC/U of Ben MacDui. This time, it's a screaming threat (my italics, but otherwise his formatting: "IF YOU EVER GROSSLY MISREPRESENT ME DIRECTLY LIKE THIS AGAIN I WILL TAKE AN RFC/U OUT ON YOU. I AM ALLOWED TO DO THAT. DO NOT SUGGEST THAT I AM NOT!. Who are you to suggest that people are not allowed to do as many RFC/u's they feel they need to?"
- He sees Wikipedia's dispute resolution tools as blunt instruments — cudgels to be used to try to get his own way. (In the last two weeks, he's threatened three RfC/Us, and filed one more.) It's a decidedly destructive and disruptive attitude. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've known Matt on wiki for a couple of years now and very early on had a wee run in with him. I have come to realise though that Matt is here because he wants to improve Wikipedia, whether that's articles or in this case policy. I have also come to realise that he can come across occasionally as a little confrontational but, I believe that's because he really cares about this project. I think it would progress things further if everyone laid off the 'he said that but he said this' type of discussion. If everyone could draw a line under any bad feeling from before and talked in a more collegiate manner then this Ani thread could be archived. Anyone? Jack forbes (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Notifying of discussion at village pump
Apologies for posting this here but I felt the community should be aware, and there are lots of eyes here. I've started a discussion regarding Wikimedia fundraising-related emails that are apparently being sent out now. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Discussion of fundraising emails for anyone interested. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 01:46, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Bit of a backlog folks...thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Questionable comment at User:Keegscee's userpage
--Crossmr (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Keegscee (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to have admitted to using open proxies as sockpuppets and trolling users that he feels are not acting in good faith on his user page. He also stated that he's retired, but the message was posted ten days ago, and he's still editing. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Non issue. Saying you're retired doesn't mean a damn thing. Brett Favre anyone? Let's not waste time with this silliness. Keegscee (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not about the retirement issue; it's about your admission to using open proxies, sockpuppets, trolling, and not assuming good faith, although I mentioned the fact that you're not really retired so that this wouldn't be dismissed because you've apparently left Wikipedia. If it's a non-issue, why did you post that you'd probably be reprimanded for your behavior? Like I said on your talk page, I'm not trying to be a prick or anything, but you seem to have confessed to some pretty serious infractions. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'll let other people decide my fate then. Vaguely admitting to a crime without any proof or evidence of having committed such crime is not a very solid case. Keegscee (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- However, violating Wikipedia's policies is not criminal. Your continued assumption that Wikipedia works like the United States legal system, and that you're essentially inocent until proven guilty, will likely be seen as disruptive. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'll let other people decide my fate then. Vaguely admitting to a crime without any proof or evidence of having committed such crime is not a very solid case. Keegscee (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not about the retirement issue; it's about your admission to using open proxies, sockpuppets, trolling, and not assuming good faith, although I mentioned the fact that you're not really retired so that this wouldn't be dismissed because you've apparently left Wikipedia. If it's a non-issue, why did you post that you'd probably be reprimanded for your behavior? Like I said on your talk page, I'm not trying to be a prick or anything, but you seem to have confessed to some pretty serious infractions. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- support an indef block. Admitted disruption, appears to show no indication that they feel they did anything wrong and gives zero indication they'd stop doing it in the future.--Crossmr (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support an indefinite block per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support an indef block. Now let's get back to some useful editing. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Question. Which users did he troll? He does a lot of vandalism fighting, so some crap will inevitably land on his page. Pcap ping 04:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose How is this "trolling"? While it may be a Bad-faith move, it's not trolling, perhaps his actions may cause drama but nothing more. Look, I get this kind of stuff every day. IP socks comming over to my page and saying "you spelled somethnig wrong" and thats thier first and only edit. If you get something like this, ignore it and move on. No need to bring it to the ANI right?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- He admits on his user page I get much more pleasure out of making things difficult for people that I feel are not good faith editors. I generally do this through the use of proxies so as to be slightly more discrete. Like Dexter, if editors here knew what I was doing, they would probably agree that my actions are for the best of the project, although they would have to reprimand me for my behavior. that he's knows whatever it is he's doing would likely lead to a block but feels he's doing it for the greater good or that he's above the law. He also admits to using proxies to do that. He sees himself as some sort of hero for violating wikipedia's rules and harassing other users. That isn't remotely someone we need here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have indef blocked. The entire point of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS is that users are not allowed to behave in that manner. We expect editors to treat each other with basic respect and dignity, not pick them out and harrass and attack and troll them.
Keegscee admits to ignoring those and to behavior which is blockable. He has defended it here and indicates he doesn't intend to stop. Until such time as he agrees not to, I don't see any option other than to indefinitely block. If he choses to continue to troll via IPs or proxies, we can't stop that - but we can send an unambiguous message that such behavior is abusive and against the community and the project, and not for it. Not being able to technically permanently stop it does not mean that we can't forcefully stop someone from doing so openly and with any shred of community suppport. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- A Check user might also be prudent. He claims it will turn up nothing, but it could be a bluff.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- filed here--Crossmr (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I beat you to it with a quick request in the quick requests section. I don't think this requires more than a quick check request, a full normal SPI isn't necessary to block underlying IPs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Troll User:98.200.136.176
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
98.200.136.176 (talk · contribs) - could somebody please block the troll? They were already blocked once for contentious editing, and are back, doing the same thing that they got blocked for. Woogee (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
BlackJack evading block (part four)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
BlackJack (talk · contribs) who is presently blocked for abusing multiple sockpuppets is again evading his block by editing as an IP (86.140.219.117 (talk · contribs)). Could an admin please block this IP? Thanks in advance. --79.71.187.50 (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiClique
An apparent Serbian nationalist account, User:FkpCascais, and yet another sock IP (193.206...) are actively plotting ways to see how they may do harm to me and/or my reputation. [81] I've already been attacked by the creation of an offensive mock account, User:DIREKTOR SPLIT. [82] They seem to think I am a "notorious Croat nationalist propagandist", even though the last bunch who shared their goals were Croats accusing me of "anti-Croatian" edits (they are both wrong obviously, and this is why I may be a frequent thorn in the side of Balkans nationalist agendas). User:FkpCascais' edits happened to get blocked into place on the Chetniks article, and taking that as a validation of his revert-warring method of inserting unsourced controversial edits, the User has spread his POV-pushing activities to other "unsuspecting" articles, again entering POV Balkans nationalist edits contrary to presented sources and contrary to consensus.
(The editors are generally pushing for the removal of mention of the fact that the WWII Serbian nationalist movement, the Chetniks, have in fact collaborated with the Germans. This is unsourced, and is contrary to a large number of scholarly publications.)
The small "clique" is another in a long line of folks who seems to believe the best way to expedite their agenda on the Balkans articles is to provoke me and get me out of their way post haste by ganging up and listing out-of-context any negative aspect of my editing they can possibly find (in addition to the by now customary edit-warring and harassing used for the promotion of their goals and agendas). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- And what are admins supposed to do here? Btw, DIREKTOR, what is your relationship with User:PRODUCER? You have quite an overlap in your editing:[83]. Fences&Windows 14:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I rather think he hopes admins will apply the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions or one of the other ArbCom decisions regarding the various nationalistic disputes centred around Eastern Europe and/or the Balkans. I believed it common knowledge that there are blocs of editors who are "enthusiastically engaged in promoting certain viewpoints while deprecating those of others not so similarly enthused by use of their editing of articles and other spaces" and other editors such as DIREKTOR and PRODUCER who also edit largely within that group of articles. Requests at Admin Noticeboards for intervention in a real or imagined policy or restriction violation is quite common (although generally directed at DIREKTOR than by him). Perhaps it has only been me that noticed them these last few months? Oh, well, I may as well take a look... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have warned both parties at User_talk:FkpCascais#DIREKTOR and the ip's talkpage. I would note that neither were advised of this discussion, so have linked to it within my warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Luph25 and FIFA 10
User:Luph25 insists on adding the PS3 version of the FIFA 10 cover to the FIFA 10 article, despite a platform-neutral version being available and already in use. They have been asked not to do this three times and yet they continue to ignore these requests. Is there anything an admin can do? – PeeJay 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- He seems not to have done anything for a while. Edit warring noticeboard is a possibility if they break the 3 revert rule, or otherwise appear to be editwarring.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked the editor for 31 hours. They've been repeatedly told by several different editors, and refuse to enter any form of discussion. The block is, of course, open to review. – Toon 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I could only see 4 edits, 2 today from the guy, but you're the guy with the mop, and it's your call if he's been particularly annoying. Hopefully this editor will just develop some clue--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked the editor for 31 hours. They've been repeatedly told by several different editors, and refuse to enter any form of discussion. The block is, of course, open to review. – Toon 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)