F382d56d7a18630cf764a5b576ea1b4810467238 (talk | contribs) →Revealing personal identity: new section |
→Range block please: up the ante |
||
Line 1,245: | Line 1,245: | ||
It is also worthwhile to note that apart from the unreliable sources during the stage of the edit-warring the proposed death date was wrong. It was edited in as the 15th of October ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot&diff=391036201&oldid=391035958 sample]). It is good to know that our reliance on [[WP:RS]] worked and that when we put it in, the date was encyclopaedic and correct. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
It is also worthwhile to note that apart from the unreliable sources during the stage of the edit-warring the proposed death date was wrong. It was edited in as the 15th of October ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot&diff=391036201&oldid=391035958 sample]). It is good to know that our reliance on [[WP:RS]] worked and that when we put it in, the date was encyclopaedic and correct. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Range block please == |
== Range block ''pretty'' please == |
||
Note:Move from [[WP:AIV|AIV]] per admin request: |
Note:Move from [[WP:AIV|AIV]] per admin request: |
||
* {{IPvandal|63.118.16.167}} range block needs to be reinstated. The IP range has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A63.118.16.167 blocked twice] for BLP policy violations and insertion of ethnic/descent categories to biographies. Previous ANI discusions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=308645783 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#BLPs.2C_ethnic_origin_categories_and_an_IP_hopper.2C_redux here] Original blocking admin is no longer active, so I'm making the range block request here. --[[User:Ponyo|<b><font color="Navy">''Jezebel's''</font></b><font color="Navy">Ponyo</font>]]<sup> |
* {{IPvandal|63.118.16.167}} range block needs to be reinstated. The IP range has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A63.118.16.167 blocked twice] for BLP policy violations and insertion of ethnic/descent categories to biographies. Previous ANI discusions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=308645783 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#BLPs.2C_ethnic_origin_categories_and_an_IP_hopper.2C_redux here] Original blocking admin is no longer active, so I'm making the range block request here. --[[User:Ponyo|<b><font color="Navy">''Jezebel's''</font></b><font color="Navy">Ponyo</font>]]<sup> |
||
== White Rabbit requested moves == |
== White Rabbit requested moves == |
Revision as of 20:11, 16 October 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) |
|
Co-editor apparently banning me from pages
See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.
- Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Meat, Libel, four AfDs, and assorted weirdness at David Bruce McMahan
We have a strange situation brewing and I believe that we will need an admin to come in immediately and sort it all out.
Issue One: Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money
An IP posted a link to this article today at the talk for David Bruce McMahan. I responded that the process was all done legitimately to my knowledge. It was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McMahan (3rd nomination).
Considering that this is an issue of libel against Wikipedia, this might need intervention by the office staff. Or we can ignore the blogger, [REDACTED], and move on. More likely option is the first one, with all the chaos that entails.
Issue Two: Meatpuppetry or other Odd Beheavior
Someone with more experiance than I should look at the edit histories of user:SirBruce and the IP 69.140.102.40. SirBruce has not been seen since 9 Feb 2010 and then posted in the talk page warning another user not to remove sources. The other user (Melaen) seems above question and seems to have taken the correct actions, but SirBruce's appearance raises questions. This is compounded by the edit history of the IP which has been absent for over a month before posting the link to the voice and making accusations against Wikipedia.
Finally, the article creator Wikidpedia appeared today for the first time since 2007 to create this article. In 2007 he created several other articles that were deleted. The timing of all these users is suspicious. The admin User:Cirt blocked the account for 48 hours for disruptive editing, but I think this is someone's dormant sock, as there is no other explination as to why the account would suddenly come in and create an article like this.
Issue Three: The curious history of Bruce McMahan and David Bruce McMahan
There have been four AfDs for this article. Three without the David, one with it. I upgraded the fourth to a CSD G3 on account of it being deleted before. That being said, the first and second AfDs resulted in Keeps, and the third was a Delete. The sources seemed not to have changed, but the consensus shifted. In full disclosure I voted delete on the newest AfD, but was unaware of the other three except for the notification of the deletion history at the AfD. I wanted to bring this up in light of the posting from the Voice, and because the people that hang out here will know the best course of action in all three incidents.
I will not be participating in the discussion of these issues unless I am asked to do so. Please inform me at my talk page if I am needed. Sven Manguard Talk 01:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Note
The page in question has just been deleted. Apparently this is not a problem for Admins, so I don't advise restoring it, as it can only cause more problems. All three issues are still valid though. Sven Manguard Talk 02:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Relevant link to final AFD before speedy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bruce McMahan. Falcon8765 (TALK) 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
ENOUGH ALREADY. See below: |
---|
====Comments====
So this guy gets his page deleted because he's not "notable" even though he's had plenty of articles written on him and lawsuits against him. What would make him notable in the eyes of Wikipedia? A reference on Family Guy? Does Peter need to go "Bruce McMahan? That's like that one time I slept with Meg!"? Just because the content of the article is poor, doesn't mean the entire page should be deleted. This person is clearly notable based on the wide coverage this has received in addition to his role as CEO of a firm that has received coverage, philanthropy that has received coverage, etc. Most of the criticism leveled is hung up on the negative nature of the original article -- clearly, the article's content was unacceptable. But, that means a stub should be created, sources listed, and appropriate tags citing need for improvement, perhaps even created with protection given the obvious controversy, and so forth. In other words, deleting articles due to controversy is ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of articles with far less reliable (and far fewer) sources that we don't go around randomly deleting. We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that we are deleting the article repeatedly due to, 1) the article content being bad (even in poor taste), and 2) controversial. However, neither of this actually justify the actions taken. It means that it's just going to be a huge pain in the ass for an admin to maintain and a writer to create. Strom (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC) I have deleted this wretched and unacceptable article, along with its talkpage. They should not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and salted the article on the reason that some extensive discussion will be necessary before considering recreation. –MuZemike 02:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly a page that should exist. David Bruce McMahan aka D. Bruce McMahan aka David B. McMahan has had several feature stories written about him in newspapers and magazines, including cover articles in New Times Broward-Palm Beach and Village Voice. He was the subject of multiple lawsuits and has tried to censor journalists and now Wikipedia from reporting on him. He is also a successful businessman and philanthropist who has multiple projects named after him. The content of the article on Wikipedia was at one time up to standards, but got gutted. The article should be improved and not deleted. There is more than enough information, including direct source legal papers, to fill an appropriate article on him. The page just needs time to stay up instead of being deleted so it can be improved. http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-09-26/news/daddy-s-girl/ http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/10/memo_to_bruce_m.php http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-09-28/news/feature.html --66.246.94.130 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Joe Arpaio article cites the Phoenix version of the New Times on multiple occasions, and has for some time despite some controversy on that article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugs Malone (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note: Tony Ortega did not claim, nor imply, that Wikipedia deleted the article "for money". If he did say or imply that, please do let me know, because that's absolutely false and libelous. But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures. I don't recommend having a brawl about it, and of course Newyorkbrad's wise comments should be very thoughtfully considered. For me personally, a big test for this article, and a challenge perhaps difficult to meet, is WP:BLP1E. Beyond that, the article would need to be thoughtful and respectful of human dignity and would have to work really hard to draw conservative conclusions rather than following a single source as if it is the gospel truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
From the blog post Memo
(emphasis added) I'm sticking my nose in because I find this particular incident fascinating on many levels. The collision between journalism & wikipedia, and the awful, awful story that this whole discussion is about. You guys should really get a handle on your "minions" =) illovich (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knO5Ad7cD0M is this an appropriate source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.201.102 (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC) National Cristina FoundationAs long as this is being discussed, someone should have a look at this edit. I reverted, but perhaps the IP who made it should be dealt with and a revdelete imposed. Also, please examine the link to the Village Voice story recently inserted. Admins should watchlist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
External publicityThis whole sorry mess is now being posted about on Reddit, which has an unfortunate habit of publicizing "interesting" Wikipedia vandalism - see discussion here and be sure to view the image linked at the top of the discussion page, which is visible to anyone who sees the link on Reddit's front page. When we spend our time dickering about what we should do instead of just nuking the offensive material, this is how the world sees us. That's apart from the harm being done to a living person (again, see image linked in the discussion there), which is horrendous and irreversible. This whole lengthy discussion did nothing to prevent either issue - whereas immediately deleting the BLP-violating material and reconsidering it afterward would have prevented it. One ounce of action beats any amount of debate, every time. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
So, yes, thanks for caving to the guy with the money, Wikipedia. 94.193.244.17 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Insufferably long commentI believe I've now discovered and examined all or nearly all the articles and web sources that are at all relevant: I've probably sifted through and read well over 200 pages, including court documents. I do not choose to provide my opinion of the facts presented in the media; other editors can examine the available evidence for themselves. I will say, however, that I don't think it's a worthwhile or justifiable exercise to attempt to shoot the media messengers in this instance. Nor do I think it's useful (or appropriate) for any of us to try to stand in moral judgment, based on our interpretation of the facts we have available. If anyone here finds he can't refrain from doing so, can't think of or discuss this issue without moral indignation coloring his thinking, this article and related ones available on the web may be of considerable use. The suggestion is not to be construed as indicating any opinion about the facts that have been presented on either side in this matter. A procedural note is probably in order. While the article was in its most recent (4th) AfD, a user tagged it under CSD G4, and it was, in fact, deleted as a "speedy". While that tagging was no doubt made in all good faith, the article probably didn't meet G4 since the just-deleted article has been described as being very negative, while the previously deleted version (AfD three) was anything but: it was described as having been "whitewashed", and as a vanity piece. CSD G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Some of the "external publicity" about this has already been mentioned and even quoted. There's a very great deal of it, and it appears this thread is being followed pretty closely in some corners of the web. ( A good reason for choosing one's words deliberately here, I think. ) As might be expected, some people are hoping for and trying to promote a "Streisand effect", and others believe just as strongly that the allegations should never have been published at all. There has been some suggestion of a conflict of interest re one editor along with a corresponding reference to a previously disclosed real-life identity ( I do not say "credible" suggestion, note ) and there's a different, previously-involved editor who has expressed great indignation off-site at what he sees as the improper suppression of this article. That editor has made accusations that target that indignation back to Wikipedia; and it's my opinion that it wouldn't be very extraordinarily improper ask him whether he might have some potential conflict of interest, given certain individual factors. I mention this not because I think it needs to be investigated (I don't) but because I think it's appropriate that editors should be forewarned of it. Each side in this conflict is sure it holds the moral high ground, each side just knows it's on the side of the angels. As I see the question, there are two distinct ways we can decide whether to have an article about this. We can base a decision on rules, or we can base a decision on values. If we're to base our decision on rules then I think Jimmy is exactly right that it comes down to BLP1E. That question resolves to (a) whether McMahan is also notable in our very-specific and admittedly idiosyncratic sense of the word on Wikipedia for his race-car development, his success as a hedge-fund manager, his wealth, or his philanthropy, OR (b) whether the coverage about the father-daughter controversy has been broad-enough and persistent-enough in reliable sources to call for inclusion in Wikipedia. If either condition (a) or (b) is met then our rules dictate that a carefully-written, non-sensational article that includes the topic currently at issue here should not be deleted. In the course of looking into the question, I saw a great many mentions re "condition (a)" about McMahan. That's it exactly: there were a great many mentions re that condition. The NY Times mentioned the sale of a $30 million condo (furnishings and artwork included), Playboy mentioned his race car development, some trade publications mention his work as a hedge-fund manager, there were a few mentions of his philanthropy, and one or two of his great wealth. I saw nothing in-depth about these topics, however, no "feature" articles about McMahan in any of these contexts or roles. It's possible I missed something, of course, but I tried carefully to be thorough. It's a borderline case, a judgment call, and I'm not going to argue the point with anyone, but it's my view that McMahan's notability apart from the one big issue that's current is probably not sufficient to warrant an article. So what about "condition (b)", then? Well, there's a great deal of material, multiple articles, from Village Voice, and the follow-up official blogs. ( The New Times in other locations is also Village Voice Media, btw, as I understand it. ) And there are two articles in the New York Post that I know of: one essentially follows after the Village Voice and one introduces denials and counter-accusations against the long-lost daughter, made by a different daughter and (same) half-sister. A lot of editors will disapprove of the Village Voice and the New York Post, of course, because their respective editorial outlooks don't suit. I have nothing to say about that, but it's my opinion that they're both reliable sources, have sufficient editorial oversight, etc. There will be editors here who disagree with that, of course, but I think any such debate would be moot. A case could be made that it's due to McMahan's success in getting civil lawsuits sealed in multiple jurisdictions, perhaps quite a strong case, too, but for whatever reason I was unable to discover any other reliable sources that touched this story. The Village Voice directly addresses the issue, of course, this apparent lack of extensive coverage elsewhere, but the fact remains. Oh, there was a new story today in English at thaindian.com, too. That's all I'm aware of: It's my overall opinion that our condition (b) probably isn't met, either. What, then, if we base our decision on values? Before I really looked at this in-depth, I was sure that the "values" decision had to come down in favor of having an article: I completely understood the great indignation that the Editor of the Village Voice has expressed. I'm fairly sure I still do understand that, actually. I would almost certainly feel the way he does, were I in his shoes. But I can't work myself into the same state of indignation after looking at this as closely as I now have. There's no moral high ground here, in my view; the angels aren't on anyone's side. They're probably all just quietly weeping somewhere. Whatever you believe about the facts presented, whether you believe in guilt or innocence or some combination of the two for the accused or accusers, what we have here are terrible, devastating personal consequences, a real tragedy. If we're going to base our decision about this on values, then it seems morally right to me to leave the personally involved to suffer through the grief of this as best they can without all of us here shining a spotlight their way. I realize that others may disagree in perfect good faith, of course, but that's my view of this matter. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Other article venues where this has spilled toJust an FYI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC) OK, I haven't really edited many articles, in fact I finally just created an account because of this incident. Doesn't the fact that there is such a fervent discussion over McMahan's inclusion/exclusion point out that he has enough notoriety to warrant inclusion here? Is it simply because there are no major articles giving a complete biography in several publications that means he shouldn't be included? As soon as you willingly step into the public light, i.e. a public unveiling of a car with the help of a playmate (which absolutely is an attempt for attention for his product), you lose your right to anonymity. Certainly, the article should be balanced, giving all available information. But deleting an article of a notable public figure because they're not famous enough ignores all of the other articles on Wikipedia that certainly have garnered much less attention. I'm not implying that anything untoward happened, but given the allegations, simple deletion smacks of impropriety. BTW, if I've made any faux-pas's regarding my post here, let me know, still trying to figure this all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Possible DRVI know this is going to be wildly unpopular, but our primary concern here should be adherence to our own policies, primarily, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:N. Deleting one-sided attack articles is certainly beneficial and desirable, but if a subject satisfies the WP:BIO section of the notability policy, and the article is built from verifiable facts, does not violate BLP, UNDUE or NPOV, then I think we should have it. We should never prevent creation of an article that satisfies the requirements of these policies just because the subject is controversial. I hope this will be taken to DRV and thoroughly discussed after all these meat/sock issues are resolved. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Bigger than one articleA cursory search led me to find mention of McMahan in Genetic sexual attraction and Streisand effect (I removed it from the latter), but I have a feeling some POV pushers may have, upon deletion of the BLP article, peppered mentions of McMahan throughout WP. I am far from an expert on BLP policies, but if McMahan is not notable for his own article, then I doubt that using his alleged "controversial relationship" as an example in other articles is appropriate; possible vandalism. Anyway, just wanted to bring this to an Admin's attention The Eskimo (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In all fairness, though, this information is not libelous as he has already settled all court cases (at least according to the Village Voice). If in fact it is still available through the CT courts, the information in the article should be verifiable. Also, I understand the need for multiple sources, but ignoring a source because of a purported yet unproven bias is another. The Village Voice and The New York Times are both legitimate sources, whether or not one agrees with what they say is a different matter entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
What Have I Started?Hello there, minion here. I just got a message on my talk page reminding me that this was here. Honestly once I saw a few of the more reliable users and an admin had gotten involved, I stopped checking in. If you look at the origional posting, WAY up top, you will see that before any of this media coverage spilled out, I was concerned about three issues. Media issues not withstanding, I thing that these issues have run their course in discussions, and move to end this mess.
Now it would appear that in my absence, the editor of the Voice has decided to drop a few levels on the pyramid. We are now in the orange and red areas. This begs the question. If the Village Voice is making statements that Jimbo Wales is calling false, is resorting to personal attacks, and is a blogger without editorial review, why do we consider him a good source? I think it's time we reexamine the Village Voice as a reliable source to be used in articles. I know that I'm not exactly uninvolved, but I think it bears being mentioned. Sorry if this causes more drama than it should, but at this point, I view the Village Voice as an anti-Wikipedia crusade, rather than a constructive source of journalism. Sven Manguard Talk 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A PR DisasterThis is becoming a PR disaster, and it will hurt Wikipedia in a big way, if it not already does. Jimbo shot himself in the foot by becoming involved. If an article is truly killed due to mere non-notability, a Jimbo Wales doesn’t have to show up. Him showing up proves that there is much more to it. I have worked for more than 30 years in advertising and PR for large corporations. My specialty: Disaster management. First order of business: Take the CEO out of the picture and coat him with as much Teflon as available. I know how to astroturf without getting caught. I ran “enthusiast” websites with a well hidden agenda. Not notable? Mr. Mahan himself would beg to differ. There is his site for his version of his biography. . There is mcmahan-philanthropy.com.. There is McMahan’s own car website with a pitbabe to boot. And those are just the first three on Google (which shows that high level of expensive SOE is at work.) If the man is not notable enough, then 75% of Wikipedia should be thrown out. A philanthropist that helps children who lost their legs to landmines and who marries is own daughter is highly notable, if you ask me. This scandal doesn’t pass the vaunted WP:Duck test at least not with me. I am mentioned eight times by name in Wikipedia. I’m not notable at all. Does anybody patrol the pages and scrubs them, because I am a nobody? You need to be a McMahan to be extended that courtesy. At Wikipedia, five editors and a few well chosen sock puppets (with a VPN, and one PC each – we know how fingerprints work) literally can change history. With a largish PR firm and a lawfirm, one can literally throw hundreds of well informed and well behaved editors at an issue – without getting caught. And I have no doubt that this is what is happening here. Can I prove it? No. But I can tell you how it’s done without even a twitch of the needle of a checkuser tool. What if McMahan would hire me? I would take the job. I hawked cigarettes, and I don’t smoke. I would have advised him to NOT do what is done here. DON’T suppress. It will bite you big time, as Streisand effect shows. It did’t work before the Internet either. Say “Yes, I did it, I’m sorry.” Contrition works miracles, especially in the U.S.A. “Look, we all made mistakes.” Is anybody hounding Woody Allan or Roman Polanski? Own up to it, and push your good side. Surround yourself with kids with one leg. Who can hate you? The world will forget quickly that you buggered your daughter if you don’t remind the world every waking day. Wikipedia would gain a lot if it would defend this article against interference. Let’s face it: Hedge fund owners are not high on the respectability scale anymore. Incest? No very popular. Heavy handed suppression of news? Not liked in this country. Wikipedia could look like a white knight that defends the virtues of democracy and free speech. Wikipedia defending its editors against a heavy handed, well armed posse would give the MSM the desperately needed opening to write about McMahan without receiving a fax “followed by registered mail.” Instead, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. Sad, very sad. BsBsBs (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
MOTION Anyone who is not an admin or staff should stop posting here and ignore this mess. Let the pros sort it out. We're only feeding this fire and making things worse. Sven Manguard Talk 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC) A PropositionStrike all that above. I am not sure I understand your post well enough, and re-reading my reply I think I may have assumed bad faith. My apologies if so. I have a bit of a sinking feeling about this whole thread, going all the way back to the most recent AFD discussion. I want to assume good faith, but I can't help but wonder if this whole thread is being perpetuated by interested parties in order to keep McMahan's name "out there." Therefore I am going to make a bold proposition, which I suspect may be met with skepticism that I am somehow in cahoots with one or the other involved parties. And if this is a horrible idea, please feel free to say so. I am not an admin, but I wonder what others think about possibly courtesy blanking, revdeleting, or whatever the proper procedue for blanking this discussion would be due to the follwoing reasons.: We have a very long and detailed discussion that:
Is it even possible (or withing precedence) that this thread be blanked? Perhaps some sort of message box that reads something like "This discussion has been courtesy blanked due to containing controversial information about a living person who does not have a WP article. In the case that an article is one day created that passes notability guidelines, this discussion can be reactivated following admin review." Anyway, I would support this and will step away to leave it to others to discuss, as I am feeling a bit icky about the whole thing. The Eskimo (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hope this helps Sven Manguard Talk 00:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC) This guy really isn't encyclopedicI just did some basic research with an eye towards creating a decent article about the guy but didn't find anything that made him notable enough for his own article. In short, he is: a hotshot accountant and a self-proclaimed philanthropist with a taste for pretty girls and fast cars and the money to indulge himself in both. Married twice. Divorced once. Current wife is young enough to be his child. Rumor has it that she is, but that's rumor off of the gossip sites not facts from a reputable news source. He may be a local celebrity but he hasn't done anything notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article.--*Kat* (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC) EnoughThis thread began with three issues raised, of which only the first has been addressed. It's becoming a messy DRV-lite. If anyone has anything to say about issues 2 and 3 (at very top of thread), fine - otherwise, let's drop this. A DRV can be opened if necessary for further discussion of whether there should be an article. Rd232 talk 08:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Not encyclopedic?You’ve got to be kidding me. He’s not “encyclopedic?” Well, he’s definitely encyclopedic in the second sense of the word. The better word would probably be “not notable.” I give him the benefit of the doubt and call him as notable as the other 12 McMahans (there is a disambig page for Jeff McMahan on Wikipedia.)
“Not notable” is highly ambiguous and subjective. What’s notable to some is highly boring to others. This must be the first case that someone claims he is “not notable” to make an (not congratulatory) article go away. It’s that same person that finds other facets of his life highly notable and newsworthy. Alleged lack of notability also serves as a highly effective WMD on WP. You don't like an article? Call it "not notable". I'm sure there will be some who share your dislike. If all else fails, make them up. Before I went to “the dark side” of corporate propaganda (the money made me do it), I used to be an investigative journalist. In my professional opinion, Bruce McMahan is extremely notable and newsworthy, and I applaud the journalist who went to the trouble of sifting through dusty court records. I recommend to be careful with the word "libel" or "libelous". In some states, libel can still be a criminal offense, and a felony. Be careful accusing others of potentially criminal acts. Speaking of libel, truth is an absolute defense against libel accusations. If you have court documents (as the Voice does) to back up your claims. you are pretty much libel-proof. What's more, a "person of public interest" (and McMahan should qualify) has a higher threshold of libel. He or she must prove malice, which most often is an insurmountable burden. As the WP is not in possession of the documents, I can understand that the WP is less enthusiastic than the Voice. However, the proper amount of "according to" and "it is alleged" would solve that matter. A lot here may be clouded by bias against the Village Voice. In my likewise professional opinion, the Village Voice is a first-class paper. It earned its reputation amongst investigative journalists (a dying breed.) It has several Pulitzers to show, along with other awards. Sure, most people have a love it or hate it relationship with the Village Voice – investigative journalism by nature polarizes. I don’t share their political leanings, but I tip my hat to them. Lately, the Voice has been affected by the same problems that affect most publications that are printed on dead forests: Lack of readership and budget. The Wall Street Journal also isn’t what it used to be. Formerly voluptuous magazines look downright anorexic. Lazy (or call that overworked) journalism is quite the norm these days. If – in this day and age - someone takes the time and the trouble to thoroughly follow-up on a story, this person has my complete respect. Especially when under fire from lawyers. The Voice deserves another award, they don’t deserve to be called “hacks” or be marginalized as “bloggers.” - That reminds me: I blog every day. For money. It’s accepted as serious journalism. Should I be offended? The "hack" and "blogger" exchange (and the minions response) didn’t help the matter. I am not related in any way with McMahan (had never heard of him or his hobbies), or Ortega, or the Voice. I have no moral outrage issues with either of them. But the matter has piqued my professional interest. The article and the talk pages are gone. Even some of the AFD discussions are gone (although accessible with a little digging). The AFD cases strike me as a bit strange. One “nomination withdrawn”, followed by one “keep” and then suddenly, one unanimous delete followed by a speedy. It is a little disconcerting to note that several attempts have now been made to quash this discussion also. Speaking of DRV-Lite, I’d like to look a bit more into the matter. I would especially like to form an opinion whether there was puppetry involved in the 3rd AFD, or if the article had been sufficiently neutered by a whole Sesame Street of puppets to be worthy of a sudden strong “Delete” vote by totally uninvolved editors. In accordance with the rules set forth by WP:DELREV I request (alternatively, in descending rank of preference)
Thank you.BsBsBs (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The October 2009 third AFD had 6 participants, of which two are admins, plus 1 user now at 17k edits, one at 8k. The discussion was on the basis of a version of the article with no mention of the controversy, which had been removed in August by a new account which did not participate. Rd232 talk 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
|
I just collapsed this entire mess, my comments included. Continue posting there if you feel the need to be nonconstructive. Lets look at the above issues:
- Issue 1: The 'libelous' comments by the Voice: has been beaten to death by the community. The voice itself is a reliable source, it's blog, perhaps less so, and Jimbo Wales fiercely denies money as a factor in these deletions
- Issue 2: The meatpuppets: has been over for days.
- Issue 3: The article history: is the cause of most of the stuff in the box.
- A primer on the article history. (Mind you this is detective work and I have not seen previous versions)
- At one point this was a functional article. It was put up for deletion twice and survived twice. Between the second and third AfDs, the article was whitewashed, and became unbalanced towards a positive view of McMahan. It was deleted by community consensus as a bad article. The article was then recreated, this time heavily in the balance against McMahan. I, with my special talent for stepping unknowingly into existing conflicts, put it up for speedy deletion. I saw an attack page with a history of deletion, and put it up for the CSD for recreations of deleted material. Then I saw the comment and the puppets and posted this thread.
- That's it people. No conspiracy theory, I don't care if the man has an article or not, it was a procedural nomination. I don't know anyone else involved, I'm not a minion, and I am tired of the drama unfolding in the box.
- A primer on the article history. (Mind you this is detective work and I have not seen previous versions)
- We need to end this mess now. Stop posting outside of the box, heck stop posting on this period. There is a proper forum for determining notability, and it ISN'T HERE.
And god bless our tortured souls, Sven Manguard Talk 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just curious, Sven, but you comment on the earlier, deleted versions of the articles - have you seen them, or are you speculating as to their content? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, as I said before this is my first interaction with the articles of this person. However I am assuming in good faith that the people that have seen the articles are being accurate in their depictions, and these assertions are backed up in the various AfDs by the comments of experienced editors. Sven Manguard Talk 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just curious, Sven, but you comment on the earlier, deleted versions of the articles - have you seen them, or are you speculating as to their content? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion Collapse
I don't think the collapsing of large parts of this discussion is a prudent move.
- It removes large parts of the discussion from plain view and will add fuel to allegations that there is something to hide
- It breaks the links from the Table Of Content and confuses users
- There is no other reason for the collapse
Also, if this is not the proper place to discuss notability, then notability should not have been introduced right at the beginning of the discussion.
I totally understand that Sven wants this discussion to go away. It will go away the old fashioned way, by the problems being resolved. Causing a collapse of the page and communication is not conducive to a solution..
Also, I reiterate the application I made above. It was no frivolous application. I meant it. A similar application had been made above, and it has been likewise ignored. BsBsBs (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want the thread to go away, per say, but it has gotten totally off track, so I collapsed it to try and make people focus on the points brought up in the beginning. The post had gotten so long and people got so distracted that I felt it to be the best option. If people focus on the issues and not the notability or the publicity, then I don't care how long this stays in ANI. Sven Manguard Talk 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that there's anything else to be said on the subject, but I am sure that ANI is not the place to discuss the subject's notability. WP:DRV is that way (or, recalling that the key AFD was based on a version of the article with no mention of the controversy, a new version which does ought to not meet WP:CSD#G4, though it would probably end up at AFD again). If there is no actual misbehaviour requiring administrator attention, then really this discussion is over. Rd232 talk 13:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Genie In The Bottle
I totally sympathize with the attempts of stuffing the genie back in the bottle. But the genie got a little bigger after having been released, and it won't fit the bottle. If you want the genie in the bottle, don't touch that cork. I'm coming back from Google Analytics, and the topic spikes like wild.
As for discussing the issues raised, IMHO, there was only one relevant issue raised in the initial ANI post:
“Issue One: Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money.”
“Issue Two: Meatpuppetry or other Odd Beheavior” never received any traction. It was full of unsubstantiated allegations. And few people doubt that there is serious puppeteering going on here anyway. Strangely, Issue Two misses most of the puppets. But professional socks are hard to catch.
“Issue Three: The curious history of Bruce McMahan and David Bruce McMahan” is superfluous. It is in plain view that the history is curious.
Job #1 in any ANI opening is to state clearly what the problem is.
Job #2 is to ask clearly what the desired remedy is.
Which brings us back to Issue #1.
Problem stated: “Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money.” Further problem stated: “This is an issue of libel against Wikipedia.”
Desired remedy: “This might need intervention by the office staff. Or we can ignore the blogger, [REDACTED], and move on. More likely option is the first one, with all the chaos that entails.”
When filing ANIs (and when participating in ANI discussions,) one should have one’s facts together. The allegation that there is a “blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money” is patently wrong. In the English language, “deleting for money” means getting paid for the deletion. To my knowledge, nobody alleged that, and nobody has received any funds.
The Village Voice and their Editor in Chief, Tony Ortega, did not say that Wikipedia was paid. They said that “The court saw through your little stratagem, but you're appealing the judge's decision to quash my subpoena because, well, why not? You have more money than you know what to do with. That couldn't be more obvious seeing how much money you spent scrubbing Wikipedia. For months after our original story came out, you had your goons launch daily attacks at the website, using sock puppets and other methods to intimidate the online encyclopedia into removing any mention of what was in our stories.” Did Ortega say that WP was paid off? He did not. He alleged that McMahan hired “goons” (let’s be charitable and assume he referred to lawyers and a PR agency) to “scrub” Wikipedia. I’m sure he has proof for that, if not, it’s a matter between McMahan and the Voice.
The allegation of money changing hands was also quickly refuted by Jimbo Wales: “Just a quick note: Tony Ortega did not claim, nor imply, that Wikipedia deleted the article "for money". If he did say or imply that, please do let me know, because that's absolutely false and libelous. But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures.”
At this point, the right thing to do for the complainant would have been to say: "Sorry, I misunderstood and misspoke. I retract the ANI." Genie back in bottle. But he didn't say that. So sadly, we must go on.
Let’s carefully parse Jimbo's statement. Jimbo Wales never said that McMahan never tried to “intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats.” All Wales says that “There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me.” If there were no legal insinuations, one would expect a more forceful statement, along the lines of “Wikipedia was never approached by either McMahan or parties acting on his behalf. We are not in receipt of any communication raising the possibility of legal consequences.” Now you only say that if it’s true, and if nobody can produce an email or fax that says the opposite. If there is such proof, you sidestep the issue.
I think this is what we have here, especially because further down, Jimbo Wales makes another statement: “Again, to be clear, I have nothing to do with this. Bruce did not contact me, I did not intervene. There is no prohibition by me or the Foundation on creating an article on this topic, and never has been. Years ago, Brad Patrick had conversation with some people about this; he may be able to explain more if he is interested. But he did not, to my knowledge, intervene back then.” Brad Patrick had been hired in 2006 as “as general counsel and interim executive director” of the Wikmedia Foundation. If “some people” contact the general counsel of a company, then it is a fair guess that legal matters were involved in the contacting.
Wales’ reply was in response to an article posted on Reddit by someone who claimed he had been the original editor, and apparently to the sentence “eventually, Bruce contacted Jimbo Wales, who directly intervened and had an admin settle the debate in favor of scrubbing ALL references to Bruce's daughter fucking from the article.” From the above, I gather Wales was not contacted, but the general counsel and interim executive director was. This is customary when lawyers are involved. They contact your lawyer if you have one.
What is also worthy to note is that the remaining allegations in the Reddit post remain unopposed. Namely “Bruce's hired gun from the law firm of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP (www.linerlaw.com) emailed me proposing changes to the article. What a fuck up! The idiot didn't even know he could edit the article himself. I ignored him.” And “Bruce's PR firm wised up, and vandals began blanking the page. I kept restoring it, and we went back and forth. His PR firm soon figured out that they could actually re-write the pages instead of vandalize them.” It would be most unwise to accuse someone of lying if the other guy can pull out an email. Speaking of unopposed allegations, here is an interesting nugget from the Village Voice article: “I tracked down the Wikipedia minion who had written that, who turned out to be an electrical engineer in England. He sent me some long explanations about the nature of journalism and what information is reliable. But eventually, I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan, but it was easier to say that the Voice wasn't a legitimate source.”
It is not entirely clear who that electrical engineer from England is, but from the back and forth I assume it is Sven Manguard (correct me if I’m wrong.) What is much more interesting is that the following assertion is, to my knowledge, unopposed: “I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan.” If I would be in that situation, and if I wouldn’t have said it, I would protest loudly and say “show me the proof that I said that, or you will be talking to my lawyer.” If the other side has an email, or possibly a voice recording, I would ignore the matter.
It also isn’t helpful that Manguard has made his disdain for the Village Voice and its sister publication, the New Time known. As in “I'm been to South Florida. I've had the distinct misfortune of reading the New Times. It is unreliable, and has such tremendously low journalistic standards that it is on par with trash tabloids. I would never use it as a source in anything. I'd sooner use the National Inquirer. The New Times is NOT a suitable source, ever, period.” Apart from the tortured grammar: We all have our opinions. I don’t think that anybody can be totally objective. However, in matters like these, we should keep our opinions to ourselves, because they will backfire.
This ANI started with a patently false allegation, namely “Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money.” It also accused another party of libel.
I mentioned above that one needs to be careful of making accusations of libel. In Florida, and this is where both Ortega and Wikipedia appear to reside, and where the most likely jurisdiction would be libel still rates as a criminal offense. Not a big one, a misdemeanor, unless extortion is involved, which would make it a second-degree felony. If all fails, there’s always the little known Tortious interference.
As far as the notability discussion goes, which some so desperately try to quash, and for which this allegedly is not the proper forum: Notability was the main criterion in the AFD discussion that led to the article’s demise (I’d evaluate the discussion as a tie). Furthermore, Jimbo Wales himself said that “For me personally, a big test for this article, and a challenge perhaps difficult to meet, is WP:BLP1E.” Which translates to “Subjects notable only for one event.” There you go, the nasty notability again.
As for the puppeteers: Of course they are gone. Mission accomplished. Article removed. That’s all they wanted to. PR agency and lawfirm SLAPP-happy. Time to write a bill. Article deleted for money. But not to Wikipedia.
Morals:
- Don’t open a discussion, and then yell “enough.”
- Have your facts together. Ask questions first, shoot later
- Don’t let personal opinions cloud your judgment – at least not publicly
- Be careful of being manipulated
As for the WP:DRV, I am waiting for the material I requested. I would like to form an opinion. BsBsBs (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
AfD non-admin closure
NAC reverted, community has sufficiently expressed its displeasure with the conduct involved
|
---|
Resolved – NAC reverted by Bali ultimate SnottyWong converse 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Can an admin take a look at this non-admin closure and revert if necessary: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise). I don't think that this nomination was "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", which is part of the WP:SK policy that the closer references. The nomination points out notability issues and is clearly not an attempt to "end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Also, there was a vote to merge the article already, so speedy keep doesn't seem appropriate here. Colonel Warden often comments about AfD's he deems inappropriate because the most likely outcome will be a merge, not deletion. It appears he is trying to take this to the next level by actually closing AfD's he deems inappropriate. SnottyWong converse 01:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is evidence that this was a pointy close, he should be blocked until he unequivocally states he won't repeat the behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
|
To collapse or not to collapse
Always a pleasure to see someone from the same wikiproject, involved in the discussion coming along to bury any talk about their compatriot. Even better when they don't sign their name so we have to dig through the history to find out who did it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You'll note that Bali Ultimate originally undid the close, Snottywong marked the thread resolved, and multiple people including me admonished the editor (at his talk page or here) for his action. You want to heap some more abuse on Colonel Warden? Think that will help the project? Then by all means revert the hatting and go for it, if it'll make you feel better. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and you'll note that you voted keep on the article, participate in the same wikiproject that colonel warden does, which has been brought up in the deletion discussion, and hatted this without signing your name. I can't see any reason for hatting it in the first place, threads are left up for 24 hours for a reason. So all time zones can participate in the discussion.I made a comment before I crashed, only to awaken and find it locked up and hatted. This rush to try and bury threads and prevent discussion is getting out of hand, especially by heavily involved editors.--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- While I fundamentally disagree with clemens on...oh, everything...I'm still a bit of an optimist when it comes to admins and their tools. This discussion had devolved into general bitching (i.e. "worthy foe". lulz) and really did need to have a pillow stuffed over its face. So to speak. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- He didn't use any admin tools or abilities when hatting the discussion. Any user could have done that, and routinely non-admins do throw up resolved tags, or put archive hats, or shrink discussions here as non-involved parties without any kind of conflict of interest. While certain parties may have degenerated, they could have been asked to step back and let other editors who may have had something to add do so.--Crossmr (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, but what else were we going to get out of this? Warden screwed up, again, and got reverted. The AfD rumbles on. If you wanna propose sanctions for him for doing this then I'd toss in a cheerful support there, but it should really begin in a fresh discussion. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- We already had a fine section on him in which sanctions could have been proposed if they were needed. Why start moving things around to other sections? we almost always keep things related and if a new section had been started its almost certain someone would have ended up merging it into this section anyway. Related sections are almost always merged on here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) What additional outcome do you want to see, that was inappropriately cut short by my collapsing the section? I didn't see any additional positive outcome, hence I collapsed it. If I'm wrong, tell me what I'm overlooking, revert the collapse, and continue on with the discussion. If, on the other hand, you just want to complain about something, then don't let my sincere efforts to be responsive to criticism get in the way of your efforts at emotional fulfillment. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Jclemens here. I marked the thread "Resolved" a mere 18 minutes after I started it, because the issue had been resolved by an uninvoled editor. Yet here we are, still discussing it nearly 40 hours later. I agree that many of Colonel Warden's editing patterns are disturbing, but unless you're going to start an RFC/U on it (which I would also support) there is nothing further that is going to be accomplished here besides plain old bitching. SnottyWong communicate 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're the one who performed the action. I haven't seen you make a case for why this needed to be collapsed in the first place, or why you needed to be the one to do it. You wrote a little summary, but it's hardly grounds for collapsing, let alone even hatting. "sufficient" is a very subjective observation, and the community has already agreed that discussions should be given 24 hours before we get rid of them unless there are some extreme circumstances, and this was hardly a very long conversation at that point. It's possible that sanctions could have been suggested but the discussion has been derailed now. in the future I'd recommend you only collapse discussions which truly need it and not ones in which you're heavily involved where it could look like you're trying to cover up for someone in your camp.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You've failed to assert an actionable harm, failed to attract any support for your position, even from the original complainant (Snottywong) and Tarc, who I agree disagrees with me on most everything. :-) I collapsed the discussion after 22 hours--two hours before your ideal 24, after you'd had your say, and no one else had endorsed your sanctions proposal. You assert that I'm somehow allied with Warden, which is both untrue, assumes bad faith, and reeks of guilt by association. You complained that my collapse was unsigned, yet neither of the other collapses on the page at the time was signed either. You've had your say, and here's mine: Thank you for your input; I will accord it all due respect in considering future actions. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's 24 hours after the last comment, not from when the thread was started. If you have such absolute misunderstanding of the process, I highly recommend you don't close anything on here until you read up on it. Your collapse came only 30 minutes after the last comment[15], [16]. As for you being allied with Warden, yes. You both voted the same way on the discussion and you're both part of the same wikiproject (article rescue squadron), which was being brought up and discussed at the AfD as well. I never said you were guilty, I said that that kind of involvement could be seen as a conflict of interest, so you should leave the unsigned hatting of threads to others who are less involved. As for what others have done on this page, if they jumped off a bridge, would you be lined up to do it next? For the record, I never suggested sanctions. I noticed someone indicating the edits might have been pointy based on previous behaviour. I said if there was evidence of that, sanctions should be applied, no one brought the evidence.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You've failed to assert an actionable harm, failed to attract any support for your position, even from the original complainant (Snottywong) and Tarc, who I agree disagrees with me on most everything. :-) I collapsed the discussion after 22 hours--two hours before your ideal 24, after you'd had your say, and no one else had endorsed your sanctions proposal. You assert that I'm somehow allied with Warden, which is both untrue, assumes bad faith, and reeks of guilt by association. You complained that my collapse was unsigned, yet neither of the other collapses on the page at the time was signed either. You've had your say, and here's mine: Thank you for your input; I will accord it all due respect in considering future actions. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, but what else were we going to get out of this? Warden screwed up, again, and got reverted. The AfD rumbles on. If you wanna propose sanctions for him for doing this then I'd toss in a cheerful support there, but it should really begin in a fresh discussion. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- He didn't use any admin tools or abilities when hatting the discussion. Any user could have done that, and routinely non-admins do throw up resolved tags, or put archive hats, or shrink discussions here as non-involved parties without any kind of conflict of interest. While certain parties may have degenerated, they could have been asked to step back and let other editors who may have had something to add do so.--Crossmr (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- While I fundamentally disagree with clemens on...oh, everything...I'm still a bit of an optimist when it comes to admins and their tools. This discussion had devolved into general bitching (i.e. "worthy foe". lulz) and really did need to have a pillow stuffed over its face. So to speak. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and you'll note that you voted keep on the article, participate in the same wikiproject that colonel warden does, which has been brought up in the deletion discussion, and hatted this without signing your name. I can't see any reason for hatting it in the first place, threads are left up for 24 hours for a reason. So all time zones can participate in the discussion.I made a comment before I crashed, only to awaken and find it locked up and hatted. This rush to try and bury threads and prevent discussion is getting out of hand, especially by heavily involved editors.--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
User:AbsoluteGleek92 and lack of communication
This user does controversial edits to film articles everyday without leaving an edit summary. There’s a lot of good edits and there’s some that go against the WP:MOSFILM. The problem is that the user has been given warnings every month since they signed up in July of this year to use an edit summary, and has not given a single response or sign of acknowledgement. We would like to communicate with this user, but it seems impossible. I think this is a clear case of disruptive and tendentious editing. What should be done about this in order to encourage collaborate editing? Mike Allen 05:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just a side note, and this may be part of the problem, is that there was, especially in the early going, very little actual communication with this user. The first dozen or so contacts consist solely of templated warnings, and the bulk of the page (i'd estimate 90% of it) is nothing but substed warning templates. Any actual human contact is really buried there. Just to stretch AGF a bit, and take the side of the accused, if I had gotten what looked like a series of automated messages the first 10 times the "you have messages" bar showed up, I may not understand that real people are trying to communicate with me. The WP:UWT templates certainly don't look like a real person trying to talk to someone, and for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, it could just look like some automated process which is easy to ignore. He may be resisting communication because he legitimately doesn't know anyone is trying to actually discuss things with him. This is where the UWT templates can go wrong, especially in light of WP:BITE. I am not saying this is necessarily the case with this user, just that it is one possibility besides the idea that he is willfully ignoring you just to be a dick. --Jayron32 05:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I take your point, but he has never communicated on any talk page. I'll leave him a personal message and if he doesn't respond, block him. Hopefully one of those will do the trick. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- He makes a lot of good edits (template changes and other tidying up) bundled together with other edits that are not helpful, and sometimes make no sense. Rather than making one edit at a time, he makes several all at once, and offers no explanation for his actions. The templating did get out of control, and I am one of the culprits. But, when no response was forthcoming, I kept trying to prod him into a response. Obviously, this did not work. Hopefully, Doug's message might. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I take your point, but he has never communicated on any talk page. I'll leave him a personal message and if he doesn't respond, block him. Hopefully one of those will do the trick. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, fine, if that's how you're going to play it, I'll add edit summaries if it'll make you people shut up. AbsoluteGleek92 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Will you add a side of civility to go with it? The request that you use edit summaries is not based on a whim, but on sound and well thought out policy that makes perfect sense. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've a better idea: forget the edit summaries and cease editing altogether. If you are going to respond to this rather simple request with the kind and level of incivility you have shown above, we might well be better off without your assistance. If, on the other hand, you want to continue editing you will do so with a modicum of respect toward your fellow editors. I certainly believe that we have extended such respect to you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Between 19:47, 14 October 2010 and 20:28, 14 October 2010, he was listening. He has now apparently forgotten. It goes beyond simple lack of edit summaries and shows a little WP:IDHT and WP:CIVIL problems I guess. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- This has gone on for a number of months and I've blocked him now for 31 hours. I've told him that if he continues in this way his next block will almost certainly be indefinite. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Grundle Again
He's been very active today, reposting rejected stuff from long ago. Could someone clean out all the subpages at User:Grundle2600? I'm not sure how to even look at them, but he's retrieving from somewhere, and this is my first guess. PhGustaf (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've gotten started, but its a sysiphian task, the list is here: [17] There's probably 40 or 50 or so. I am going to bed soon, so if any other admin wants to take over, that's cool... --Jayron32 05:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are some useful things in those subpages; it's not all rubbish. Jonathunder (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, its not that, taken in isolation, they are necessarily bad. It's that, in the hands of the long-since banned Grundle, they are being used to continue his disruption. --Jayron32 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Grundle2600's subpages: user talk —DoRD (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- They're not very useful if they're being used disruptively by a community banned user. If someone wanted to make legitimate use of them they would have done it already. Wikipedia is not a webhost or online storage: delete the lot to help prevent the ongoing disruption. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Retain the userboxes and talk page archives, but much of the rest appears to be aborted articles or userfied copies of deleted ones. Will this all have to head to MfD, or can an admin just can it unilaterally, given the snowball's chance in hell nature of the indef ever being lifted? Tarc (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for acknowledging the awesomeness of my userboxes! 71.182.212.74 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- One of the pages caught my eye, and I sent it to MfD. Let's see if it can be dispatched without drama. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do we really have to go through that? I mentioned his sub-page on Michelle Obama's arms here recently and an admin deep-sixed it. Here are a couple of others that can only be useful to Grundle's POV campaign User:Grundle2600/Obama Bear Market and User:Grundle2600/Teleprompter. The guy is banned and he's only here to disrupt. Take his toys away. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and User:Grundle2600/Reann_Ballslee. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Retain the userboxes and talk page archives, but much of the rest appears to be aborted articles or userfied copies of deleted ones. Will this all have to head to MfD, or can an admin just can it unilaterally, given the snowball's chance in hell nature of the indef ever being lifted? Tarc (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- They're not very useful if they're being used disruptively by a community banned user. If someone wanted to make legitimate use of them they would have done it already. Wikipedia is not a webhost or online storage: delete the lot to help prevent the ongoing disruption. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Grundle2600's subpages: user talk —DoRD (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, its not that, taken in isolation, they are necessarily bad. It's that, in the hands of the long-since banned Grundle, they are being used to continue his disruption. --Jayron32 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are some useful things in those subpages; it's not all rubbish. Jonathunder (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it'll make any difference, but anyway, all of User:Grundle2600's old WP:FAKEARTICLE subpages are now gone. Rd232 talk 09:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about User:Grundle2600/Carmen and User:Grundle2600/Doughnut Days 2009? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another user asked me for permission to store that in my userspace, and I said yes. 71.182.212.74 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- User:Grundle2600/Carmen had an MFD going, and the other one was just a redirect after being moved, so I left them. The MFD looks certain to conclude with deletion. Rd232 talk 14:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone block his latest IP, active now. Grsz11 02:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that he can just log on and off and pop up on another IP. Is there a mechanism for addressing this through his host Verizon? PhGustaf (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can a rangeblock be put in place? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I also have the entire Carnegie Library internet access available too. 71.182.208.25 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do believe 71.182.Grundle means the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. Either way, lock 'em both down. The collateral damage can just get an account. This IP hoppin' bullshit needs to stop. I would also get Verizon of Pittsburgh involved and also make the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh aware a troll is accessing their computers. 71.182.Grundle wants to play, we can play. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would thinks that's reasonable. Use {{School block}} (for the library atleast). Grsz11 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good. If it comes to that, we can always make it so. GWB appears to have rangeblocked the 78.181.128.0/17 range for 72 hours. Hopefully that takes care of some of the other problems. I also think we should take this one step further and start a report at WP:ABUSE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would thinks that's reasonable. Use {{School block}} (for the library atleast). Grsz11 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do believe 71.182.Grundle means the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. Either way, lock 'em both down. The collateral damage can just get an account. This IP hoppin' bullshit needs to stop. I would also get Verizon of Pittsburgh involved and also make the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh aware a troll is accessing their computers. 71.182.Grundle wants to play, we can play. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Grundle, a lot of people here, including me, like (or perhaps liked) you. Do yourself and us a favor and just go away with whatever dignity you have left. Nothing good can come of what you're doing. PhGustaf (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have rangeblocked 71.181.128.0/17 for 72 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Grundle is now posting from a 96.235. IP[18]. It's him; the material is his has he has three or four confirmed socks from that block already. PhGustaf (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sure it's him. He leaves a slimy trace like a snail which is hardly to miss. But then again, that's what he likes to do (purposely) while not seeing how he's just embarrassing himself. So he'll be indeed back and back and back till he dies or grows up, whatever comes first. Quite pitiful but true and short-term rangeblocks won't do. There is no "cure" for it yet it seems.TMCk (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu has already left the building
Not only have I left the building, but I left in style. Three times now, each time to the catcalls and brickbats of many adoring fans and haters (sadly more haters than fans).
Perhaps you could delete the ridiculous accusation of sock-puppetry on my old user page? I was curious to see if anyone had left any messages and was surprised that anyone would be stupid enough to have recreated the old user page!!!
Thanks. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, didn't realise why this happened. Should have realised. Thanks Xeno/Risker. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sheesh, I couldn't even post here to say I'd responded to the CSD for all the edit conflicts! No worries TBSDY. Risker (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Left, but still editing as an IP isn't quite the same as left. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking that's a bit odd - if it is who s/he claims to be. I'm pretty sure that's well outsite WP:Vanish with or without self-proclaimed style. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the WP:VANISH rules were written with the intent of ensuring that false accusations of sockpupetry would remain on vanished users talk pages. But I've been wrong before.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did Tbsdy lives (talk) exercise WP:VANISH, or simply retire? TFOWR 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any indication they exercised RTV.–xenotalk 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I forgot about the talk page bit- He somehow persuaded Arbcom to enforce an out-of-process and contrary to policy deletion of his usertalk pages, so he managed to vanish rather more than would be allowed to editors in good standing. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- and now has the audacity to ask that a false claim of sockpupetry be removed.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh for Pete's sake, no-one is complaining about the removal of a mistaken sock notice. What I'm complaining about is how come he gets to have his talk page deleted as being forever gone and in special circumstances, but then carries on editing as an IP. It was strongly implied that if he returned the talk page would be restored. The IP's contributions are clearly his. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- and now has the audacity to ask that a false claim of sockpupetry be removed.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- He somehow persuaded Arbcom to enforce an out-of-process and contrary to policy deletion of his usertalk pages, so he managed to vanish rather more than would be allowed to editors in good standing. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking that's a bit odd - if it is who s/he claims to be. I'm pretty sure that's well outsite WP:Vanish with or without self-proclaimed style. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Left, but still editing as an IP isn't quite the same as left. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sheesh, I couldn't even post here to say I'd responded to the CSD for all the edit conflicts! No worries TBSDY. Risker (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Gentleman, I make small on and off edits under an IP address. Indeed, I vanished. Until I noticed that someone had added something to the Ta bu shi da yu page I didn't post here. If you look at the edit history of that IP address, you'll notice that I edited a few articles and asked a few anonymous questions about statistics related matters because I'm teaching myself statistics. If folks like DuncanHill want to get all high and mighty about it, well tough. I'm not contributing a great deal, but I'm still making the odd edit. I was never banned, so far as I know. However, it's a moot point as you'll never, ever really know it's me editing if I decide to switch ISPs. To all intents and purposes, I have indeed vanished. Thank you one and all, and especially to those who cleared up the very small matter of my old user talk page. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't retired, you haven't vanished (an early talk page edit from your IP made it clear you were a returning "old-hand". Yet, somehow, you have persuaded Arbcom to threaten any admin who follows policy and restores your account's talk page. No, you weren't ever banned, but you've gamed the system like a pro. DuncanHill (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just add, have you read Facts from Figures by Moroney? It's jolly good. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- As the user has clearly not "left Wikipedia finally and forever," the user has not WP:Vanished at all, rather has switched to an IP address. The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. I have tagged the IP address as such and restored the user's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just add, have you read Facts from Figures by Moroney? It's jolly good. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- See thread further down - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Restored user talk pages
Restored user talk pages
- See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_has_already_left_the_building for background. DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe it. I anonymously made a few edits from an Optus Cable account and you have restored my user talk pages? I've never seen such an act of bastardy on Wikipedia, ever. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh do give it a rest, you are starting to bore people. Giacomo 23:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is a misunderstanding in that you exercised a WP:RTV rather than retiring the account under the circumstances then prevailing, which resulted in the pages being deleted. I do not know whether those circumstances still hold, but if they do then you should contact ArbCom again and see if the deletion can be returned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it was RTV, the pages still should not have been deleted sans MfD. I'm fairly sure Brad said that Tbsdy would not be editing again, when he was asked to justify his request that the pages stay deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am fairly sure that Brad said that the page should remain deleted, but that comment was made on my talkpage so would have not been seen by too many people. After that point I do not know what transpired, and I assume Toddst1 was acting in good faith and a misunderstanding of the original situation - but it would help if Brad or another Arb could comment on what the position is now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have contacted ArbCom, per LHVU's advise. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the good faith, LHVU. As I stated on my talk, If there was an arbcom decision, I'd be glad to self revert. All I've read is hearsay and a statement from NYB in May asking that the page be left deleted but with a qualification of "at this time." Since then, TBSDY has returned and is actively editing. That changes any RTV. Unless arbcom has ruled, we all follow the same rules. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have contacted ArbCom, per LHVU's advise. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am fairly sure that Brad said that the page should remain deleted, but that comment was made on my talkpage so would have not been seen by too many people. After that point I do not know what transpired, and I assume Toddst1 was acting in good faith and a misunderstanding of the original situation - but it would help if Brad or another Arb could comment on what the position is now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a misunderstanding, sure, but why are regular editors who know as much about the Wikipedia ethic as I do acting so robotically towards a very well regarded editor who has exercised the right of all people in good standing to edit Wikipedia anonymously? --TS 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a correct representation of the events. The user returned and was quite disruptive, left under a cloud and as I remember had his admin removed, correct me if I am wrong.Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're not wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't leave under a cloud, and Brad politely asked me if he could remove my admin rights after I left, which I readily agreed to. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I recall, Brad politely informed the rest of us that your loss of admindom counted as "under a cloud" if you ever asked for them back. I'll sniff about for the diff. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You recall rather wrongly then. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, interpretations may differ, but this was the comment I was recalling. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh fuck it. The reason I was leaving was because I was having suicidal thoughts that were causing me a great deal of problems. I have a young family and had I taken my life I would have left a widow and two small children without a father. Happy now? That's the whole fucking reason why Brad was being so oblique, you unbelievable twat. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, interpretations may differ, but this was the comment I was recalling. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You recall rather wrongly then. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I recall, Brad politely informed the rest of us that your loss of admindom counted as "under a cloud" if you ever asked for them back. I'll sniff about for the diff. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't leave under a cloud, and Brad politely asked me if he could remove my admin rights after I left, which I readily agreed to. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're not wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a correct representation of the events. The user returned and was quite disruptive, left under a cloud and as I remember had his admin removed, correct me if I am wrong.Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it was RTV, the pages still should not have been deleted sans MfD. I'm fairly sure Brad said that Tbsdy would not be editing again, when he was asked to justify his request that the pages stay deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The simple fact here is that I have made a few minor edits to Wikipedia, and asked a few questions on the Math RD. All under an anonymous IP address. If I'd asked for my old user page to be deleted via a proxy, then this wouldn't be an issue. But that's not Cricket, so for my honesty I'm being punished? That's fucked up. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- To quote Right To Vanish: "Editors who invoke this right should expect that, should they return, their previous identity will be fully restored and may be linked to their new one if required for communal scrutiny, and any open sanctions and outstanding administrator or arbitration matters may be resumed." If you've 'vanished' that doesn't mean you get to edit anonymously; it means you're done here. HalfShadow 00:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is that new identity? And are you saying I'm banned from even making the odd small change to a typo? - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hint: it starts 114... And yes. If you invoke RTV that means, to use Marcellus Wallace's words, "You get gone. And when you gone, you stay gone." That's how it works. You chose to link an IP to your former account, you decided to break the RTV. In essence, you banned yourself by invoking RTV. → ROUX ₪ 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- But I didn't link that IP address to my old account. It was a pure accident in that I posted to WP:AN/I asking for the slur that I was a sockpuppet to be removed. Had I not done that you'd never have known... my mistake I guess. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Given your failure to understand this, I'm curious as to how you became an admin in the first place. Was there a raffle or something? HalfShadow 00:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I created this noticeboard. I got quite a few articles to FA status (at the time). I helped organize Wikimeetups. I started Wikiproject Sydney. I did a lot of work to remove trolls, I cleaned up a lot of things, I created the {{fact}} tag, and on and on it goes. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hint: it starts 114... And yes. If you invoke RTV that means, to use Marcellus Wallace's words, "You get gone. And when you gone, you stay gone." That's how it works. You chose to link an IP to your former account, you decided to break the RTV. In essence, you banned yourself by invoking RTV. → ROUX ₪ 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is that new identity? And are you saying I'm banned from even making the odd small change to a typo? - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I just tried to write a post explaining the RTV, but realized I could think of exceptions for everything I said was the case. Maybe this is the time to nail down what RTV means. Are pages moved or deleted, do they include talk pages, does it mean the user must never return, or is he allowed to keep on editing under a different name/IP? etc. And what is the difference between RTV and fresh start? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- A fresh start means a new account is created, or you start actively contributing to the project under an anonymous IP address. I didn't believe, and still don't, that RTV means that you can't correct typos, or ask questions at the reference desk! - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It means different things depending on who is involved (who the editor is, who is handling it). That has always been the problem with it. Strictly speaking talk pages shouldn't be deleted under RTV, but moved to a new name. Strictly speaking if you invoke RTV you're meant to stay vanished. But exceptions abound. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, Toddst1 just warned me that I'm about to get blocked. Please! As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is actively pursuing someone when they know they have a serious mental illness is a twat, pure and simple. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hope no one ends up being blocked. TB, is there a reason now that you want your talk pages to stay deleted? You don't need to elaborate, but is there still a reason? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's hard for me to elaborate, but it definitely relates to my ongoing illness. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, then I am going to delete them for now, and we can continue discussing what to do in the longer term, and in more general terms with this kind of situation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. If it means that I never, ever edit on this site again (ever! even for typos, etc.) then so be it! - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, then I am going to delete them for now, and we can continue discussing what to do in the longer term, and in more general terms with this kind of situation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's hard for me to elaborate, but it definitely relates to my ongoing illness. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've deleted them and dropped Todd an email to let him know. Meanwhile I think this is a good opportunity to nail down what we mean by RTV at the RTV talk page, and whether talk pages should be moved or deleted, and when they may be undeleted. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#Deleting user talk pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that the editor in question never invoked RTV, he retired while blocked, something he had done before. As he was blocked, and had had talk page access and email access denied for abuse there is no way he could be considered to have been in good standing for RTV. Please could some of you be less willing to take his lies at face value. He has a long history of lying about his retirements and the circumstances surrounding them, even to the extent of lying to the Bureaucrats last time he reclaimed his admin tools. DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Duncan, I don't know whether you realise who Ta bu shi da yu is, but even so calling him a liar like this is unacceptable. Please back off from this issue and let others handle it. --TS 11:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know that even after block logs and edit histories were posted shewing that he had retired while blocked, he continued to claim that he hadn't retired while blocked. "Who he is" doesn't make any difference. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Merridew behaviour
Per [19], [20] and [21], I ask an uninvolved admin to block Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) for disruption. This is a continuation of a pattern of abusive editing on Merridew's part to impose his preferred styles on articles over objections. He is now accusing me of "harrassment" [22] for undoing his undiscussed changes to the styles established in articles that I previously edited. Merridew was banned by arbcom for past stalking and abuse of multiple accounts. His current arbcom sanction mentions " follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts". I submit he has failed to do so. I believe, at this point, his behaviour is more than serious enough to warrant a block. I would block him myself for disruption, but other admins have felt I am involved. (I will be offline for many hours now.) Gimmetoo (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are involved; and very much so. pablo 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a content dispute, and a kinda lame one at that. Is there a version that is more frequently used in other actor bios? Has this been discussed in a style guideline perhaps in a wikiproject? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not about colours or styles or my editing; he's decided to target me. Merridew 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- this statement
- ANI632#obstruction of ref clean-up
- ANI632#Gimmetoo, again
- ANI641#RexxS behaviour (which was about Gimme' reverting me)
- Merridew 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not going to lie, after reading over those diffs, and your ANI report, it looks like you, Gimmetoo, are the one who has been doing all the harassing. If there's a content dispute, take it back to square one with Jack and discuss it civilly. For the record, Jack is more than willing to talk about his edits. On a side note, considering that you yourself do not have all too stellar of a track record, I encourage you to not hurl stones at other people's glass houses when you live in one yourself. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Fastily's summary of the interactions between Jack and Gimmetoo/trow. It is clear that Gimme is the one being tendentious and unreasonable, and has indulged in hounding behaviour over a period of several months. Gimme seems to believe that he owns certain articles and interprets all disagreement on their content or presentation as a personal affront, and I'm sure I don't need to say that that is a totally unproductive and irrational attitude. It is also worrying that Gimme takes such delight in bringing up Jack Merridew's (very distant) past bad behaviour, as though it's prima facie evidence that Jack must be in the wrong now. That is quite obviously wrong too. I urge Gimmetoo to leave Jack the hell alone and stop being so precious. This is beyond tiresome. Reyk YO! 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Closed this, before Gimmetoo/trow finds themselves having a major issue. Blocking Merridew themselves would result in a desysop RFC. So don't do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not resolved. Merridew went immediately to making similar inappropriate changes of style known to be controversial, in this case in direct violation of WP:CITE#Citation_templates_and_tools: " Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." The edits in question are to Kerr and Andress. Merridew made no attempt to gain consensus, no post on the talk page, no attempt at discussion that I can find. Furthermore, his edit to Andress installed a bug in the table that Merridew ought to know about, because it was the content basis for the last ANI issue. (An issue which, by the way, Merridew misprepresents above; Merridew undid one of my edits, I started a discussion, and Merridew didn't respond.) And I noticed these because both Kerr and Andress are articles I have watchlisted, and that I've edited quite a bit, as far as I know long before Merridew ever edited them. (I've also edited the other articles Merridew edited: Bynes and Bullock.) It seems likely to me that Merridew is stalking me, especially given Merridew's documented prior stalking. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously? The difference between this and this is what you are so flustered about? Removing some entirely redundant coloring is an "inappropriate edit" that gets you up in arms like this? --87.79.51.168 (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Storm in a teacup much? 160.44.248.164 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Looks like someone is suffering from a serious case of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop for the good of the project. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I think you're all missing the point-- we have policies and guidelines for a reason, and Gimme is following them. How about telling Merridew to move along and find something else to occupy his time with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that Gimmetoo/trow is making it a habit of demanding blocks of editors who disagree with him when he doesn't get his way, has a major ownership problem with some articles, and refuses to listen to constructive feedback. Why should Jack "move along" when he's working for the good of the project and obeying policy and guidelines (indeed, helping to improve them) simply because an obstructionist doesn't like it? What needs to happen here is for Gimetoo to "let it go;" I hope that action will be taken against him the next time he makes one of these frivolous complaints.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please explain your assertion that Jack is obeying policy and guidelines, when it is Gimme who is doing so? If Merridew doesn't like our citation guidelines, he should take his crusade to that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that there are other venues for resolution of disputes before marching straight to ANI. This page is not for yelling "I don't like what this editor's doing, please block them". This is why I've marked this resolved (twice). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The explanation of how Jack is obeying policy and guidelines is that he's making articles internally consistent (and very often consistent with other similar articles as well). Consistency is a principle that overrules personal preferences. It is downright disruptive to complain about changing a reference like this: <ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20414325,00.html</ref> to this: <ref>{{cite web|last=Oh |first=Eunice |url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20414325,00.html |title=Miranda Kerr: Yes, I'm Pregnant! - Babies, Miranda Kerr, Orlando Bloom |publisher=People.com |date=2010-08-19 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> and Gimme knows it. He's also aware that MOS:ENDASH documents the consensus that we should change dates ranges like "1987-1988" to "1987–1988" and Gimme knows that as well. He even knows how to fix the problem that his browser causes him, because I've taught him how to do it (add a sort key). It's about time that Gimme stopped obstructing editors whose only desire is to improve Wikipedia, and quit running to ANI every time he doesn't get his way, before the community loses patience with him. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely. ANI is not here to play mommy. I also don't see anything wrong with Jack's edits as a purely practical matter. He removes redundant coding, an outright good thing. Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive as we say. It describes accepted community standards, not tells us what to do. We even have/had that wording on one of the policy overview pages, followed by 'it can and does lag behind community practices at times'. I think the lack of outcry and the frustration with Gimmetoo's hounding of Jack is fairly good evidence that the policy in question is starting to get behind the times. -- ۩ Mask 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that there are other venues for resolution of disputes before marching straight to ANI. This page is not for yelling "I don't like what this editor's doing, please block them". This is why I've marked this resolved (twice). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please explain your assertion that Jack is obeying policy and guidelines, when it is Gimme who is doing so? If Merridew doesn't like our citation guidelines, he should take his crusade to that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that Gimmetoo/trow is making it a habit of demanding blocks of editors who disagree with him when he doesn't get his way, has a major ownership problem with some articles, and refuses to listen to constructive feedback. Why should Jack "move along" when he's working for the good of the project and obeying policy and guidelines (indeed, helping to improve them) simply because an obstructionist doesn't like it? What needs to happen here is for Gimetoo to "let it go;" I hope that action will be taken against him the next time he makes one of these frivolous complaints.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I think you're all missing the point-- we have policies and guidelines for a reason, and Gimme is following them. How about telling Merridew to move along and find something else to occupy his time with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Looks like someone is suffering from a serious case of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop for the good of the project. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
(od) Another editor tried to work things out with Jack once before but he managed to out last her. She retired from the project, see it here Wildhartlivie. I'm done for the night but I'm sure Jack can supply the many difs to the RFC and the projects who dealt with this. Have a good night everyone. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- User:A Nobody also had frequent arguments with Jack Merridrew. A Nobody is now banned from editing. --Alpha Quadrant talk 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- There was obviously a big argument between the two: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse --Alpha Quadrant talk 00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- WHL (and a second account first thought to be a sock but later identified as a friend who edited at her house) seemed to be on a crusade to keep a wild variety of colors in various articles rather than going for a more unified, sober, and meaningful approach. There were more editors than WHL and Jack involved in that, but there was some edit warring on both sides, and I would not by any means paint this as "WHL tried to work things out with Jack". As for A Nobody, it's probably a lot more accurate to say that after a community RfC on A Nobody, the findings of which he failed to heed, and a subsequent ArbCom case which he "retired" to avoid, A Nobody was blocked and then a community ban was layered on top of that. A Nobody went on to disparage other editors on his private Wikia wiki, to the point of being ordered to desist by Wikia staff. That's probably a far more accurate recounting of events. I don't really hold Jack responsible for either of those two editors departing. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what CronhieGal's comment is supposed to mean. This dispute started when Merridew tried to install cite templates on two articles, and was reverted (by me on one, and another admin on the other). The consequent discussion on both articles did not provide consensus for Merridew's edits. Nevertheless, well after these discussion concluded, Merridew made precisely that change on two other articles - articles that I routinely edit, and edited long before Merridew ever edited them. Merridew made no attempt at discussion, and given the past two attempts, likely would not get consensus for Merridew's edits at the articles in question. Nevertheless, many editors appear to be supporting Merridew's edits as perfectly OK.
Nobody who edits here for any length of time is going to do everything perfect. Everyone has faults. Indeed, most of the commentators above have committed wikifaults in various degrees, including me. Indeed, some of those above are involved in this dispute but neglected to reveal that point for genuinely uninvolved editors. Some editors have civility issues. Some editors fail to observe WP:BRD. Some may be canvassing. Given the two IP edits from the same country, there may be sockpuppetry. Nevertheless, I saw the behavior displayed by Merridew as much worse than anything anyone else in this thread has done recently. But apparently those commenting above disagree. Therefore, I would like to get this straight: is it the consensus of this ANI thread that:
- there is nothing wrong with edit-warring to change an article to meet an editor's preferred style, regardless of the style present in the article, how long it has been there, or any past discussions
- specifically, the prohibition of WP:CITE of edit-warring to install cite templates is obsolete and is to be marked historical
- there is nothing wrong with targeting articles another editor edits routinely
- there is nothing wrong with edit summaries in article space identifying a specific editor's edits as harassment
Is that the consensus here? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alternatively, how about:
- specifically, there is nothing wrong with improving an article by changing a bare url to a properly formatted citation, regardless of how many badly-formed references there are in the article, nor how long they have been there
- it is unacceptable to edit-war to revert article improvements
- the guidance against changing the style of references is subordinate to the need to have references displayed in a consistent format in an article
- there is nothing wrong with identifying harassment when it occurs
- ANI is not dispute resolution, and the community has only limited patience with those who abuse it
- Perhaps we could get consensus for that? --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying, if any part of an article is "inconsistent" in any way whatsoever, that you are 100% completely justified in changing every style aspect of the article to any style you choose, and that it is 100% completely justified to remove any other fixes or corrections to the article at the same time? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- And you're saying that on articles that you routinely edit, and have edited for a long time, nobody is allowed to format the references to display in a consistent manner, or you'll report them to ANI? Or is it just Jack who isn't allowed? --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would say "consistency" is fine, if it reflects the way the article has developed. For instance, I would say that an article that is stable with 90% one variety of English could be made 100% that variety, but taking a 10% variation as an pretext to make the article 100% a different form would probably not be OK. Would you agree? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say that consistency of presentation is far more important than whatever underlying mechanism is used to achieve that. I certainly would agree that an article which is 90% one format and 10% another would be improved by making it 100% consistent. To address the issue of which format, the "majority style" of English is not one of the deciding factors given at WP:ENGVAR for good reason. The primary deciding factor is whether the subject has strong national ties; the secondary one is the first major contributor who used a variety of English. Since an article may have been expanded considerably by an editor who used a different variety, we've reached the present consensus that majority usage is not a deciding factor. Nevertheless, extrapolating ENGVAR to other issues requires caution. "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language" means that we hold either variety in equal respect. The same does not apply for the display style of references. For example, I believe that one of the fully-formatted references (as enumerated at WP:CITE#HOW) is always preferred to bare urls (which often only display a superscript numeral). It would be a mistake to object to an edit which improved an article with inconsistent referencing by bringing it into consistency with one of the full citation styles given at WP:CITE#HOW. Wouldn't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I would disagree with some of your statements. Installing citation templates is contentious. While a "fully-formatted reference" is in some ways an improvement, I think that using "fully-formatted reference" as a pretext for installing citation templates in an article that has developed without them is an abuse, and to do so to target and bait editors who support WP:CITE is pointy and WP:HA. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your view, and appreciate it. Citation templates are contentious, but I'm not prepared to either endorse or condemn installing them without considering context. I still think the way references are presented is more important then whether they are made via a good hand-crafted reference or a citation template. As everyone knows, citation templates make citation maintenance much easier and present a (generally) consistent result. Not everyone understands the problem that an large article with 100+ templates can take a considerable time for the server to generate in edit mode. That is an issue that will require developers to address. Personally, I have no difficulty with someone converting an underdeveloped article to citation templates, but I wouldn't recommend it for large, heavily referenced articles at present. I accept that your view may be different, and there is a large "grey area" in between the obvious extremes, where discussion and judgement is required. I'm glad we can agree on the value of fully-formatted references, but I would still recommend that individual articles deserve individual discussions, and suggest that the relevant article talk page is a better venue to search for consensus on this issue. --RexxS (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I would disagree with some of your statements. Installing citation templates is contentious. While a "fully-formatted reference" is in some ways an improvement, I think that using "fully-formatted reference" as a pretext for installing citation templates in an article that has developed without them is an abuse, and to do so to target and bait editors who support WP:CITE is pointy and WP:HA. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say that consistency of presentation is far more important than whatever underlying mechanism is used to achieve that. I certainly would agree that an article which is 90% one format and 10% another would be improved by making it 100% consistent. To address the issue of which format, the "majority style" of English is not one of the deciding factors given at WP:ENGVAR for good reason. The primary deciding factor is whether the subject has strong national ties; the secondary one is the first major contributor who used a variety of English. Since an article may have been expanded considerably by an editor who used a different variety, we've reached the present consensus that majority usage is not a deciding factor. Nevertheless, extrapolating ENGVAR to other issues requires caution. "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language" means that we hold either variety in equal respect. The same does not apply for the display style of references. For example, I believe that one of the fully-formatted references (as enumerated at WP:CITE#HOW) is always preferred to bare urls (which often only display a superscript numeral). It would be a mistake to object to an edit which improved an article with inconsistent referencing by bringing it into consistency with one of the full citation styles given at WP:CITE#HOW. Wouldn't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would say "consistency" is fine, if it reflects the way the article has developed. For instance, I would say that an article that is stable with 90% one variety of English could be made 100% that variety, but taking a 10% variation as an pretext to make the article 100% a different form would probably not be OK. Would you agree? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- And you're saying that on articles that you routinely edit, and have edited for a long time, nobody is allowed to format the references to display in a consistent manner, or you'll report them to ANI? Or is it just Jack who isn't allowed? --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying, if any part of an article is "inconsistent" in any way whatsoever, that you are 100% completely justified in changing every style aspect of the article to any style you choose, and that it is 100% completely justified to remove any other fixes or corrections to the article at the same time? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you can see this same type of disagreement being discussed multiple times. First, here is an AN/i report very similar to this one. Also instead of writing down all the difs in it, you will see in that report all the difs of where this was discussed at multiple locations like the village pump, WT:ACTOR. All I'm saying is that this same kind of complaint got no where before and it needs to be dealt with this time. The actor project had a few major discussions going on about this too, the dif is in the link above. Jack did the same thing to Wildhartlivie following her from one article to the next. The dif for that was deleted so I can no longer get access to it. Jack has a set way that he feels the project should follow and he just barges in and makes the changes and doesn't bother to discuss it with editors who are working the articles. I dropped out the discussion finally myself because it was like talking to a brick wall. Wildhartlivie, finally got fed up with no one taking this serious to help her out with all the harrassment she felt she was getting so she finally just slapped a semi-retirement up and slowly found that she couldn't work here with running into Jack still that she found that her enjoyment here was no long going to be had and she left permanently. We have to have Jack follow the same set of rules as everyone else. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand that Jack does target editors and he is relentless. I know he has his supporters but it is time now with another editor saying the same thing about it to make it stop. Just my opinion but this is kind of a rerun of what I saw the last time. I hope this clarifies my hurried post last night. Gimmetoo is not wrong, he is right, Jack has no right to force his opinions on everyone else. He's been doing that for a long time now, is anyone going to say enough is enough now? HTH, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that's an accurate or helpful summation at all. You (as a friend of WHL) are wildly misstating the case here. WHL was not harassed by Jack and to say that really is over the top. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's my view on this contretemps. ((obDisclose, I've stuck up for Jack before) Jack, in his gnomish way, has been going around improving things (I find it hard to argue against moving citations from bare links or hand formatted references to the citation templates, and even harder to argue against changing bare dashes to emdashes per the MOS.) and that seems to have setGimme off to the point that he's exerting ownership characteristics. That needs to stop. The case, as presented by Gimme is spurious (and it was closed twice already). I'll go farther, if Gimme keeps reverting improvements to articles, whoever makes them, a block is in order. Jack is editing in agreement with our convention. Gimme should drop the stick and back away from the horse, now, before this degenerates further. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it's any help, Lar, your summary reflects my own thoughts (obDisclose, I share Jack's perspective on improving Wikipedia). To be as fair as I can to Gimme, I should say that citation templates present an issue in very large articles (as I outlined above), and that changing hyphens to endashes in date ranges (per MOS) presents a minor problem particular to the Safari 4 browser (as outlined in Gimme's earlier complaint against me). These issues are solvable, but not at ANI. I'd encourage Gimme to engage in the process of seeking solutions, as there are plenty of editors willing to collaborate in that. --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum civility issue
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can a previously uninvolved admin please instruct Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) not to use such language when commenting at my user talk page? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why, what's wrong with it? And since when did admins get to "instruct" other editors?Parrot of Doom 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're looking for an admin who hasn't been the target of Malleus' blunt language? Good luck with that. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- @Parrot, if you actually read it, there was some cursing it. Seems that he is also has a nice block record of that also. I don't even see why he keeps getting unblocked early, but then again it isn't my issue.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I had to read that three times before I understood it, but thanks for presuming I hadn't read something about which I was commenting. I think that says more about you than it does me. Parrot of Doom 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- @Parrot, Sorry, I left a note on your talk page. It is my fault for not assuming good faith.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I had to read that three times before I understood it, but thanks for presuming I hadn't read something about which I was commenting. I think that says more about you than it does me. Parrot of Doom 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're on a hiding to nothing here. Using fuck as an intensifier is not inherently incivil. Even if it were, Malleus is immune to any criticism of how he speaks. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
@Jclemens, in that case, any admin other than myself stating such in a post to his user talk page, would be appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- And why would I want to kick that hornets' nest? Any of us who've been around for a while know how Malleus conducts himself, how he responds to attempts to change it, and how effective the community is not at doing anything about it. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can't take action myself, but it's my belief that an RFC based on long-term incivility is well overdue. Nobody should be fireproof here, however well-connected they may appear to be. The break may well be when one's own supporters give up the ghost as being no longer sustainable. I'll leave it to others to decide that. Rodhullandemu 23:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Using "fuck" as an intensifier is inherently uncivil, in the context of our policy WP:CIVIL. I can't take action here either but accord with RHE that a RFCU might be the next step. --John (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why isn't there a rule for long term incivility anyways? Knowing admins to unblock you ain't cool.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Because your version of civility might be different to another person's. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, that isn't what the policy says. It says (in part) "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor... can ... result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." I'd say this outburst is probably blockworthy in itself, when taken alongside MF's history, though it may be worth taking the context into consideration, something I have not (yet) examined. --John (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Problem is that, what happens if another admin just unblocks him?--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, that isn't what the policy says. It says (in part) "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor... can ... result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." I'd say this outburst is probably blockworthy in itself, when taken alongside MF's history, though it may be worth taking the context into consideration, something I have not (yet) examined. --John (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Because your version of civility might be different to another person's. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. That's just the arrogance that is anathema to this project, and is arguably the supposed source of your immunity. Contributing here isn't just the content you've provided, but I've also argued on several occasions that there are two dimensions to being here; content contribution and collegiality, and it is on the latter point that you appear to be missing the point. See above: "nobody is fireproof". You may have allies, for now, but that may not last. With great respect to your content contributions, a holistic and collegiate attitude might save you from perdition, but it has to be said that I don't see your usual acolytes flooding to your defence right now. Hmmm? Rodhullandemu 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmm is right. I'm just watching and wondering when someone is going to say anything about Cirt's long-standing approach to FAR. Oh ... Malleus finally did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
For fucks sake, not this thread again. Out of pure curiosity, would it have been any better if Malleus had said "I believe that you don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about."? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 00:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. There comes a time when to enjoy the picnic, you must swat the wasp. THis has been going on for far too long. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Admins are neither the naughty words police, nor supposed to look away when casual abuse of other editors happens. Sometimes, the former becomes or is part of the latter.
- A lot of thin skinned people are sensitive to naughty words, which is why we try to discourage them, and sometimes have to whack someone for using them. But we really need to focus more on casual or directed abuse.
- Malleus (if I may paraphrase some years of familiarity) seems to believe that naughty words never transgress into outright abuse, and has a higher threshold for what's abuse than the community writ large. The community does not as a whole agree with that, hence WP:CIVIL and various editor abuse blocks that have happened and will undoubtedly happen again. There is an ongoing debate about where the line should be.
- IMHO - Malleus put the first foot "wrong" but the two of them were starting to engage in a bit of mutual combatantry there. The wrongness was into the grey area but not across the line in a clear manner, and was clearly more of an exasperated utterance than a focused intentional insult. These are not good, but "admins are not the naughty words police".
- With that said - Malleus, please knock it off. Cirt took it as a personal attack. You're pushing too hard when people react to you that way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cirt didn't take it as a "personal attack" at all, he saw it as an excuse to have me blocked again, along with his mate Rodhullandemu. A rational personal looking at the circumstances, should one ever be found amongst wikipedia's administrators, might even conclude that the incivility was on Cirt's part, even though he didn't actually use a naughty word. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then why did he come here for an opinion? And I specifically deferred blocking you, or whatever, to an RFC. I'm amazed that you have any idea what a "rational person" may think, given your history, but, I do urge you to read our article on paranoia before take one step further forward. As I read it, your credibility here is rapidly going down the drain, and that isn't up to me; it's up to you. So fix it. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cirt didn't take it as a "personal attack" at all, he saw it as an excuse to have me blocked again, along with his mate Rodhullandemu. A rational personal looking at the circumstances, should one ever be found amongst wikipedia's administrators, might even conclude that the incivility was on Cirt's part, even though he didn't actually use a naughty word. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No thanks. When I see a rich source of the comedy of ridicule enfolding, there is no way I am going to stifle it, because professionally, I can use it. You go full steam ahead. I've been asked for another draft script, and the richness of this is beyond price. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my effing god, he said "fuck". I am so offended. Yworo (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- MF gets shlepped here so often, they're considering naming the new wing after him. Actually, the offensive part was saying that the other editor didn't have a clue. That's equivalent to calling him an idiot, which at one time here was considered uncivil. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bugs, you dirty so-and-so! Your mother was an elderberry and your father smells of hamsters! HalfShadow 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- This thread's feeling much bettah! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bugs, you dirty so-and-so! Your mother was an elderberry and your father smells of hamsters! HalfShadow 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- MF gets shlepped here so often, they're considering naming the new wing after him. Actually, the offensive part was saying that the other editor didn't have a clue. That's equivalent to calling him an idiot, which at one time here was considered uncivil. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my effing god, he said "fuck". I am so offended. Yworo (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- MF is blocked for 12 hrs, not for the original comment, but for the responses here. notification on his talk page
- The responses here were not ruder or more abusive, but they did constitute a denial that anyone would legitimiately take offense at his language and behavior. Whether Malleus' viewpoint on civility is right or wrong, he is aware that he's operating at the outside edge of community norms here, and knows what those norms are. To do so in the honest belief that those norms are wrong - and I don't for a minute doubt his beliefs - is not wrong. But anyone operating intentionally and knowingly outside community norms cannot reject the effect that those actions have on others, or abandon responsibility for the offenses caused.
- It would be one thing to say "I did not intend that as a personal attack", which I think is true. It's another to say "...and nobody could take it as a personal attack, and it must be other hostile motives," which Malleus did. Obviously people can take it as a personal attack. Most of the time they won't - but when they do, it's an editors' responsibility to acknowledge that and take responsibility for it.
- Counterattacking, by denying that anyone could be offended and questioning motives in the complaint, IS a personal attack.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus never said such a thing as "...and nobody could take it as a personal attack, and it must be other hostile motives," (certainly not those exact words, and their spirit doesn't seem to be in his words either) and your suggestion that he did may be among the more problematic behaviors here. I've unblocked him. Ucucha 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The exact quote above, responding to my first comment, is:
- Cirt didn't take it as a "personal attack" at all, he saw it as an excuse to have me blocked again, along with his mate Rodhullandemu. A rational personal looking at the circumstances, should one ever be found amongst wikipedia's administrators, might even conclude that the incivility was on Cirt's part, even though he didn't actually use a naughty word. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's an explicit denial that Cirt did take it as a personal attack, and a claim that nobody should have.
- Furthermore, as I noted on your talk page, except in cases of obvious gross error, administrators are supposed to seek a noticeboard consensus and/or discuss with the blocking administrator prior to issuing an unblock. You failed to do either here. While the behavior and block are clearly the subject of some community dissent here, there is considerable administrator and experienced editor support for there being a problem of some magnitude above, which rules out "obvious gross error" and voids the excuse to simply wheel war the unblock rather than make any attempt to discuss first.
- I'm fine with undoing it if consensus here develops against me; I'm fine with you undoing it on your discretion after talking it over. I'm not fine with this unblock; it violated policy which is there for a good reason. Please revert until discussion has had time to reasonably happen here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The exact quote above, responding to my first comment, is:
- Malleus never said such a thing as "...and nobody could take it as a personal attack, and it must be other hostile motives," (certainly not those exact words, and their spirit doesn't seem to be in his words either) and your suggestion that he did may be among the more problematic behaviors here. I've unblocked him. Ucucha 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would there be any possibility of having a discussion about Cirt's involvement at FAR and his/her "editors' responsibility to acknowledge that and take responsibility for it"? Perhaps we need to institute a "take it to the talk page first" rule to prevent the demoralizing delist, delist, delist trend furthered at FAR by Cirt. Someone was bound to speak up sooner or later, and since it happened to be Malleus, of course we have another blockfest. A good deal of the advice being given to MF might be applied to Cirt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Mild agree - see prior comment about mutual combatantry. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! So, does Cirt consider the affront to Malleus to be called "lazy" considering how much Malleus does for so many articles, content review processes, and other editors? So, just who was uncivil? Cirt is a prolific "delist, delist, delister" at FAR, and the tone isn't always conducive to all this collegiality we're asking of MF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Mild agree - see prior comment about mutual combatantry. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would there be any possibility of having a discussion about Cirt's involvement at FAR and his/her "editors' responsibility to acknowledge that and take responsibility for it"? Perhaps we need to institute a "take it to the talk page first" rule to prevent the demoralizing delist, delist, delist trend furthered at FAR by Cirt. Someone was bound to speak up sooner or later, and since it happened to be Malleus, of course we have another blockfest. A good deal of the advice being given to MF might be applied to Cirt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any further purpose in this thread. Let's close it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, late in the game Malleus Fatuorum's use of vulgarity on an editor's talk page is wildly inappropriate. It violates WP:CIVIL and likely WP:NPA. Basket of Puppies 03:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- My comment is obviously late as well, but I just got back online. Of course his comment was inappropriate and rude. That's what Malleus does. Everyone should know that by now, and just be prepared to get over it. It's obvious he's not going to be blocked for anything, as his content contributions are enough to overshadow everything else in the minds of enough admins to render this a waste of time. He was blocked for fifteen minutes before it was overturned, which is still long enough to make that the longest block of his last three. This isn't even worth trying to fix anymore. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Going again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Hard to add much to what I said here: I admire MF's contrarian spirit, but struggle with the logical incoherency of being against civility but complaining when he perceives that others are uncivil, which seems to be his position. I also regret the pointy disruptiveness of his methods. Whatever folks think about the merits of MF's campaign, I imagine I am not the only one who tires of the trail of drama which this talented editor seems to continually leave behind him. Really at this point there's little else to say short of a RFC/U, as it seems unlikely MF will moderate his behavior which causes offense, as he feels his content work exempts him from the rules the rest of us have to try to follow. --John (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have no idea what I feel, and I can't even begin to imagine why you believe that you do. My position is very far from the one you describe; I have explained it to you and many others in the past, but very few seem to have either the intellectual resources or the integrity to understand it. You have never seen me complain about the incivility of another editor, except in your dreams. What I have repeatedly complained about is the inequality in the application of the civility policy in particular to administrators and non-administrators. Any fair-minded person could easily take the view that it ought to have been Cirt who received the block, as his behaviour at FAR has been disruptive for some time now, but as he's an administrator that just gets ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- "In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here's where you expressed the view that your content work makes you exempt from following civility rules. This wasn't very hard to find; you are complaining about the incivility of others (although you do not use the word), as recently as 30 September. You can't have it both ways, you know. You talk about integrity and intellectual resources; how about demonstrating them for us? --John (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can only assume that English is not your first language John, or at any rate not one that you have any real understanding of. Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since this appears to be going again, I will translate MF's post above. John has alleged that Malleus believes his "content work makes you exempt from following civility rules", yet the diff he provides shows no such thing. John also stated that "he feels his content work exempts him from the rules the rest of us have to try to follow", which is simply not true-- in my experience, Malleus is actually quite humble about his prolific work, not only on writing FAs, but on helping others write them, and he never plays that card. It does appear that there is a problem with John's English, yet Malleus has been blocked again for stating that (Malleus is some kind of a block magnet). In fact, MF's point is quite simple: a double standard exists when it comes to Malleus versus what admins can get away with, and admins are frequently far more uncivil than Malleus has ever been (John might recall a post he made once to Ceoil, another FA writer). Since I seem to be another magnet for abuse, whereby anyone can say anything anytime anywhere about me without consequences, I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to his position (at the same time, I acknowledge my appeciation that John actually did something about the last attack on me). The recent block was unjust: John, was it really necessary to ignite this again after the section was archived? Please try to take greater care when making statements about other editors that are just not true. I also continue to note that nothing has been said about Cirt's participation at FAR, which warrants attention and is what started all of this. Oh, and the sooner y'all can let Malleus get back to work, the sooner the FAC backlog can be addressed; we've got work to do, and that is why we're here right? Malleus was doing that at FAR before the tangle with Cirt. SandyGeorgia (Talk)17:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- @SarekofVulcan: I might understand your block of Malleus if the standards were the same for everyone as they are for Malleus. I have some examples. I was once told to "fuck off" in plain view of multiple admins and several arbs, yet the offender received narry a warning. I am routinely attacked on my talk page, and there are rarely consequences. The attack on Ceoil I mentioned above was far worse than anything Malleus has ever said, but nothing was done. And every time lately that I bring a serious issue to AN/I, the same offenders poison the well here with grossly disparaging and false accusations about my character and editing, yet nothing is ever said or done. Of course, those untrue statements about me are never accompanied by diffs, because there are none that back up the attacks on me. Malleus simply points out the truth-- different standards are applied to different editors, and because he states that often, he has become a block magnet, while I remain an abuse magnet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't recall calling MF a troll on September 30 or any other time, but my memory is not perfect. I don't know why I would characterize MF as anything besides MF. There have been many editors that thought wikipedia couldn't survive without them. Nearly all of them have been wrong so far. :) On the other hand, some folks get way too excited over name-calling. Content is what matters here. When anyone throws obscenities at you, they can't harm you, they can only harm themselves, as they reveal that at heart they are low-lifes. Don't feel anger. Feel sorrow, and wonder what happened to them to make them so hateful. Pray for them. Someone needs to. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly right, but for two things. 1) This begs the question of why Malleus is always blocked for lesser offenses than routinely occur on this very page. 2) Sticks and stones may break my bones, but because words don't hurt me, and I "take a licking and keep on ticking", the offenders continue, and article content is affected by the poisoning of the well, as admins take no action. It's high time for admins to start paying attention to the inequities, and start blocking truly uncivil and disruptive editors instead of Malleus, since he does at least contribute content, while many of them don't (and that is me tooting Malleus's horn, not to be confused with the inaccurate accusations that he does that). Ec for Black Kite-- again begs the question, since a double standard applies, and the "fuckwittery" routinely occurs right here, right under the noses of multiple admins, who always act when it's Malleus, but rarely act when it's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It does seem that Malleus makes himself a lightning rod and does nothing to try and improve the situation. It's a matter of what bothers you, I suppose. I don't care what somebody calls me. There are far greater problems on wikipedia than name calling is: POV-pushing, edit warring, vandalism, endless fights over stupid stuff like whether to include a comma in an article title - all those things are the bugaboo of a site like wikipedia, and it's the kind of stuff that makes people not trust wikipedia. Editors calling each other names behind the scenes is well down the critical list. Complaints about a double-standard are technically fair complaints, but in real life we often put up with a lot from people who are productive. Life is a bowl of tradeoffs. In fact, Malleus has not suffered anything from all this. If an admin gets annoyed and blocks him, he'll be unblocked ASAP. Truly useless editors who do the same stuff are sent to the phantom zone in a heartbeat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- ah, but now you're really missing the point :) The POV-pushing, edit warring, etc is allowed to continue because bringing important matters to this page results in the offending editors launching attacks, for which there is no retribution while admins turn a blind eye, yet MF is blocked for trivialities. I'd love to see the editors who routinely make far worse attacks on me on this very page blocked when I'm trying to address POV-pushing and edit warring. Of course, I recognize admins have much more fun fighting over Gimme and Malleus, for the drama factor, while taking on true POV pushers and disruptive tendentious editors would be like ... real work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do see what you're saying. I was just now, for the first time, taking a look at MF's rap sheet Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I was amazed that he's still here. Most guys with that many blocks would have been gone long ago. So I don't see what MF has to complain about. If anything, he's been given a lot of latitude. You might also be onto something about admins sometimes standing at the side of the rink and watching a couple of guys slug it out for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Generally, if more of them would let something unfold and be sure they understand it before taking action, that would be a good thing. Instead, they block some editors quickly, without understanding the buildup or issues, while ignore much more significant issues on this very page. There is a double standard in play here, MF points it out, and it does affect content work and productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No one is forcing MF to be uncivil, he chooses to do so. If he doesn't like the consequences, he has the option to change his behavior and still be an effective editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It would be a travesty of logic even to suggest that your comments exhibit double standards Baseball, more like at least triple or quadruple. I could make a very good case that you and John have been far more uncivil than I've ever been, yet you choose to try and occupy the moral high ground. I don't know what you call that where you live, but I sure as Hell know what it's called where I live. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, here you are, freed from yet another block, so it's pretty clear who benefits from a double standard here. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Can you show me where I called you a troll? I don't remember doing so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It would be a travesty of logic even to suggest that your comments exhibit double standards Baseball, more like at least triple or quadruple. I could make a very good case that you and John have been far more uncivil than I've ever been, yet you choose to try and occupy the moral high ground. I don't know what you call that where you live, but I sure as Hell know what it's called where I live. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No one is forcing MF to be uncivil, he chooses to do so. If he doesn't like the consequences, he has the option to change his behavior and still be an effective editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Generally, if more of them would let something unfold and be sure they understand it before taking action, that would be a good thing. Instead, they block some editors quickly, without understanding the buildup or issues, while ignore much more significant issues on this very page. There is a double standard in play here, MF points it out, and it does affect content work and productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do see what you're saying. I was just now, for the first time, taking a look at MF's rap sheet Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I was amazed that he's still here. Most guys with that many blocks would have been gone long ago. So I don't see what MF has to complain about. If anything, he's been given a lot of latitude. You might also be onto something about admins sometimes standing at the side of the rink and watching a couple of guys slug it out for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- ah, but now you're really missing the point :) The POV-pushing, edit warring, etc is allowed to continue because bringing important matters to this page results in the offending editors launching attacks, for which there is no retribution while admins turn a blind eye, yet MF is blocked for trivialities. I'd love to see the editors who routinely make far worse attacks on me on this very page blocked when I'm trying to address POV-pushing and edit warring. Of course, I recognize admins have much more fun fighting over Gimme and Malleus, for the drama factor, while taking on true POV pushers and disruptive tendentious editors would be like ... real work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It does seem that Malleus makes himself a lightning rod and does nothing to try and improve the situation. It's a matter of what bothers you, I suppose. I don't care what somebody calls me. There are far greater problems on wikipedia than name calling is: POV-pushing, edit warring, vandalism, endless fights over stupid stuff like whether to include a comma in an article title - all those things are the bugaboo of a site like wikipedia, and it's the kind of stuff that makes people not trust wikipedia. Editors calling each other names behind the scenes is well down the critical list. Complaints about a double-standard are technically fair complaints, but in real life we often put up with a lot from people who are productive. Life is a bowl of tradeoffs. In fact, Malleus has not suffered anything from all this. If an admin gets annoyed and blocks him, he'll be unblocked ASAP. Truly useless editors who do the same stuff are sent to the phantom zone in a heartbeat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly right, but for two things. 1) This begs the question of why Malleus is always blocked for lesser offenses than routinely occur on this very page. 2) Sticks and stones may break my bones, but because words don't hurt me, and I "take a licking and keep on ticking", the offenders continue, and article content is affected by the poisoning of the well, as admins take no action. It's high time for admins to start paying attention to the inequities, and start blocking truly uncivil and disruptive editors instead of Malleus, since he does at least contribute content, while many of them don't (and that is me tooting Malleus's horn, not to be confused with the inaccurate accusations that he does that). Ec for Black Kite-- again begs the question, since a double standard applies, and the "fuckwittery" routinely occurs right here, right under the noses of multiple admins, who always act when it's Malleus, but rarely act when it's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't recall calling MF a troll on September 30 or any other time, but my memory is not perfect. I don't know why I would characterize MF as anything besides MF. There have been many editors that thought wikipedia couldn't survive without them. Nearly all of them have been wrong so far. :) On the other hand, some folks get way too excited over name-calling. Content is what matters here. When anyone throws obscenities at you, they can't harm you, they can only harm themselves, as they reveal that at heart they are low-lifes. Don't feel anger. Feel sorrow, and wonder what happened to them to make them so hateful. Pray for them. Someone needs to. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can only assume that English is not your first language John, or at any rate not one that you have any real understanding of. Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have no idea what I feel, and I can't even begin to imagine why you believe that you do. My position is very far from the one you describe; I have explained it to you and many others in the past, but very few seem to have either the intellectual resources or the integrity to understand it. You have never seen me complain about the incivility of another editor, except in your dreams. What I have repeatedly complained about is the inequality in the application of the civility policy in particular to administrators and non-administrators. Any fair-minded person could easily take the view that it ought to have been Cirt who received the block, as his behaviour at FAR has been disruptive for some time now, but as he's an administrator that just gets ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The main issue that is that the obvious presence of a large amounts of fuckwits editing Wikipedia doesn't mean that we need to point out their fuckwittery in such clear language, as it should be obvious anyway (and equally clearly, this is a general comment and not related to any of the parties involved here). Let's face it, if we'd all felt the need to do that when we first started, we'd all have been indeffed anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well I'm late to the party as usual but what I see is a number of supposed adults snarling at each other but some of them have baseball bats and at a certain point in the snarling competition use them. I used to think MF was being somewhat
paranoid,defensive but I'm really beginning to wonder. Baaaad block. There are other ways of being rude than using naughty words. For the avoidance of doubt - ownership of a baseball bat does not constitute a moral high ground. Fainites barleyscribs 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)- Poor block, worse discussion, though I got a few laughs here and there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Despite the entertainment value, they really need to stop dragging MF here every time he gets mad at somebody. Name-calling is harmless unless it's accompanied by disruptive editing. Thick skins are good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Poor block, worse discussion, though I got a few laughs here and there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well I'm late to the party as usual but what I see is a number of supposed adults snarling at each other but some of them have baseball bats and at a certain point in the snarling competition use them. I used to think MF was being somewhat
- Let's at least try and get the facts straight before this goes into archive oblivion. I never called anyone names, that would be your mate Cirt, who called me lazy. What I said was "I don't believe that you have a fucking clue what you're talking about", which I stand by. What is clear at least to me is that Cirt was the uncivil one, but I was punished for using a naughty word that GWH doesn't like, and then the saintly SarekOfVulcan came along to rub salt in the wound.
- I actually think that Jophn's idea of an RFC might be a good idea, but not for the reasons that he does. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is going to to change here because the likes of GWH and SofV don't have a effing clue as to what is really going on and that's the way it has always been. Giacomo 21:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Or, as some might say, "an MF-ing clue". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- MF claimed I called him a troll, but he won't produce a diff. I've got a good mind to contact Mr. Hungadunga and get him on the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You mistake "won't" for "can't be bothered to", as I know that producing it for you won't make a blind bit of difference to anything that's going on here. Prove me wrong and tell me what would change if I provided that diff? Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would improve my behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, ya got me stumped, son. At one second into Sep 30, you posted this statement[23] claiming I had called you a troll within the last 24 hours. I checked my entries for the 29th and the 28th, 48 hours back, and I don't see it. So either (1) it was farther back than you recalled; or (2) it didn't happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- So far as I'm aware I am not not your son thank God, so please try to keep your comments on track. In what way would your behaviour be changed if I were to produce that diff in which you called me a troll? Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had been channeling Senator Claghorn for a second there. (But as far as paternity, one never knows about these things, does one?) This is pretty much moot, since I really doubt there is a diff that you can produce. But if there is one, then first off, I won't do it again; and second, I'll entertain your top 5 additonal suggestions for improvement. Provided they're G-rated. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- So far as I'm aware I am not not your son thank God, so please try to keep your comments on track. In what way would your behaviour be changed if I were to produce that diff in which you called me a troll? Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You mistake "won't" for "can't be bothered to", as I know that producing it for you won't make a blind bit of difference to anything that's going on here. Prove me wrong and tell me what would change if I provided that diff? Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- MF claimed I called him a troll, but he won't produce a diff. I've got a good mind to contact Mr. Hungadunga and get him on the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive Edits
I have noticed that User:Shyguy1991 has been repeatedly adding every concert to appear at particular venues across the world. They have been asked several times to cease and desist by several editors. Yesterday, the user took a strange turn and started deleting entire concert content from several pages. Some of these that they did delete do need some paring, but not to the point of deleting the entire content. I consider this to be disruptive editing. So I am asking that something to be done to stop this. Here are the diffs that I have noticed, in the last 50 edits the user has made:
Credit Union Centre [24] Westfalenhallen [25] Nippon Budokan [26] Royal Dublin Society [27] Colston Hall [28] Scandinavium [29] Valby-Hallen [30] Philips Halle [31] Wiener Stadthalle [32] Orpheum Theatre (Boston, Massachusetts) [33] Tower Theatre (Upper Darby, Pennsylvania) [34] Poliedro de Caracas [35] Brandt Centre [36] Verizon Wireless Arena [37] Times Union Center [38] FedExForum [39] Events at Madison Square Garden [40]
There are likely countless other examples of this. However, these are just a few that have been deleted. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I fixed a few of the links for you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not only are these laundry lists way too long, but there is generally not a single reference. I don't have a problem with this editor removing these long lists that they've added because they should not have been there in the first place on the articles I've seen, but the editor refuses to respond on any talk page (including their own) and never uses edit summaries. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It has been clearly demonstrate that that Shyguy1991 has possibly not fully understood Wikipedia policies and/or how to implement them. Blatantly removing every informal request or warning template from their talk page within seconds does not remove them from history, even if they believe it does. On unfolding the history it will become clear that they either need help, or that they simply do not wish to be part of the community. Either way, if their edits really become disruptive within the interpretation of our rules, or if they still refuse to provide ES for their hundreds of edits, then a procedural block will be the only answer. --Kudpung (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not only are these laundry lists way too long, but there is generally not a single reference. I don't have a problem with this editor removing these long lists that they've added because they should not have been there in the first place on the articles I've seen, but the editor refuses to respond on any talk page (including their own) and never uses edit summaries. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt it's that the user doesn't understand Wikipedia policies. Based on the user's behavior and edit patterns/habits, it's more likely that the user doesn't care. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but this user's behavior, at least to me, indicates that the behavior is/was intentional. Somehow, I stopped this user from adding more performers to his long list in Staples Center. But he has continued on a bunch of other articles. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've spent some time going back over his contributions to the beginning of June, and looking at the history of his talk page. He's received numerous warnings from various editors and never responded. The warnings concerned not just edit summaries but sources and other issues - all he does is blank them. I've blocked him indefinitely. That means he can easily get the block lifted if he can convince an Administrator that he now understands the problem and will change his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Threat of suicide
here. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not revdel the threat. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- A CU needs to call the police and give the guy a reality check. That's all. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just ignore, troll Secret account 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- We can't risk it. May also be related to Sebdog69 (talk · contribs) (see Trollwikiday's now-RevDel'd edit on Pepsi). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see a suicide threat, also I saw the original edit of Pepsi Max while I was doing some vandal fighting, I was beat by the revert and placed the editor on AIV Sebdog should be blocked. Secret account 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nevermind I see it first sentence. Someone should tell him to calm down, I 100% sure he's lying look at the username he wanted to be blocked. But a checkuser scare should make him stop trolling. Secret account 03:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he just emailed me saying "that it was all a bit of a prank" and that he was not serious in regard to the suicide. I don't think it was ever completely serious, but it doesn't hurt to err on the safe side. Now, though, it's probably not worth bothering about. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- A suicide threat is not something to joke about. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Tell that to the editor. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 04:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh. Whatever happened to don't feed the trolls? Looie496 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Nummy, nummy!" Contacting the authorities in this case as a real suicide threat? Not necessary... Doc talk 04:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but lets do it anyway. The resulting medical bill ought to be large enough to keep this troll from joking about this ever again.--*Kat* (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Slap a {{Suicide response}} template on his page somewhere, and let him get on with celebrating "International Troll Wikipedia Day". He wouldn't really "off" himself, because then he would miss out on the "festivities" he's alluded to... Doc talk 05:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but lets do it anyway. The resulting medical bill ought to be large enough to keep this troll from joking about this ever again.--*Kat* (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Nummy, nummy!" Contacting the authorities in this case as a real suicide threat? Not necessary... Doc talk 04:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh. Whatever happened to don't feed the trolls? Looie496 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Tell that to the editor. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 04:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- A suicide threat is not something to joke about. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- How likely is a user calling himself "Trollwikiday" to be sincere about anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Look. Lets short circuit the usual nonsense. There are a set of editors who feel that most suicide threats on wiki are attempts to troll editors and do not invoke some responsibility to call the authorities. There is another set that feels every threat is a potential loss of life or health (since many failed suicide attempts result in permanent damage). If see a reasonably credible threat, post it here, DONT delete it and someone will contact the authorities. But agitating one camp versus another is pointless. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a policy on this kind of thing, or is it handled on a case-by-case basis? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know. If there is a policy it should be WMF handling it, not joe admin. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like every time one of these seemingly external problems come on-wiki, everyone starts to sound like Scarlett O'Hara: "Where will Ah go? What will Ah do?" Maybe this is a question for Mr. Wales? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Eh. I'm of two minds. first, google "WP:TOV" and see what the top link points you toward. That should give you an idea of how intertwined these threats are w/ trolling. Second, I really do think this is the sort of thing best left to people with @wikimedia.org email addresses. There is only so much I am willing to do for WP, and firing off emails or calling local PDs is not high on my list. I have no idea what the law says (or which jurisdiction is appropriate). The police have no reason to believe that an @gmail.com address is a good contact point. And I'm unwilling to bear the risk, however small, that someone didn't want their suicide threat to impact their professional life and sues me for reporting it (this is a bit intertwined with the law bit, but worth mentioning by itself). So the present equilibrium where concerned editors forward this sort of thing to checkusers is probably fine for those users, but if the WMF wants to get serious about handing cases like these, they ought to step in and hire someone who doesn't have all of the reservations that a volunteer editor might have. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like every time one of these seemingly external problems come on-wiki, everyone starts to sound like Scarlett O'Hara: "Where will Ah go? What will Ah do?" Maybe this is a question for Mr. Wales? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know. If there is a policy it should be WMF handling it, not joe admin. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just for any of the editors above who are not aware of it or did not refer to it before acting or commenting, and perhaps more relevantly, for anyone else reading who might have to deal with potentially more serious instances in the future, there is an essay on this, at WP:SUICIDE --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly support taking action in the event of threats of violence to oneself or others. Even if the person wasn't serious or it was "just a joke", local LEOs might catch the person who made the edit and chastise them severely. (I seem to recall this having happened within the last week or two regarding an edit made on wiki, but I can't remember whether I heard about that on wiki or in IRC. For some reason, Roux comes to mind as the one who might have called Law Enforcement, and it might have been in Wyoming...but I may be totally drawing a blank here. I'll drop a note by Roux and see if I remember correctly or if I'm just sleep deprived.) On the other hand, if they were serious, hopefully it's a life or lives saved. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to WP:SUICIDE, Demiurge, that seems informative. It gives this advice: "Treat all claims seriously. Wikipedians are not as a rule properly trained to determine if such a claim or threat is an immediate harm to someone's well being, and should assume the worst and act accordingly. Treat such claims seriously and as an emergency. The template {{Suicide response}} is available as a standard response to such posts." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would also mention the article strongly emphasises that "Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat." I've contacted five different law enforcement agencies about cases of this nature, and all of them took that view. None of them asked dumb questions (which they occasionally do in other types of cases like threats of harm to others). Although none corresponded by email and the overseas agencies didn't appear willing or able to phone me back internationally, the one case where I had especially detailed location information resulted in police arriving at the location within minutes, and the end of my involvement in less than an hour, after nothing more than one phone call each way (me calling to inform the police of the situation, and them calling me back to inform me of the outcome). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Death threat
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Breeg_%28Person%29&action=historysubmit&diff=390816883&oldid=390816799 216.93.213.191 (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why was the page deleted? The authorities need to be able to see this. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CSD#G3. I do think it should be undeleted for now, though. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Credible threats should be reported. If you feel this threat was credible then reply here. I do not, and apparently neither did the admin who deleted it. I have indef'd the account though. 7 03:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, we do not undelete death threats, under ANY circumstances. If the authorities wish to know exactly what was posted, then that is an administrator's job to email them with said information. –MuZemike 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I missed something? If only I had some power tools--I made that talk page, explaining why I nominated the article for speedy deletion as a hoax. But I have two mean, mean dogs to protect me. You'd be surprised at how terrifying a Miniature Schnauzer can look in the middle of the night. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- True... as I think about it, that could potentially be bad PR in the future. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 04:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Buy yourself a Spaniel. Anybody comes to the door/window, that dog is sure to pee immediately - and bad guys hate stepping in dog pee on the way into the house. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Does that mean that erstwhile good guys will be tempted to break into your spaniel guarded house because, due to the Laws of Inverse Property, they delight in stepping in dog pee? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Buy yourself a Spaniel. Anybody comes to the door/window, that dog is sure to pee immediately - and bad guys hate stepping in dog pee on the way into the house. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2 I'm the admin who deleted the page. I'm not sure that the threat was on the page when I started to delete it—the edit and the deletion are both time-stamped 03:44 UTC. If I had noticed it, I would have brought the matter here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CSD#G3. I do think it should be undeleted for now, though. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to comment here ... don't worry about the authorities being able to see the threats, when they're notified. I assure you, the appropriate authorities know pretty well how to get in touch with the Foundation, and we will work with them to provide any information they need, within the guidance of our legal counsel. Let's not ever assume something SHOULDNT be deleted so that the police can see it - it's a better thing to assume that they'll know how to find us and see it. Thanks... Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
TungstenCarbide again
TungstenCarbide XXXI (talk · contribs) Can someone add this guy to the title balcklist? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure that will help. He'll just start naming his accounts something else. --Jayron32 05:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than blocking the creation of the account, could an edit filter block him from editing? (Almost serious. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It'd be tough to do. His edits usually aren't all that distinguishable from anyone elses. His whole attitude is "Yes I was banned, but I haven't done anything disruptive, so I should be able to come back an edit whenever I want". Conceding the point that his edits are not all that problematic of themselves, the fact remains that he has never gone through the proper channels to get unbanned, which is why he is just going to be reverted and blocked every time. --Jayron32 03:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This sock's (XXXI) contribs were pretty damn problematic. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe someone should watchlist XXXII through XL so that it pops up in their watchlist when the account is created? I did this with the last two, but people beat me to them. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did that, but tungstencarbide has been added to the titleblacklist. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe someone should watchlist XXXII through XL so that it pops up in their watchlist when the account is created? I did this with the last two, but people beat me to them. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This sock's (XXXI) contribs were pretty damn problematic. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It'd be tough to do. His edits usually aren't all that distinguishable from anyone elses. His whole attitude is "Yes I was banned, but I haven't done anything disruptive, so I should be able to come back an edit whenever I want". Conceding the point that his edits are not all that problematic of themselves, the fact remains that he has never gone through the proper channels to get unbanned, which is why he is just going to be reverted and blocked every time. --Jayron32 03:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than blocking the creation of the account, could an edit filter block him from editing? (Almost serious. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Xanderliptak, redux
Xanderliptak (talk · contribs)
I saw this edit on my watchlist, and reverted it, as I see no reason for the removal.
I then looked at his contribs and saw a problem. He is systematically removing all images he has uploaded to Commons from use here, and has requested speedy deletion of same on Commons (which cannot obviously be dealt with here; I included this detail merely for background). Not wishing to create intense drama, I have not reverted the latest edits; I believe this is symptomatic of behaviour that has been going on for quite some time. (See also, from almost a year ago, very similar situation). Namely, this user appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that he gets to control use of images he has created after he has uploaded them. Beyond that I cannot speculate as to motivation.
I am honestly not sure what the course of action here needs to be. This is clearly problematic, and repeated, behaviour. User has been notified. → ROUX ₪ 05:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I jut came across this through a page on my watchlist. I note that Xander and Roux have some history, so I thought I would, as an uninvolved party, concur with Roux's reading of the situation. As it happens I think the one example of an edit that Roux provides is not a good one because (for unrelated reasons) that content should not be there. But the broader issue still stands. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The edit I provided is simply the one I ran across first (I use a hack on my watchlist to only display changes since the last time I loaded the page, then scroll to the bottom and work my way up). There were other edits, but seeing that there was a pattern I refrained from reverting them all and instead brought the issue here. Agreed that the specific first edit I provided can and should be discussed on the relevant talk page; the general issue is what needs to be examined here. → ROUX ₪ 05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of the past history; Roux has suffered quite a bit of abuse in this interaction. I would say Roux is correct that there is a behaviour issue, but I've also seen XL change behaviour when approached the right way. The core issue currently seems to be a licensing dispute. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- To be clear I did not attempt to discuss this with Xanderliptak, as discussion with him has proven to be less than fruitful. I figured better to gain the attention of uninvolved people. → ROUX ₪ 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The images he uploads to Commons are freely licensed. The licenses are not revocable. So we can use them, whether he wants us to or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- That was the core issue that came up a few days ago. Presumably Xander figures if he can't get what he wants, then he'll delete them and then nobody can have what they want. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Don't presume tell people what I want. You showed up late to a discussion and tried to talk about things that the discussion was not even concerned about. Again, you are here talking about issues no one else has even brought up. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Roux reverted the edit here: [41] and when Hamiltonstone complained on the talk page, Roux explained his rationale here: [42] I don't see any need for this board, but rather, discussion should begin on the article talk page. Xandarliptak is as free to edit, and be bold as any other Wikipedia editor. Every edit he makes that Roux does not agree with cannot be brought here. It should be on the article talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
What is this ANI even about? People complain about the images in the article, I have to argue to keep them in. More people complain, so I take them out. Then those that wanted them out complain I take them out? What kind of logic is that? What is all the Commons talk and "we can use them even if he doesn't want us to"? I was the one always arguing to use hem, ROUX and others were saying we should not. I just finally gave in and said take them out. ROUX should have been happy. Side note, I did get what I wanted on Commons. ROUX and Beyond My Ken were trying to pull up past arguments, but Commons ignored them. The Commons issue had nothing to do with using or not using images, but about what the licensing summary being deficient. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- That was on one article where the inclusion of unsupported elements was the nature of the dispute, not the inclusion of the coat of arms in general. 'All this Commons talk' is merely, as I said, background; you are attempting to have images which you freely and irrevocably licenced deleted, an issue that will be dealt with on Commons. I never tried to pull up past arguments on Commons, because I did not make a single comment on Commons; once again you appear to be unable to comprehend that you must provide diffs of alleged behaviour and not merely say whatever you want. This ANI is about approximately thirty instances of you removing images you have created from articles where they very clearly belong. The same images you are attempting to have deleted. The same behaviour you engaged in nine months ago (discussed here, you may also wish to see your own talk page to refresh your memory). → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is hard to tell what you really want, since you change your story so often. :) But why all this excitement over drawings of family crests and such? This ain't Rembrant stuff, you know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The better question is why is Roux following Xanderliptak? And why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves:
I do not understand why there is any information about the Kennedy coat of arms on this page, which is about the surname, and serves as a disambig page for people to locate relevant Kennedys as subjects of WP articles. Move it to an article called Kennedy (coats of arms) or to the pages relating to relevant individuals or families, but surely get it off this page? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I personally think it is useful information (though I may be biased). My concern with the removal, and why I reverted it, is partly a matter of WP:BRD, and partly a matter of a posting to ANI that will be up momentarily. → ROUX ₪ 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see that now. I'd like to keep this separate. It isn't that the information may not be useful, but I don't see why discussion of a range of coats of arms of different Kennedy individuals or families should be on the surname page rather than on the pages of the relevant people (or indeed a page about the coats of arms, if there are a few relevatn secondary sources to satisfy notability). But this is a bit of a new area for me, so if there are contra arguments, I'd like to hear them. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Even assuming good faith here, Roux appears to be saying he wants to keep the material just so he can come here. It looks a lot like canvassing, hounding, and a lack of AGF on Roux's part. On Xanderliptak's side, it appears he's just being bold. My suggestion would be to stop this before it gets to look like you're setting the dogs on Xanderliptak. He's removing the images people have fought to get rid of, but now inexplicably are fighting to have restored. Might be time to reassess your own behavior.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Um... did you read anything I posted here? Seriously, don't post without reading what is going on. → ROUX ₪ 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- There seems to be an echo in this section, namely someone griping about Xander being "followed". Some editors don't like being watched, and rung up for what they're doing, since they have this notion that they should be able to do whatever they want, unimpeded. They come here and complain that they're being "harassed"... by multiple users. At some point, the possibility might arise that the editor is being followed because he needs to be followed. Hanlon's razor might figure into this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, this actually makes me somewhat angry. You do not understand a single thing that is going on here. You clearly have not bothered to read a single thing I wrote, and certainly haven't looked at the links I provided. I am not saying 'keep the material so I can come to ANI.' In terms of that specific article it is simply the first one I saw on my watchlist. Then I looked at Xanderliptak's contribs, and saw he has removed every instance of every image he uploaded to Commons. Further, on Commons, he has requested speedy deletion of all his images. (Something he can't do, not for the reason he has given.) Nobody has 'fought' to get rid of [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73], almost all of which are articles about nobility, for whom coats of arms are a fairly important subject, recording as they do marriages, alliances, elevations (or demotions) in station, etc. The removal here of one of his images from the talk page of WP:WPHV is particularly noteworthy as well.
- Xanderliptak is, quite simply, attempting to remove all of his images from use on enwiki, with concomitant attempt at deleting them from Commons. This is a problem that is related to ownership behaviour from over a year ago detailed here and here, which you would know if you had read the links I had initially posted.
- In all seriousness, please do not comment when you have demonstrably not familiarized yourself with the details of what is going on. I bear no personal animus towards Xanderliptak, my concern is with widespread disruption arising from his repeated attempts to control the end result of images which he has freely contributed to the project. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody has "fought to get rid of" Xander's images. The issue, as Roux states, is that he wants to maintain control of them, and since he can't do so, he's working on getting rid of them. (I'm sure they'll bring him a healthy profit on the black market.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- This would be a good place to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to advise Mr. Xander to that effect. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Malke, I tried saying this politely. Apparently you didn't read it. I'll be more blunt: you do not understand what is going on, you have obviously not looked at a single link or diff provided, and your contributions to this discussion are completely and totally unhelpful and off base. Please stop commenting. → ROUX ₪ 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Roux, I understand perfectly what is happening here. I don't see Xanderliptak doing anything but being bold in his edits. I don't see anything wrong with his removing the images. If editors want them back, they're free to put them back, or find other images, or they can take the articles off their watchlists. Focus on the edit, not the editor. And chill about it. It's time to let this go. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The way I understand it (and Roux, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), this guy is not "being bold", he's trying to assert ownership over his own creations, in defiance of the license rules. And he's been getting irritated because the rule-followers keep impeding him. I never heard of that guy until this past week, but it didn't take long to figure out what he was up to. How do you figure other editors are "free to put them back"? These are designs of family crests or something, which he himself created. So no one else could claim them as their own, and hence they couldn't upload them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, you do not, Malke. Xanderliptak is not being WP:BOLD. of course you would know this if you had read the diffs I had provided, including practically identical behaviour from almost a year ago. Your insistence that you understand what is going on is clearly indicating that you have not read the diffs. The edits you have made to this discussion are beyond useless. Until you can indicate that you have actually read the diffs and links provided, I urge anyone else reading this to pay not the slightest bit of attention to anything you have to say on this matter. → ROUX ₪ 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)First, it's never wise to assume you know what his motives are. And second, if he created the image and is now removing it, what is the big deal here? If an editor makes an edit to an article, but then comes back and removes the edit and then puts in something else, or decides that the edit wasn't really a good one, who is to say he can't do that? Images come and go on Wikipedia. Nothing here is permanent. A week from now none of you will care about any of this.
- Roux, I understand perfectly what is happening here. I don't see Xanderliptak doing anything but being bold in his edits. I don't see anything wrong with his removing the images. If editors want them back, they're free to put them back, or find other images, or they can take the articles off their watchlists. Focus on the edit, not the editor. And chill about it. It's time to let this go. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- This would be a good place to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Imagining what Xanderliptak's motives are appears to be the central problem here. There's a reason we have this guideline. Try it out in real life and you'll see what I mean. We can always assign motive based on our own prejudices and beliefs, but at the end of the day, we don't really know for certain what anybody's motive is, or is not. This whole thread was started based on an assumption that didn't take into account other things that might be going on. The previous arguments are now old. This new argument should have been addressed first on Xanderliptak's talk page and/or the various article talk pages. Not here. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- AGF is not a suicide pact. Again you are demonstrating that you have not familiarized yourself with the history. Addressing this problem with Xanderliptak directly would have been less than fruitful--again, if you had familiarized yourself with the history you would know this. Addressing the issue on 30+ talk pages would have been similarly useless. I beg you, stop inserting your uninformed commentary. It only obscures the situation. → ROUX ₪ 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- History is past. Today is all you have. Forget about it and move on.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you actually read some of the stuff Xander has said recently, you don't have to "imagine" his motives, as he's right out there with it. He was trying to apply the "moral right" principle to his little creations, and he was told repeatedly that it doesn't apply. Having finally apparently gotten that message, he's going through and trying to get them zapped on dubious grounds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- AGF is not a suicide pact. Again you are demonstrating that you have not familiarized yourself with the history. Addressing this problem with Xanderliptak directly would have been less than fruitful--again, if you had familiarized yourself with the history you would know this. Addressing the issue on 30+ talk pages would have been similarly useless. I beg you, stop inserting your uninformed commentary. It only obscures the situation. → ROUX ₪ 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Imagining what Xanderliptak's motives are appears to be the central problem here. There's a reason we have this guideline. Try it out in real life and you'll see what I mean. We can always assign motive based on our own prejudices and beliefs, but at the end of the day, we don't really know for certain what anybody's motive is, or is not. This whole thread was started based on an assumption that didn't take into account other things that might be going on. The previous arguments are now old. This new argument should have been addressed first on Xanderliptak's talk page and/or the various article talk pages. Not here. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
If a rights holder didn't really understand and intend the implications of a CC licensing for an image, then we have sometimes deleted the image. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- If editors have had issues with that guy for a year, it's probably not that simple. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is, however, not his stated intention. He has stated, variously, that they 'were intended to be quick sketches and I will replace them one by one with better versions' (paraphrase, not his exact words, but very close; of course that still doesn't explain why he is seeking deletion. He could simply upload new versions over the old ones), and 'these images have caused trouble so I may as well remove them until the new versions are ready' (again paraphrase. And ignoring the fact that the images are not the problem, his behaviour is). These are things he has said on Commons, and I can provide diffs if requested, as he has said nothing on enwiki about his motivations. Moving back to the original point of this post: there are severe behavioural issues with Xanderliptak, namely:
- Repeated application of WP:IDHT (visible in every recent dispute/discussion he has taken part in, both here and on Commons
- Repeated allegations against fellow editors and refusal to provide diffs of the alleged behaviour despite repeated requests
- Repeated misrepresentation of tenor, tone, and content of discussions and what other editors have said with, again, refusal to provide diffs backing up what he says despite repeated and unambiguous requests to provide same
- Repeated refusal to provide references backing up what he has stated
- Ownership behaviour of his images (diffs provided above setting the context as an ongoing issue for almost a year, not new)
- I will provide diffs of all the above if asked, I just don't have the energy right now to comb through that many pages.
- I don't deny that Xanderliptak has made valuable contributions. Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry is spotty at best, and it is one of those areas where visual cues are practically mandatory for understanding the subject. However, the above issues, none of which are new, are a distinct problem and need to be addressed in totally unambiguous terms. I had proposed an editing restriction for Xanderliptak to address some of those issues; Prodego's premature archiving of the thread prevented discussion that might well have prevented this set of circumstances from occurring.
- Several other editors who have bothered to read the history here seem, unless I am mistaken, to agree that there is a problem. A solution needs to be found, please, to prevent further disruption. → ROUX ₪ 02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, Roux, there is an issue. I thought the dispute about one image was just getting resolved (leaving out three shields) - with an "out" provided on a silver platter - and I was disheartened when the dispute simply shifted to something else. I do think XL's image contributions are extremely valuable, but if XL wants to remove the images, my suggestion is to just let that happen. So long as XL only removes XL's own images and nobody else picks a fight, I suspect XL would eventually restore those or better images and the project will see a net benefit. And if that turns out to be false optimism, the issues get resolved another way. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have zero faith whatsoever that those images will ever be replaced. My AGF reserves here are fully depleted. Also as a general principle I think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia to indulge the "I'm taking my toys and going home" behaviour when it comes to encyclopedic content. The precedent it sets for disgruntled editors to remove content they have contributed is... bad. → ROUX ₪ 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have zero faith whatsoever that taking up this many kilobytes with what amounts to "Someone needs to talk to the user, but Roux has a past history with him" is conducive to anyone staying with the project. With regard to the deletion of images, if we're talking about him wanting to make a newer, better version, that's fine; I reverted the diffs linked above because I was under the impression the user was ragequitting over his inability to modify the licensing. If the images are going to be mass-deleted for whatever reason in the future, a bot should unlink them with an explanation. This will avoid confusion and have the added benefit of not annoying people with the articles on their watchlists. Recognizance (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have zero faith whatsoever that those images will ever be replaced. My AGF reserves here are fully depleted. Also as a general principle I think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia to indulge the "I'm taking my toys and going home" behaviour when it comes to encyclopedic content. The precedent it sets for disgruntled editors to remove content they have contributed is... bad. → ROUX ₪ 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, Roux, there is an issue. I thought the dispute about one image was just getting resolved (leaving out three shields) - with an "out" provided on a silver platter - and I was disheartened when the dispute simply shifted to something else. I do think XL's image contributions are extremely valuable, but if XL wants to remove the images, my suggestion is to just let that happen. So long as XL only removes XL's own images and nobody else picks a fight, I suspect XL would eventually restore those or better images and the project will see a net benefit. And if that turns out to be false optimism, the issues get resolved another way. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The good thing is that Xander's edits were reverted - the images are back in the articles. I think just about all of his speedy deletions were overturned by the admins over on the Commons. It sucks when a contributor throws a hissyfit and spitefully starts destroying all their contributions as some sort of payback - holds their contributions/images hostage. That's where we need admins to step in and set the record straight - that you can't disrupt the project that way. Maybe this thread ought to be marked 'resolved' because really Malke is pointlessly winding Roux up. I think we should just leave this issue be, it's been dealt with. I doubt Xander will pull the same stunt again.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, if Roux is 'wound up' he did it to himself. It was Roux's choice to come here and make this complaint which doesn't need admin action. He could have done nothing, especially as Hamiltonstone didn't even want the image on the page in question. Roux could have waited. There's no emergency on Wikipedia, least of all with the deletion of images. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. And ignoring the obvious lack of WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, and WP:HOUND, makes this thread seem like an even bigger hissyfit than anything Xanderliptak has done. Stop hounding the guy. Nobody here likes his images anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, look. Three people now have told you that you don't know what you're talking about. I have pointed out repeatedly that you clearly haven't read any of the links or diffs provided. If you had, you would know that this is really not about the single page which Hamiltonstone is involved with, that was merely the first one where I noticed this problem. Could you please just shut up until you know what you're talking about? → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do see your points. But what I'm talking about is, you should not have come here as your first move. If you really want to start the process, start an RfC/U. Don't come here with every bit you find. Stop looking at his contributions. You're too involved here. I'm actually very sympathetic to you that you are so upset by this. I saw your request for an unblock and I felt very bad for you. But you're coming here first is not a good move. Do you see any admins here doing anything? Xanderliptak has disengaged on this thread. You should do the same. Everybody should do the same. For now, a good solution might be a self-imposed interaction ban, for say three weeks, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Facepalm. There is no other option for a first move here. Discussion with Xanderliptak is pointless. RFC/U is less than pointless, it's just a delay of a month while more disruption can occur. I looked at his contributions solely because I saw one weird removal and wanted to know what was going on. You really, really don't have a clue what is going on here, and what has been going on for almost a year. Please cease your uninformed commentary. → ROUX ₪ 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have looked at all your diffs, etc. Believe, me, I know exactly what has been going on. Xanderliptak should stop removing images, and you should take a break from this. If you don't look at his contributions, you won't be upset. Let someone else notice things. And how do you know, maybe your comments have made an impression on him. Now it's time to wait and see.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Facepalm. There is no other option for a first move here. Discussion with Xanderliptak is pointless. RFC/U is less than pointless, it's just a delay of a month while more disruption can occur. I looked at his contributions solely because I saw one weird removal and wanted to know what was going on. You really, really don't have a clue what is going on here, and what has been going on for almost a year. Please cease your uninformed commentary. → ROUX ₪ 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do see your points. But what I'm talking about is, you should not have come here as your first move. If you really want to start the process, start an RfC/U. Don't come here with every bit you find. Stop looking at his contributions. You're too involved here. I'm actually very sympathetic to you that you are so upset by this. I saw your request for an unblock and I felt very bad for you. But you're coming here first is not a good move. Do you see any admins here doing anything? Xanderliptak has disengaged on this thread. You should do the same. Everybody should do the same. For now, a good solution might be a self-imposed interaction ban, for say three weeks, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, look. Three people now have told you that you don't know what you're talking about. I have pointed out repeatedly that you clearly haven't read any of the links or diffs provided. If you had, you would know that this is really not about the single page which Hamiltonstone is involved with, that was merely the first one where I noticed this problem. Could you please just shut up until you know what you're talking about? → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, if Roux is 'wound up' he did it to himself. It was Roux's choice to come here and make this complaint which doesn't need admin action. He could have done nothing, especially as Hamiltonstone didn't even want the image on the page in question. Roux could have waited. There's no emergency on Wikipedia, least of all with the deletion of images. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. And ignoring the obvious lack of WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, and WP:HOUND, makes this thread seem like an even bigger hissyfit than anything Xanderliptak has done. Stop hounding the guy. Nobody here likes his images anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Malke 2010. Xanderliptak has pissed off more than just Roux, and more than just Roux have been restoring all the images he has deleted from articles, declining all the speedies on commons etc. This isn't about two editors arguing, this is about one editor behaving in an out of order way by trying to control the onward disposition of images that they uploaded.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors who advocate violence
Even for ANI this is too pointless; find something productive to do, please. Looie496 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||
I am concerned about Nableezy Most of this editor's work is in the Israel/Palestine area. On his user page he openly advocates violence. http://wikibias.com/2010/10/who-edits-wikipedia-part-ii/ His language openly supports the right of "all individuals and groups" to take up guns, bombs and rockets and kill innocent people. I think that it is inappropriate for an individual with thee views to edit on Israel and Palestine pages.Andycarr78 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh please, this junk again? If you don't know the history...IIRC this goes back a very long time to a user named Embargo (talk · contribs), whose user page had varying versions of;
on it, the above being the most recent and mild. Unfortunately, even this still was never good enough for Embargo's wiki-opponents, thus he eventually left the project. Nableezy's current tag appears to be a much milder takeoff on this old one, with the links as a form of protest. Nowhere in it does it actually link to Hezbollah as Embargo's did, which was generally the crux of his problems, and I don't give two shits what some half-baked conspiracy site like wikibias.com has to say about affairs on the Wikipedia. Tell em to get bent. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Andy Carr, do you have any reliable sources for these assertions? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to see here IMO. Mo ainm~Talk 16:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Andycarr78, wikibias.com ? Really ? That's where you get your information about editors ? ...and your 9th edit to Wikipedia is an ANI posting ? Jeez. At the very least can an admin officially notify Andycarr78 about the discretionary sanctions and log it please. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Since people are so busy whining about "users supporting violence", I find it a bit curious that nobody has brought up userboxes like these:
Surely these are every bit as big of a problem as banners supporting the other side of the conflict, no? Or is it only a particular type of violence we advocate on Wikipedia? Why don't you all bugger off, and stop wasting everyone's time trying to cause problems for an editor whose politics you don't agree with? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I fully advocate violence against userboxes in general, as my own page states. Let's get back to more important matters now, like Star Trek episode articles. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a vast difference between advocating the right of any individual with a grievance to take up a weapon and murder someone, as Nableezy does. And advocating the right of a legitimate government to use police and military forces to prevent violence or in self-defense. Civilized people call this distinction civilization. The difference lies in the right of individuals to from a legitimate government to protect themselves and their families from violence. And in the fact that governments, police and armies in well-governed states operate under rules that limit the use of violence and protect the security of persons. Under the rules of Nableezy's UserBox, any individual who claims that a government is illegitimate can pick up a gun and murder any other individual. Or blow up the Oklahoma City federal building. That way lies the disintegration of civilization into a world of violence.Andycarr78 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
|
128.104.truth
128.104.truth (talk · contribs) is an occasional editor here who previously was blocked for edit warring BLP-violating material into the Brittny Gastineau article. BLP discussions and consensus on the page was clearly to keep the material (dealing with her appearance in the Borat movie) out of the article. 128.104.truth has returned several times to renew the discussion and readd the material [74] [75] [76], but consensus at the two locations again was to exclude it.
Since April, he's returned on several occasions to continue to try and put the material in the article [77] [78] [79] [80], each time being reverted. However, his further behavior is what has led me to bring this to ANI. When 128.truth is reverted on the Gastineau article, his next move is usually to stalk and revert the edits of the editor who removed the BLP violation. For example, in August he inserted the material [81] twice [82], then followed Off2rioRob to the V. Ganapati Sthapati article and reverted [83] a long series of edits he had made. This month, he's added the material again [84], then followed Onorem to the Beverly Hills Chihuahua article to revert him [85], followed Rob to revert [86] him, and followed me to two other articles [87] [88]. Today, he seems to be taunting other editors with his edits [89].
Would an admin mind taking a look at the behavior from this account? Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh, this is pretty egregious stalking and harassment of users that "the truth" is having editing disputes with. Fully support a block, probably indef, at this point. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can't quite agree. The editor has undoubtedly been stalking and needs to cease that behavior, but he doesn't edit all that frequently and most of the edits have been useful -- although certainly not all. It seems to me that the appropriate response at this point is to leave a very clear and unambiguous warning on the talk page, and I have done so. But if another admin feels that stronger action is called for, I have no objection. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Kquinn2 − Unblock Troll
Take a look at User talk:Kquinn2. He was blocked for being a vandalism only account, and has had three appeals rejected. He's just lodged his fourth appeal of the day. Each time he seems to ignore the admin's verdict, he doesn't seem to have read WP:GAB, and just keeps banging the same drum that had him blocked in the first place. I think he's trolling, and suggest a talk page block per WP:DENY. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. He's obviously not going to get it, and the voluminous insistence that his addition is good is getting annoying. Talk page access removed, suggestion to contact Arbcom left. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Review requested. I've watched this user interact with others for the past few weeks. He's violated 3RR, he's edit warred, and he's contentious in his editing. I'd post diffs, but basically his edit history pretty much makes the case. I blocked him once when he clearly violated 3RR, but other than that I've tried to stay out of it. Most recently I've tried to advise him to mend his ways, but without success.[90](note that I copied/pasted his comments from my talk page in order to form an easy-to-read thread). What I'd like is for a few editors/admins review his interactions and offer him (and me) their own advice and/or suggest possible sanctions. Rklawton (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The 3RR block was improper, as the 1st of the 4 "reversions" was not a reversion but my original edit. I sent Rklawton an email on this but never received a response. He doesn't like my edits, and there is nothing I can do about that and no reason why it should matter.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The first edit was a deletion of material, a reversion of content that Leadwind added [91]. If you thought the block was improper, you can always request unblock publicly, as that will raise the attention of an uninvolved admin (The preferred way to appeal a block is to use the {{unblock}} template, but you can also contact the blocking administrator or appeal by email.) In cases like this, where the rules may not be entirely clear, and the blocked user shows confusion over the rule, but has remorse and agrees to stop edit warring, unblocks are typically granted. E-mail isn't always ideal because the admin may not be around a computer, or the e-mail address may be out of date or what have you. But I'm sorry you didn't receive a timely response. Hopefully there is a good reason for that. That said, I hope, though, this information won't be needed again for future reference :) -Andrew c [talk] 21:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that now, but by I didn't know that simply making changes that involved deleting or changing something constituted a reversion. By that definition, making four edits to an article, each time deleting or changing a single word, would be 3RR violation. I understand now and won't violate it, but I think this is a poor way to have the rule, as few would guess that "reversion" can also mean changing or deleting a single word, which of course is a normal part of the editing process. 3RR is supposed to be objective, and I think that by including this as part of the definition of "reversion" you make the rule unobjective. When is deleting a word or sentence a "reversion" and when is it a legitimate edit? The first "reversion" of mine on that 3RR violation was actually the third edit in a row I had made, so I didn't exactly go in there to delete some else's edit. The fact that the question can be asked shows the rule is no longer objective. Also the block was only 24 hours, and when I looked into an unblocking request, the page said the process can take quite a while so there was no point to go that route.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- A reversion of material included in 2008? - rather than me dig through the history, can anyone provide the diff of RomanHistorians revert. Without prejudice to any evidence provided, removing content that has had implicit consensus by existing for two years is not a trivial matter - the new potential consensus for its removal was immediately challenged and the matter should have been resolved by discussion at that point, rather than any revert. 3RR, which again should be noted as not an entitlement but an absolute limit, is for newly introduced material, not where there is a clear and apparent consensus - that is provided for by WP:BRD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Go here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:RomanHistorian_reported_by_User:Andrew_c_.28Result:_31h.29 for the 3RR violation. Look at that first "reversion". How is that a reversion? I have no idea of when that information was originally entered, but it sure wasn't entered at once, nor was it entered recently. None of it was entered by the guy who edited right before me, StAnselm (nor any other recent editor, as far as I can tell). Some of it was entered by Leadwind in July 2008, but not all of it (by definition, all information is entered by someone at some point in time). I have no idea when the rest was entered. Note it was Rklawton who started the edit war that led to him blocking me. He was the first one to revert. He reverted my three changes at once. How can simple editing count as part of a 3RR violation? I also urge you to look at my user page, if you want to see if I have been productive or not on wikipedia in the past.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Of particular interest to me in that link is the warning you received in September, where User:Andrew c made the same comment that I did above - when you change long standing content and are quickly reverted the appropriate response is to start a discussion to determine consensus, and not edit war. It appears that you have acted in such a manner before to have drawn that comment, and that the edits you refer to is a another example. As noted 3RR is a limit and not a right, but in any event all four edits may be considered reverts when it indicates a pattern of imposing a preferred version rather than forming a consensus. You were on notice that removing content and reverting its replacement is improper - I think the block was appropriate under those circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It was Andrew's post that alerted me to what a 3RR was. I don't see how context changes the defintion of a reversion. The first "reversion" was not a reversion, and so I don't see how that changes the fact of whether this was 3RR or not. I also wasn't aware of the concept of 'edit warring' beyond 3RR until later, and once I realized that I all but gave up on reverts. As you can see I do work in good faith, and a true reversion is necessary for something to count as 3RR.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- This ANI request isn't about your 3RR. This is about your contentious editing. Your comments on my talk page notwithstanding (linked above), your unilateral mass deletion of references to the Jesus Seminar without discussion from various articles are but one example that indicates a complete disregard for the many editors who have worked together and compromised on these articles for many years. [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]. And your editing following these reversions remained equally contentions - to the point that you were warned about edit warring (repeatedly reverting without discussion and reverting during open discussion but without consensus). Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- What I want to know is if this 3RR was proper. I don't think it was, and I am not exactly happy that people keep accusing me of something I never did. I guess if the definition of a reversion is deleting anything in an article then maybe it was proper. Otherwise, I don't see how it was proper. I also want to know if, assuming it was truly improper, it can be undone so people stop attacking me for violating 3RR when I never actually violated 3RR. I was well aware of the rule before this incident, and was being very careful to avoid breaking it. I was very surprised when I just happened to be blocked, which apparently happened almost immediately after I was reported for the 3RR violation. As I said above, I emailed Rklawton who blocked me and he never bothered to respond, even to defend the block. This actually seems pretty arbitrary. There was no recourse and I had no way to appeal it. Apparently it takes just one editor to approve a block. And as mentioned above, Rklawton not only blocked me but actually did the first true reversion of this edit war. So he starts an edit war and blocks the one he edit wars with. How is this proper? If you have such a subjective definition of "reversion", how can you not have a great deal of abuse of this rule?RomanHistorian (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Go here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:RomanHistorian_reported_by_User:Andrew_c_.28Result:_31h.29 for the 3RR violation. Look at that first "reversion". How is that a reversion? I have no idea of when that information was originally entered, but it sure wasn't entered at once, nor was it entered recently. None of it was entered by the guy who edited right before me, StAnselm (nor any other recent editor, as far as I can tell). Some of it was entered by Leadwind in July 2008, but not all of it (by definition, all information is entered by someone at some point in time). I have no idea when the rest was entered. Note it was Rklawton who started the edit war that led to him blocking me. He was the first one to revert. He reverted my three changes at once. How can simple editing count as part of a 3RR violation? I also urge you to look at my user page, if you want to see if I have been productive or not on wikipedia in the past.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- A reversion of material included in 2008? - rather than me dig through the history, can anyone provide the diff of RomanHistorians revert. Without prejudice to any evidence provided, removing content that has had implicit consensus by existing for two years is not a trivial matter - the new potential consensus for its removal was immediately challenged and the matter should have been resolved by discussion at that point, rather than any revert. 3RR, which again should be noted as not an entitlement but an absolute limit, is for newly introduced material, not where there is a clear and apparent consensus - that is provided for by WP:BRD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that now, but by I didn't know that simply making changes that involved deleting or changing something constituted a reversion. By that definition, making four edits to an article, each time deleting or changing a single word, would be 3RR violation. I understand now and won't violate it, but I think this is a poor way to have the rule, as few would guess that "reversion" can also mean changing or deleting a single word, which of course is a normal part of the editing process. 3RR is supposed to be objective, and I think that by including this as part of the definition of "reversion" you make the rule unobjective. When is deleting a word or sentence a "reversion" and when is it a legitimate edit? The first "reversion" of mine on that 3RR violation was actually the third edit in a row I had made, so I didn't exactly go in there to delete some else's edit. The fact that the question can be asked shows the rule is no longer objective. Also the block was only 24 hours, and when I looked into an unblocking request, the page said the process can take quite a while so there was no point to go that route.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your belief that my opinion about your pattern of behavior is wrong is why I posted here. Review by other editors will help determine if it's just me or if your contentious editing should stop. Keep in mind I was right the last time, too. That's why experience matters. I've been around, and I generally understand the rules pretty well. [97]
- The first edit was a deletion of material, a reversion of content that Leadwind added [91]. If you thought the block was improper, you can always request unblock publicly, as that will raise the attention of an uninvolved admin (The preferred way to appeal a block is to use the {{unblock}} template, but you can also contact the blocking administrator or appeal by email.) In cases like this, where the rules may not be entirely clear, and the blocked user shows confusion over the rule, but has remorse and agrees to stop edit warring, unblocks are typically granted. E-mail isn't always ideal because the admin may not be around a computer, or the e-mail address may be out of date or what have you. But I'm sorry you didn't receive a timely response. Hopefully there is a good reason for that. That said, I hope, though, this information won't be needed again for future reference :) -Andrew c [talk] 21:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- RomanHistory has had a somewhat warring approach to Historicty of Jesus, making multiple edits in the last week, many of them reverts, before making his first comment on the Talk page.[98]. That being said, many editors on the various historical Jesus articles bring an edit-warring approach to editing. The whole arena is a mess. I haven't researched RomanHistory's behavior in depth, but off-hand there is no reason to single him out. It seems to me an RFC/U is in order. Better yet, the community needs to acknowledge that principles of AGF and consensus-building are in shambles across a broad spectrum of related articles, and do something more than running around putting out minor fires. Noloop (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your honesty on this and I have to say that I strongly agree. Gospel of John just had to be locked because of this behavior, and there have been outbreaks of edit warring throughout the biblical articles. Good examples include Joshua, Book of Joshua, Battle of Jericho, Historicty of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Jesus, History of Israel and Judah, and no doubt many more that I am not aware of. I haven't been editing these articles for too long but it seems to have been a long standing problem. I agree that something should be done. All this leads to is accusations by people involved in these edit wars to others involved in them. Ultimately most seem to be going to far on some areas. I think somewhere in wikipedia's FAQ section a comment is made about how contentious religion articles can often be. I am not sure what can be done though. Any suggestions?RomanHistorian (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I also apologize if I went too far on Historicty of Jesus. Actually that might even get into another issue. I didn't feel like I was too aggressive, although I guess others did. I think there is a disconnect on many of these religion articles, which is probably part of the reason there is this edit warring (in other words, no one realizes there is an outright fight going on until it is well under way). I have seen a lot of accusations of bad faith in these articles recently, and I doubt many people are truly acting outright in bad faith, even if they might be too aggressive occasionally.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think explaining 3RR, and discussing the block is good because hopefully it raises awareness of policy, and doesn't leave a bad taste of "I was unjustly blocked". That said, I don't think an ANI thread is needed in regards to any recent conduct, and this is coming from one of the few people actively engaged in talk page discussions with this user. If, on the off chance, the edit warring continues, RomanHistorian will be blocked again. Simple as that, but I really hope (and don't think) it will ever come to that. I don't see any admin action needed, and would suggest closing this thread.-Andrew c [talk] 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your frankness. I actually agree with your point on 3RR. I am not angry with the 3RR so much as a bit confused about it. I now have more of an attitude of "be careful" and have realized how much more productive one can be when they avoid reverts, or anything that looks like a revert. My main concern going forward is stuff that doesn't look like edit warring to one person looking like it to another (see my discussion below with Nloop). I am trying to be vigorous while avoiding being too aggressive, and often the line is very difficult to see. I am afraid I might cross it in the eyes of some and am trying to avoid that, while at the same time continuing to make at least some edits to wikipedia.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a general rule, if you have multiple reverts before you have a single comment on the Talk page, you have a non-collaborative attitude. As I said, many editors on these articles have that attitude (mostly with better skills at 3RR-skirting), so the entire environment is bad. I have not researched your editing on other articles. It is quite possible you deserve a block. I think you had 4 reverts in about 36 hours on Historicity of Jesus. I see no cure for the overall environment. Arbitration has been rejected twice, mediation once, RFCs are wikilawyered to death, and the problem is too big and cultural to be handled by the usual dispute resolution channels. Edit-warring policies still need to be enforced, but nobody should be under the illusion that they will solve the systemic problems here. Noloop (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Again, although I disagree on some points I truly appreciate your fairness. I do agree that this is a major problem throughout the biblical articles. Its probably a bigger issue on wikipedia in general, which we just don't see because we are limited to what we edit. I will say though about those edits on Historicity of Jesus, when I made those 4 edits within 36 hours I thought I was doing it the way wikipedia policy specifies. The reversion of my edits cited a specific reason, and I addressed the reason, like citations, when I made further edits. I realize now that my edits apparently did not deal with all of the objections, but at the time I assumed that I was doing things correctly, vigorous back and fourth editing to arrive at a consensus, rather than taking part in some kind of edit war. I mean not all these issues can (nor need to be) discussed at length on the talk page, especially if they are minor. For example, my edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&action=history) on October 14 at 02:39 was reverted, restored (not by me) and reverted again. Sources/references were mentioned as a reason why, so I added them. Then I was told sources weren't the real problem, so I took it to the talk page at that point, realizing the edit comments weren't relayig things clearly. I guess I thought this was how you were suppose to do things on wikipedia, so I can see how that might cause issues if others didn't see it that way. Do you think it should have been handled another way?RomanHistorian (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think explaining 3RR, and discussing the block is good because hopefully it raises awareness of policy, and doesn't leave a bad taste of "I was unjustly blocked". That said, I don't think an ANI thread is needed in regards to any recent conduct, and this is coming from one of the few people actively engaged in talk page discussions with this user. If, on the off chance, the edit warring continues, RomanHistorian will be blocked again. Simple as that, but I really hope (and don't think) it will ever come to that. I don't see any admin action needed, and would suggest closing this thread.-Andrew c [talk] 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I also apologize if I went too far on Historicty of Jesus. Actually that might even get into another issue. I didn't feel like I was too aggressive, although I guess others did. I think there is a disconnect on many of these religion articles, which is probably part of the reason there is this edit warring (in other words, no one realizes there is an outright fight going on until it is well under way). I have seen a lot of accusations of bad faith in these articles recently, and I doubt many people are truly acting outright in bad faith, even if they might be too aggressive occasionally.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your honesty on this and I have to say that I strongly agree. Gospel of John just had to be locked because of this behavior, and there have been outbreaks of edit warring throughout the biblical articles. Good examples include Joshua, Book of Joshua, Battle of Jericho, Historicty of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Jesus, History of Israel and Judah, and no doubt many more that I am not aware of. I haven't been editing these articles for too long but it seems to have been a long standing problem. I agree that something should be done. All this leads to is accusations by people involved in these edit wars to others involved in them. Ultimately most seem to be going to far on some areas. I think somewhere in wikipedia's FAQ section a comment is made about how contentious religion articles can often be. I am not sure what can be done though. Any suggestions?RomanHistorian (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
My initial concern with RomanHistorian was that he doesn't really live up to his name; he has very little understanding of the historical topics that he edits on and doesn't seem to realize how far from the mainstream his views are. He has a Biblically conservative Protestant viewpoint and does not seem to acknowledge that, say, a Biblically moderate Catholic viewpoint might have some legitimacy. But while this explains some of his motives, that's not really why this discussion is going on. The problem isn't in his ideas, but in how he behaves. In my experience, he is eager to make massive changes that remove referenced facts and add bias, he is always happy to provoke an edit war, and he can be something of a bully.
After the administrators chose to protect Gospel of John instead of singling me out for a block, he went on a campaign to get me permanently blocked from editing. If you look at my talk page, you can see his unpleasant visit, where he tried to intimidate me away from ever editing "his" articles again. He also wikistalked me and reverted 9 of my changes in a row, where half of these were uncontroversial edits on articles he has no interest in. This is a far cry from the collegiate attitude I have almost uniformly encountered on Wikipedia.
He took this very personally, but I'm not going to. In fact, I'm not asking that he be blocked or whatever. I just want him to slow down, get consensus before making controversial changes and generally work with us instead of against us. However, I think he will only do this if he can be made to understand that this is the only way his contributions will be accepted here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's an example from just a few minutes ago where he simply reverted edits back to his own POV without bothering to participate in any discussion.[99] It's this type of behavior and his very unpleasant demeanor that calls for warnings from other editors/admins - as he has already clearly expressed that he has no respect for mine. Rklawton (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Topic ban for User:Jamesinderbyshire
I've been trying to improve Famine in India to a GA level article for the last few weeks. I am no longer able to assume good faith in User:Jamesinderbyshire who is being disruptive per my understanding of policies. I am asking experienced admins to evaluate the matter and enforce an article-space/talk-space topic ban on Jamesinderbyshire.
User:Jamesinderbyshire provided a ficticious reference by misquoting tow authors through an intricate setup of fake links/snippet view from Google books. He typed out the following (fake) quote from page 504 of the book[100]:
“ | The Bengal famine "killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, Partition and the worst famines of the 19th Century." | ” |
The quote, if true, would have pretty much put an end to the dispute with Jamesinderbyshire's POV prevailing (my claim was that the late 19th century period of 1875-1900 caused the maximum famine deaths which is a totally different period from the Bengal famine of 1943). I had to spend significant amount to my Wikipedia time to decipher Jamesinderbyshire's intricate setup of book names, authors and bad links to look for the correct books and locate the quote which reads like this:[101]
“ | The Bengal famine "killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, plus the communal holocaust which accompanied Partition." | ” |
After pointing out this fallacy, Jamesinderbyshire apologized by claiming it was a mistake but then quickly went back to his pattern of indulging in trolling or original research on a different subtopic of the same article. [102] These are classic symptoms of gaming the system as the essay on fictitious references points out. The same essays states about fictitious references:
- "It is a most serious offense because it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia"
- "Fictitious references are typically those used to support a hoax, original research, essays or opinion passed off as neutral facts"
Of these, Jamesinderbyshire has indulged in two - original research and essays or opinion as has already been pointed out me and another user to Jamesinderbyshire.[103] [104]
The Famine codes and Malnutrition section of the talk page have the relevant details. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I made a mistake in a quote and immediately on having it drawn to my attention corrected and apologised for it. I also expressed an opinion in a talk page about Indian government expenditure. Other editors have also critiqued Zuggernaut's approach to editing the article at Talk:Famine in India. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also see the very considered comments by a number of editors at User talk:Zuggernaut in the British Empire section (this row built up originally from an ongoing dispute between Zuggernaut and multiple editors at British Empire) calling on him to restrain himself, explaining that he is misunderstanding POV and in particular one very considered statement there from User:Pfly [105]saying "while I can understand the frustration you might feel when faced with a team of Britons defending the BE page, I have to say your methods have not exactly lent themselves to sympathy from people like me". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You typed out content that was blatantly inaccurate, put quotes around it and used it to support your position. I assumed good faith, you said sorry for the fictitious reference and then continued on with similar behavior. Your strategy is a classic example of someone who is trying to game the system to push your own POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to engage further in silly point-scoring. I apologised for the mistake and I did bot repeat it - the allegation you make about the second item is unrelated to the first. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a real pattern of wrongdoing here? One misquote is not a pattern of POV-pushing, and the only other diffs you provide seem, on the face of it, to be fairly harmless. I'm certainly not seeing enough evidence to suggest any sanctions of Jamesinderbyshire here. I've not really looked into the behaviour of Zuggernaut himself as yet. ~ mazca talk 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a pattern. On a previous occasion he demonstrated similar behavior when he cited a page number in a book and provided a link which did show some of the pages before and after the page in question but not the actual page being used to strengthen his case. When I looked up the actual page elsewhere, I found that the data was irrelevant to the topic being discussed. [106] Nonetheless, doesn't WP:FAKE talk about a "zero-tolerance policy" for such behavior. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The misquote might be passed over except that Jamesinderbyshire went on to use the misquoted form specifically to support his argument. In my judgement that's a pretty serious error, and an appropriate response to having it pointed out would be for Jamesinderbyshire to withdraw from this particular discussion. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did he use the misquote to support his argument after it was brought to his attention that the quote was in error? If not, then we should AGF and assume this was a mistake. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm prepared to AGF and assume it was a mistake, but to mistakenly misstate a quote in exactly the way needed to support one's position, where a correct quote would not have supported it at all, is such an appalling mistake that I would want to hide my head in shame if I did it. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But as Larry Ubell says on the Leonard Lopate show, he who doesn't make mistakes is probably not doing anything. Best to AGF without passing judgement. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I came here after assuming good faith as I mentioned in an earlier response. Jamesinderbyshire has behaved in a similar manner just a day or two prior to this instance (page 501 of a different book was cited, the provided link had pages 500, 502 but no 501. When I looked up page 501 elsewhere, content was irrelevant to the argument). Maybye this is a case of WP:Competence? Whatever it is, it's caused plenty of disruption because I have to fight hard and spend significant amount of time on what is a very well known statistic. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- We have one minor mistake corrected quickly. This should never come to ANI, but its pretty typical of this user who has both canvassed and forum shopped before on a subject where his edits pursue a clear Indian Nationalist agenda. This is a clear attempt to bully an editor with a sound edit history over multiple articles (including contentious ones) away from the proposers pet subject. If every editor here who made a mistake was blocked no one would be left --Snowded TALK 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This ANI is not about my behavior. It's about Jamesinderbyshire's attempts to use fictitious references by gaming the system to have his POV/OR prevail. Nonetheless, it's best to check a persons logs/history for the allegations that User:Snowded, Jamesinderbyshire's collaborator is making. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- In response to Looie496, I can only say, yes, I was very embarassed - I know it looks like it might have been deliberate, but it really wasn't - I wasn't pasting a source from a Google Books entry, I was manually typing in late at night mytime from a book and I also had in my mind to say something about comparison with the 19th Century figures - the two got conflated and I completed the quote incorrectly. As I said, I did immediately apologise and revert this edit as soon as it was brought to my attention. I do understand how this would look and will try very hard not to make that error again. On Zuggernaut's second point about me behaving "in a similar matter" previously, this is simply incorrect. The reference he refers to is this [107] which does appear on page 501 in the Cambridge Economic History of India Volume 2, it's just that the quick Google Books search does not list page 501 - you have to click page 500 and then follow it down. The table on that page was relevant as it shows overall death statistics in India during the period in debate. Zuggernaut got agitated that I had claimed this covered "famine deaths" and not "general mortality", something I did not claim. I simply raised it as a discussion point and it has been rather unfortunately seized upon as evidence of some kind of malfeasance on my part, which is both unfair and untrue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone who clicks the link in the paragraph above will see that page 501 does not appear in the preview. I get a clear message saying "Page 501 is not part of this book preview." I had to hunt down this book elsewhere, look up page 501 to discover that the page had detailed tables completely irrelevant to our topic as any discerning reader conversant with the article will be able to tell. Sadly this is a pattern with Jamesinderbyshire. He is trying to game the system in order to come up with data that supports his OR or POV. As the WP:FAKE essay points out, these are classic symptoms of someone trying to game the system. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're just a little unclear as to how Google Books works - the reference is to page 501, which does I assure you exist, which does have the table of data I accurately referred to. In fact, the only one attempting to Game here is you Zuggernaut, as you are attempting to gain uncontrolled access to the article by using ANI to hopefully drive editors off who produce sources you don't like. Note that other editors are busy reverting your latest round of edits to the article because, like me, they feel put out by your attitude. All very ironic because on Talk:British Empire, the original source of all this disgruntlement on your part, I actually tried to take your side and get some attention to the views you were proposing for content in the article; other editors there were so annoyed with your conduct that they wouldn't listen to you. Now you've added another annoyed editor to your growing collection. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone who clicks the link in the paragraph above will see that page 501 does not appear in the preview. I get a clear message saying "Page 501 is not part of this book preview." I had to hunt down this book elsewhere, look up page 501 to discover that the page had detailed tables completely irrelevant to our topic as any discerning reader conversant with the article will be able to tell. Sadly this is a pattern with Jamesinderbyshire. He is trying to game the system in order to come up with data that supports his OR or POV. As the WP:FAKE essay points out, these are classic symptoms of someone trying to game the system. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- We have one minor mistake corrected quickly. This should never come to ANI, but its pretty typical of this user who has both canvassed and forum shopped before on a subject where his edits pursue a clear Indian Nationalist agenda. This is a clear attempt to bully an editor with a sound edit history over multiple articles (including contentious ones) away from the proposers pet subject. If every editor here who made a mistake was blocked no one would be left --Snowded TALK 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I came here after assuming good faith as I mentioned in an earlier response. Jamesinderbyshire has behaved in a similar manner just a day or two prior to this instance (page 501 of a different book was cited, the provided link had pages 500, 502 but no 501. When I looked up page 501 elsewhere, content was irrelevant to the argument). Maybye this is a case of WP:Competence? Whatever it is, it's caused plenty of disruption because I have to fight hard and spend significant amount of time on what is a very well known statistic. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But as Larry Ubell says on the Leonard Lopate show, he who doesn't make mistakes is probably not doing anything. Best to AGF without passing judgement. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm prepared to AGF and assume it was a mistake, but to mistakenly misstate a quote in exactly the way needed to support one's position, where a correct quote would not have supported it at all, is such an appalling mistake that I would want to hide my head in shame if I did it. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did he use the misquote to support his argument after it was brought to his attention that the quote was in error? If not, then we should AGF and assume this was a mistake. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The misquote might be passed over except that Jamesinderbyshire went on to use the misquoted form specifically to support his argument. In my judgement that's a pretty serious error, and an appropriate response to having it pointed out would be for Jamesinderbyshire to withdraw from this particular discussion. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- In this edit Jamesinderbyshire claims that this source provides a "table of death rates according to a range of academic sources for India between 1871 and 1950." Well, p. 502 of that source does provide such a table. Jamesinderbyshire, hang your head in shame - 501 does not equal 502. Zuggernaut, Jamesinderbyshire made a mistake with one source and has acknowledged it. The only mistake with the second source seems to be that Jamesinderbyshire said 501 instead of 502. Unless I'm missing something I think your claims of WP:GAME and WP:FAKE are completely out of line. TFOWR 17:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and Jamesinderbyshire - you said the data goes up to 1950. It actually goes up to 1951. I'll let you off seeing it's the weekend, but do please pay attention. ;-) TFOWR 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks TFOWR, I am honestly trying, and I am honestly also quite confused now. When you go to that book, do you not see the page number as "501" on the page where the table is? I will take another look - perhaps it goes over several pages. As for the end date, yes, I stand corrected - it is 1950! Mistake. Cough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, 'fraid not! What I'm seeing is at the top of page 502: "Table 5.12 Estimates of Expectation of Life at Birth by Sex, Indian sub-continent, 1871-1951". The bottom of page 500 is text and a couple of footnotes, and page 501 "is not part of this book preview". I wouldn't worry unduly: my chastisement was very definitely tongue-in-cheek. TFOWR 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I realised, thanks. Strange though - I see a large table on Google Books at page 501, entitled Table 5.11, Death Rate, Infant Mortality Rate in Indian Sub-continent, Various Sources, 1871-1951. The table is sideways on, eg, Landscape Mode. It's quite odd this - do people see Google Books differently? I assure you I am seeing that, I wonder if anyone else who is casually reading this can say if they are? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, definitely don't get it. I can tell you, based on the tables I can see, that Table 5.11 is either on page 499 or page 501. I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume you're not trying to mislead me, and it really isn't on page 499 ;-) TFOWR 19:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's more a case of assuming sanity I think - hopefully I am still in one piece and when I see "Page 501" it really exists and not just in my head! My hold on reality is starting to depend on confirmation from other editors in talk pages... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, definitely don't get it. I can tell you, based on the tables I can see, that Table 5.11 is either on page 499 or page 501. I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume you're not trying to mislead me, and it really isn't on page 499 ;-) TFOWR 19:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I realised, thanks. Strange though - I see a large table on Google Books at page 501, entitled Table 5.11, Death Rate, Infant Mortality Rate in Indian Sub-continent, Various Sources, 1871-1951. The table is sideways on, eg, Landscape Mode. It's quite odd this - do people see Google Books differently? I assure you I am seeing that, I wonder if anyone else who is casually reading this can say if they are? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, 'fraid not! What I'm seeing is at the top of page 502: "Table 5.12 Estimates of Expectation of Life at Birth by Sex, Indian sub-continent, 1871-1951". The bottom of page 500 is text and a couple of footnotes, and page 501 "is not part of this book preview". I wouldn't worry unduly: my chastisement was very definitely tongue-in-cheek. TFOWR 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks TFOWR, I am honestly trying, and I am honestly also quite confused now. When you go to that book, do you not see the page number as "501" on the page where the table is? I will take another look - perhaps it goes over several pages. As for the end date, yes, I stand corrected - it is 1950! Mistake. Cough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and Jamesinderbyshire - you said the data goes up to 1950. It actually goes up to 1951. I'll let you off seeing it's the weekend, but do please pay attention. ;-) TFOWR 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- In this edit Jamesinderbyshire claims that this source provides a "table of death rates according to a range of academic sources for India between 1871 and 1950." Well, p. 502 of that source does provide such a table. Jamesinderbyshire, hang your head in shame - 501 does not equal 502. Zuggernaut, Jamesinderbyshire made a mistake with one source and has acknowledged it. The only mistake with the second source seems to be that Jamesinderbyshire said 501 instead of 502. Unless I'm missing something I think your claims of WP:GAME and WP:FAKE are completely out of line. TFOWR 17:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Urgent edit filter request
Please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Jcarleo. This user has been adding {{sockpuppet|jcarleo}} over and over again to User:C.Fred's user and user talk pages for the past hour. Can someone create a filter? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob
I'm rather perplexed at my current interaction with Off2riorob (talk · contribs). On Climate change denial, I recently changed a disambiguation link at the top of the page, and was reverted by this editor.[108][109] Another editor, Dmcq, reverted to my version, but then Off2riorob reverted again.[110] At this point I asked Off2riorob on his talk page if, rather than reverting, he would participate in the discussion. He responded by removing my comment and posting this invective on my talk page.
Following this Dmcq reverted a second time, and then Off2riorob reverted a third time.[111] I've attempted to ask Off2riorob why he is responding like this, and he has again deleted my comment. I'm taking it here because I don't see how I can work on an article with someone who won't have a discussion and responds by making accusations that he won't explain. Mackan79 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ow, he won't explain himself to my satisfaction..I am getting close but I don't think I can attain to the user that had three separate sections in one day (no names mentioned). Is this a 3rr report or a civility report or a personal attack or a legal threat? I don't see an actual actionable issue? Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've just removed the sections you posted below, which clutter the page and don't state where the comments were posted. If you want to summarize, feel free, but please don't repost my comments here as if I made them on this board since it is only confusing. Mackan79 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- To the point, you responded to a request that you join the discussion by posting invective on my talk page and reverting the article a third time. Dmcq, someone I generally haven't agreed with, has now posted a comment about this on the talk page. I am simply trying to get past this rather bizarre position where you are reverting, and posting insults, but won't have an actual discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have forfeited the discussion with this worthless report. This is not the place to encourage discussion. Also insults , what insults? Are you inviting me to the talkpage for discussion? Off2riorob (talk)
- I thought the place to encourage discussion was your talk page, but you responded by deleting my comment, posting this to my talk page, and then reverting another editor a third time. I am under the impression that we should not be revert warring, so given your refusal to discuss, rather than to revert myself I am asking for review. Mackan79 (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have forfeited the discussion with this worthless report. This is not the place to encourage discussion. Also insults , what insults? Are you inviting me to the talkpage for discussion? Off2riorob (talk)
Administrator Looie496
I started this section because a user was repeatedly reverting while refusing to participate in discussion, in search of some simple advice (I am aware that sanctions could be sought on the newly created page here). Perhaps this was a waste of time, but I did not expect an administrator to respond with taunting insults of the sort I have just seen from Looie496 (talk · contribs) here and here, at the same time as undoing Off2riorob's bizarre edits to this page,[112][113] and telling him privately that he was not helping himself. I request an explanation. Mackan79 (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Socking by Jonas Poole
User:Jonas Poole essentially admitted to abusing a sockpuppet account here; I've disabled the sock account but would like another admin to hand out a sanction for the main account, as I've become involved in a minor content dispute with him. His block log is already rather extensive, especially in regards to edit-warring with other editors over this same issue. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure that's the right diff? The first one mentions nothing of socking... Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- For the benefits of those who took as long as I did to connect the dots, here (including Jclemens I notice after this edit conflict ☺): "which, as I said in reverting your edit for the second time, shouldn't be used outside the German language" by Jonas Poole (talk · contribs) links up with "The German spelling shouldn't be used outside the German language." by OttaSotta (talk · contribs). And the reason that Parsecboy is involved here is because these two accounts have been tag teaming against xem at Bismarck class battleship.
Given the months of history (start with Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Spitsbergen) that there is over this one single issue — the spelling of Spitsbergen — using sock puppets to edit war about it was definitely the wrong thing to do. I am strongly tempted to decline this request, given that it is based upon the assertion that using multiple accounts to make the same edit one two three times was not sockpuppetry. I would have hoped that after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625#User:Jonas Poole, Jonas Poole would know better than to do this sort of thing.
I note in passing it's not a good idea to accuse people who make spelling changes, of this sort, of "trolling". There's a significant difference between being convinced of the rightness of one's position, and trying (albeit with exceedingly poor execution) to get the encyclopaedia to reflect what one believes to be correct and accurate, and making spelling changes just to provoke. (Executive summary: "troll" is not short for "person who disagrees with me".) Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- As you noted, Jonas should have well learned his lesson on arguing over the spelling of the island; that he steadfastly refuses to do so and continues to disrupt articles over this single issue sounds like trolling to me. Parsecboy (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The lessons to have learned were not to employ personal attacks, not to edit war, and to discuss things with other people in a civil and adult fashion. They were not to learn that xe is wrong about the facts of the matter, given what is written here (including Weakopedia's final comments) for starters. (I did recommend reading that discussion the last time.)
Again, someone who genuinely disagrees with you about spelling and thinks that xyr spelling is the right one and your spelling is inaccurate, and who wants to make the encyclopaedia accurate, is not the same as someone who is making spelling changes not because of any desire for accuracy but simply and solely to annoy or to disrupt. You pointed to m:What is a troll?. It's a good idea to go and read its first four paragraphs. ☺ There has been nothing presented in these noticeboard and talk page discussions over several months to indicate that Jonas Poole does not have the accuracy of the encyclopaedia as xyr goal, even if xyr methods of working towards that goal have been bad ones. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The lessons to have learned were not to employ personal attacks, not to edit war, and to discuss things with other people in a civil and adult fashion. They were not to learn that xe is wrong about the facts of the matter, given what is written here (including Weakopedia's final comments) for starters. (I did recommend reading that discussion the last time.)
- As you noted, Jonas should have well learned his lesson on arguing over the spelling of the island; that he steadfastly refuses to do so and continues to disrupt articles over this single issue sounds like trolling to me. Parsecboy (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I nearly missed this. I watchlisted Spitsbergen after one of the last reports, but it seems I am the only one. Currently there seem to be so many fans of original research and nationalist debate about this extremely minor point, that it is impossible to fix the weight problem. At the moment the very first section goes into excruciating detail about who wrote the word with an s or z, and which is or isn't correct and why, and completely drowns the little encyclopedic information it does convey. I have commented in more detail on the talk page some time ago, but my points were simply ignored.
I am asking uninvolved editors to watchlist the article so that next time this comes up we have a more representative sample of editors commenting there. Thanks. Hans Adler 11:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It came up at Bismarck class battleship this time around, however. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I was put off by the work needed to understand the first post, without noticing your solution key. Now that I have understood the issue: It seems clear to me that (1) a consistent spelling of "Spitsbergen" throughout Wikipedia is prefereable (per Weakopedia), (2) in spite of the absurd section Spitsbergen#Etymology this is just a minor spelling variation that does not involve any real-life nationalist conflict; (3) calling either spelling "German" or "Dutch" is anachronistic (the variation dates back to when the island was (re-)discovered; the discoverer was a native of a village that spoke Frisian at the time, a language separate from Dutch and German; Dutch and German formed a dialect continuum rather than two separate languages; and spelling was chaotic). Hans Adler 13:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Jonas has been blocked for edit-warring and refusing to discuss the problem in the past. Also, he has no connection with the article in question, yet less than 17 hours after I posted the rewritten version Jonas showed up to "fix" the problem. The only method I can imagine he'd have found the link was by patrolling the What links here? tool. That's some rather obsessive, paranoid behavior, and especially concerning, given its connection with a nationalist issue. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Obsessional: perhaps. Paranoid: Such a thing is impossible to diagnose from looking at pseudonymous edits to a wiki, and it's not a good idea to call people paranoiacs, either. Yes, that's clearly how xe found the article. However, it doesn't seem that there's actually much of a nationalist issue (outwith Wikipedia, that is) here. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record:
- 3 September: Jonas Poole gets blocked for a month for disruption at Spitsbergen
- 4 September: Jonas Poole tries to negotiate this into a topic ban so he can still edit exploration-related pages.
- 6 October: Jonas Poole sets up a new account specifically for exploration-related pages
- 15 October: The second account comes out accidentally. Up to that point has failed to connect the two accounts per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.
I think this sequence of events speaks for itself. I have thought about asking for checkuser but it does not seem necessary at this point. Hans Adler 13:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see enough reason to unblock the sock account User:OttaSotta at this time. User:Jonas Poole may have exhibited too much zeal for a particular spelling of Spitsbergen but that issue now seems resolved. Unless Jonas or OttaSotta will show up here to explain in more detail why a second account is needed, I suggest that no further action is required. If Jonas is willing to attach the WP:SOCK#NOTIFY templates to his OttaSotta account then we might discuss further. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry help requested
While reading the Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden article, I came across an odd user name, User:Princess Mary of Sweden. There I found a confession on the Princess' user page that Baseball Bugs, The Transhumanist, and Princess Mary of Sweden are socks. This is disruptive. I recommend investigation and then blockage of all the sock accounts. The main one is the Transhumanist, so that one can stay. This is because the Transhumanist edits but Bugs tries to butt into dramatic arguments on ANI and AN and Princess Mary sounds too much like real royalty (just like if someone were named Gregory W. Bush or Bernald H. Obama). Conclusion: shut down all the accounts except the main The Transhumanist
If I am wrong, sorry, but I don't think so. I'm just reporting what I saw. Let's have a checkuser work on this. I don't know how to submit a checkuser so either someone else do it or let the guilty get off scot free. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but all the User:Princess Mary of Sweden page says is:
- I am a permitted use of an alternate account.
- It names no names and nothing about those other ones links them to alternate accounts.
- Where are you getting this from?
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Scroll to the bottom. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I notified Bugs, as Chase me failed to do so. Grsz11 03:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This screams out "Joe-job". SPI on the account and on the reporting account here? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ron in looking at the edit histories I am not sure what you want us to scroll to the bottom of. As to "Chase me", no edits for 15 months and then this comes up. It feels like a little unneeded wikimelodrama is about to ensue. MarnetteD | Talk 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- First line is I am a permitted use of an alternate account.. This is followed by 89 Crlf's, a leading space and the text My main accounts are Baseball Bugs and The Transhumanist. This is a secret. Do not tell anyone or "out" me.. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ron in looking at the edit histories I am not sure what you want us to scroll to the bottom of. As to "Chase me", no edits for 15 months and then this comes up. It feels like a little unneeded wikimelodrama is about to ensue. MarnetteD | Talk 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This screams out "Joe-job". SPI on the account and on the reporting account here? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This all screams "sockpuppet of banned user" to me. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone up for a bet that Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect == Princess Mary of Sweden? I'm in for a nickel. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows. There's been more socking in the last week than in the past 6 months combined. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like someone has been holding a 15 month grudge. Let's be gone with this guy. Grsz11 03:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. Not that this is definitive, but Grundle's back in active operation, and has a thing about Obama ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- (lotsa ec)This[114] edit, both in its style and its placement, looks a lot like User:ChildofMidnight. Then again it could be Grundle fucking around, or who knows who else. PhGustaf (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. Not that this is definitive, but Grundle's back in active operation, and has a thing about Obama ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like someone has been holding a 15 month grudge. Let's be gone with this guy. Grsz11 03:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows. There's been more socking in the last week than in the past 6 months combined. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone up for a bet that Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect == Princess Mary of Sweden? I'm in for a nickel. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone have any objections to indef'ing them both for disruption or trolling? This is, frankly, ridiculous. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support indef block for both, with a checkuser and possible ban (if not already banned as Grundle) Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I don't know much about CoM except that he's very fond of harassing Bugs, and these accounts seem to fit that description.
- What's been done with User:Princess Mary of Sweden that warrants revoking editing privileges? The account has six edits in total. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have serious doubts that the claims made that User:Princess Mary of Sweden is run by Baseball Bugs and/or The Transhumanist. The very fact that it is impersonating other users in this manner is egregiously disruptive, and also clear evidence that it is a sock account of somebody, likely someone who has a grudge against Bugs and Transhumanist. Starting an account for the sole pupose of falsely claiming that other users are operating it is beyond disruptive. Blocking it seems a good idea. A checkuser should also check for connections or socks. Furthermore, the reporting account looks like an impersonation account to harrass User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. --Jayron32 03:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- What's been done with User:Princess Mary of Sweden that warrants revoking editing privileges? The account has six edits in total. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- SPI filed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am willing to drop this. I only filed this report because of what I saw. They say I haven't edit. That's darn right, I just read Wikipedia now.
- SPI filed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you do file a SPI, this should include all parties and not conveniently leaving out some. All, Princess, Transhumanist, Bugs, should be included.
- This also shows how manipulative Wikipedians can be. You call me Grundle. I am not Grundle. But that is a slimey and easy way to get rid of anyone you hate. I hate user X, call him Grundle. I hate user y, call him Grundle. I am losing a discussion, call the other side either a sock or Grundle. The next person who uses this tactic should be banned. This should be the new Wikipedia way.Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nice rant... --Jayron32 04:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- All we're saying is that Grundle has been extremely active lately, and there is a slight possibility that you are a Grundle sock. Understand now? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This also shows how manipulative Wikipedians can be. You call me Grundle. I am not Grundle. But that is a slimey and easy way to get rid of anyone you hate. I hate user X, call him Grundle. I hate user y, call him Grundle. I am losing a discussion, call the other side either a sock or Grundle. The next person who uses this tactic should be banned. This should be the new Wikipedia way.Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*sigh...why is it that all the new people who report something to ANI get very fussy when people, not without reason, think something odd may be afoot. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actual new users getting flustered is not suprising; what is annoying is sockpuppeteers who repeatedly come back here despite the fact that they get picked up reliably and blocked again, and get vocal about it each time.
- You'd think they'd find somewhere else to hang out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with CoM; is this one of his standard rants? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure, but if you check his edit history prior to todays little glitch, there's stuff going on at the Obama articles which bear his hallmarks. The link above that PhGustaf linked is very CoM-like. CoM and Grundle tended to edit from the same perspective, but where Grundle is snarky and sardonic when under a perceived threat, CoM tended to get angry and/or defensive. Check out User_talk:Jayron32/Archive11#Gerald_Walpin which shows CoM descending into his angry/defensive stance. There's similarities in the tone of his comments there with those of Chase Me... here. Additionally, that discussion shows some of the grudge that CoM shows towards Baseball Bugs. You can find similar conflicts with Transhumanist too, I'd imagine. --Jayron32 05:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could Grundle and ChildofMidnight be the same person operating two complex sockfarms? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Only under the "anything is possible" criteria. But seriously, no. They are distinct people, I have absolutely no doubt about that. --Jayron32 05:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- They would have to be exceptionally careful if that were the case. No similar IP addresses, styles of editing, etc, and plus the more people that know about something, the harder it is to keep it a secret, so the editor behind it couldn't even tell his closest ally without a significant amount of risk involved. Overall, kinda maybe sorta possible, but highly unlikely. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could Grundle and ChildofMidnight be the same person operating two complex sockfarms? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I ran wikichecker on Grundle2600 and CoM; their day of week and time of day patterns are fairly similar but nothing to warrant suspicion AFAIK. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)Almost certainly not. In the Obama wars a year or two ago, they pushed similar POVs, but in entirely different styles. For one thing, Grundle has never been mean, but mean is CoM's middle name. The passage quoted by AD above is odd: It has a CoM tenor to it, but seems less literate than I'd expect. I have notified CoM of this discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed my resolved tag per objection. I can't believe you guys are wasting so much effort fucking around with this blatant and obvious troll. I've indeffed him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- meh. I'm married and its Friday night. Got nothing better to do. --Jayron32 06:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. That's funny. I should send you my Margarita recipe. Toddst1 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Out of tequila right now. Had a few cans of Yeungling, so that's helping a bit. --Jayron32 06:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm married, not out of Tequila, and it's Friday night. We've got much better things to do. But I'm stuck supporting a remote site IT change going on in the change window tonight. So nothing better happening, and no margarita. Yet.
- Yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Out of tequila right now. Had a few cans of Yeungling, so that's helping a bit. --Jayron32 06:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. That's funny. I should send you my Margarita recipe. Toddst1 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I just saw the notice a little bit ago. First, I want to mention that while my interaction ban with CoM is still in place, I'm now allowed to comment for administrative purposes, so here goes: I doubt very much that either CoM or Grundle are behind the OP here. The one place where someone asked "does this look like CoM", I would say, No, it doesn't. Also, those two may have done some socking, but impostoring is not their style. I can think of several users who've done impostoring and dragged my name into it, but as I've learned, it's best to not spend very much time trying to figure out who's doing the socking, because that's precisely what they want - so just block the current offender and any "sleeper" accounts and be done with it. Although if a familiar pattern emerges, it doesn't hurt to look into it further. The fact that the OP is using an obvious play on Chase Me Ladies (as pointed out earlier) tells you something right there. What this actually reminds me of most starkly is the guy from summer 2009 (never identified) who impostored the indef'd user Axmann8 by using obvious plays on his name and editing the same articles that Axmann8 had worked on - mostly to do with Obama and other political matters. His sole purpose was to try to move Axmann8 from indef'd to banned, and he almost got away with it until somebody figured out what was going on. It's either that guy here, or someone else imitating that guy (an impostor of an impostor). If an SPI finds him, that would be good. He's been a minor thorn in my side and others' for some time now. The pattern in this case matches that of summer 2009, in that the OP might be trying to convince people he's CoM and/or Grundle, for the purpose of tricking the community into permanently banning one or both of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- CoM's ban has been "reset" several times due to socking so it's not unreasonable to suspect that some of his "enemies" might try to impersonate him in this way so the clock on his ban keeps getting restarted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: For what it's worth, I think CMDIAI isn't a problem user at all. He's never harassed me, and I personally have never encountered any problems with him, he's been courteous and polite. I don't support an SPI or anything similar on him; I'm not sure one is warranted? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs is looking into this matter. It should be resolved shortly with his help. IESNEC (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here he comes to save the day. PhGustaf (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now he's impostoring an impostor of the indef'd user called CENSEI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here he comes to save the day. PhGustaf (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs is looking into this matter. It should be resolved shortly with his help. IESNEC (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Since noone is acting at RPP can anyone fully protect the article because the edit-warring trying to add the death date of Benoît Mandelbrot with unreliable sources is immense. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Er, and you're one of the edit warriors...and not all of your reverts meet the rules...(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I asked you at your talkpage due to problems editing here. But now that I can edit this section can you please explain your comment? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Death confirmed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/17mandelbrot.html, can someone edit this into the article please, currently fully protected. Exxolon (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I asked you at your talkpage due to problems editing here. But now that I can edit this section can you please explain your comment? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thank you Exxolon. I just saw that the article was updated by sysops. Great. I had asked at RFPP since early on for full protection fearing another Seigenthaler incident-type BLP violation but it was only semi'd initially with which I agreed at the time and for a time the semi-protection seemed to work. The rest is history. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It is also worthwhile to note that apart from the unreliable sources during the stage of the edit-warring the proposed death date was wrong. It was edited in as the 15th of October (sample). It is good to know that our reliance on WP:RS worked and that when we put it in, the date was encyclopaedic and correct. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Range block pretty please
Note:Move from AIV per admin request:
- 63.118.16.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) range block needs to be reinstated. The IP range has been blocked twice for BLP policy violations and insertion of ethnic/descent categories to biographies. Previous ANI discusions here and here Original blocking admin is no longer active, so I'm making the range block request here. --Jezebel'sPonyo
White Rabbit requested moves
At Talk:White Rabbit, the IP 75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a third request to move the page in the last four months. The first two requests were unanimously opposed, yet the third request attempts to do the same thing. It seems to me that the IP is trying to game the system, but I'm not sure about the proper course of action in this case. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Easy: I blocked the IP for a week. It's the second time I've blocked them for this, betweentimes JodyB has a quiet word with them, and several other editors have also tried to discuss this with the IP. Either they're trolling or they're incompetent. I don't really care which. TFOWR 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hate to play "grammar nazi" but the phrase You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Stop messing around with page-move requests in the block notice doesn't make sense. I'm assuming a script did this? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I like write always that. I understand Don't what Problem the is? ;-) Aye, Twinkle has a field for "additional comments" - I assumed it would do the sensible thing and append them to the block notice, instead of inserting it as a block reason. Sometimes I hate Twinkle. This time is one of them. I saw it, and half-thought I'd fix it, but ran into fractal-related distractions... TFOWR 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just for you, Ron Ritzman. ;-) TFOWR 15:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I like write always that. I understand Don't what Problem the is? ;-) Aye, Twinkle has a field for "additional comments" - I assumed it would do the sensible thing and append them to the block notice, instead of inserting it as a block reason. Sometimes I hate Twinkle. This time is one of them. I saw it, and half-thought I'd fix it, but ran into fractal-related distractions... TFOWR 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hate to play "grammar nazi" but the phrase You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Stop messing around with page-move requests in the block notice doesn't make sense. I'm assuming a script did this? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Kubura - hounding, sock puppetry, disruptive editing, personal attacks
- Background
User Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of conflict with other editors over articles relating to Croatia. See his contribs. On 4 October I made two reversions of pending changes to previously accepted versions of Croatian language: [115] and [116]. As there appeared to be an edit war starting, I asked in the edit summaries for discussions of changes to take place on the article's talk page to attempt to reach some consensus. As the user, Jack Sparrow 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and some Croatian IPs had continuously made the same edit, I asked for page protection [117].
- Hounding
Kubura arrived at my talk page two days later to obviously make a WP:POINT and posted a 3RR warning [118] to which I responded explaining that he was in error and that my only involvement was as a reviewer, that he should feel free to either strike out the warning or recognise his error or not but that either way he should at least check contribution histories before lashing out and issuing warnings out of some vendetta. He chose to do neither, and in his response he addressed another user who had commented, and used a phrase that does not pop up often (see Sock puppetry below) "don't etiquette the opponent as nationalists."
I removed the warning myself two days later only for Kubura to return a further two days later and reinstate it with the summary "No censorship. You appeared on edit warring on 4 Oct 2010 with 2 reverts in 28 minutes, without explanation on the talkpage." A page watcher saw the reinstatement and removed it here [119]. Getting thoroughly peeved with this WP:HOUNDING I asked Kubura to stop posting irrelevant warnings on my talk page. Kubura responded that as far as he was concerned I was part of a tag team pushing POV on the article. I attempted again to impress upon Kubura that he was wrong not to AGF my 2 reversions of 4 October, that I was not part of a tag team or anti-Croatian conspiracy and that I was fed up to the eyeballs with his hounding. He then repeated his tag team allegation to an admin, stating that I was gaming the system: [120].
His next step in his campaign of harassment was to complain about me at WP:WQA here: [121]. This was in the midst of another rampage of WP:POINT warnings, where he issued notices of WP:ARBMAC to everyone who he disagreed with, and then posted to another user a hint to do his dirty work for him in reporting User:Kwamikagami to WP:ANI here: [122] as he could hardly go there himself due to unclean hands.
- Sock puppetry, disruptive editing and personal attacks
Kubura has since made no logged in edits, however the campaign of disruptive editing and hounding has been continued by Croatian IPs: [123], [124], [125] including the same allegation of censorship directed at me that Kubura used, [126], [127] demonstrating an understanding of wiki editing, [128]. The IP focuses his attacks on me (for censorship), and Kubura's two other favourite targets, Kwamikagami and User:Ivan Štambuk. He specifically cites Kwamikagami's WP:INVOLVED investigation, and another subject close to Kubura's heart, Ivan's "insults." Another Croatian IP, 83.131.95.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated the same arguments used by Kubura, made personal attacks calling other editors "liars", and trotted out the same phrases including the accusation that people were "ettiqueted as Croatian nationalist," an unusual turn of phrase used by Kubura.
I call WP:DUCK.
- Relief
In view of the above, I am raising these matters for the attention of others, and request that you consider if any action should be taken against Kubura. Personally, I believe he should be blocked indefinitely, but I leave the conclusions to be drawn by, and any outcome decided, to my peers. Keristrasza (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with Keristrasza's evaluation of the situation with User:Kubura. Keristrasza has been totally uninvolved with the discussions at Talk:Croatian language, but Kubura dragged him/her in nonetheless with ridiculous accusations. Kubura's hounding goes beyond just Keristrasza as well. He/she actively sought out someone who has a past history of reporting User:Kwamikagami for admin issues. This research turned up User:Neutralhomer, and Kubura posted this on his/her talk page. Neutralhomer then trotted over to WP:AN/I and used Kubura's information to initiate an AN/I complaint against Kwamikagami (a complaint which led nowhere). Kubura has contributed nothing to the discussion at Talk:Croatian language and has been disruptive on the Talk pages of those who oppose his/her POV. --Taivo (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- This thread was archived for being over 24 hours old. Is this the wrong noticeboard, and if so to which one should I move it? Covering as it does vandalism, sock puppetry, and arbcom rulings, I am unsure which would be the most suitable Keristrasza (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Completely undiscussed controversial climate change move needs reverting
A less than a month old account that originally claimed to be a WP:CLEANSTART case and still has no obvious link to the user's previous identity has just moved Climate change denial to Criticism of Climate Change (yes, complete with the wrong capitalisation) without any prior discussion. To avoid a move war, can an uninvolved admin please move back so that a discussion at WP:RM can be started cleanly. Thank you. Hans Adler 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done and move protection enabled. Toddst1 (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, can you or someone provide a diff to the account's claim of cleanstart? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- da diff Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- See new section below, which I have been preparing since I started this report. Off to a lecture now. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, and I was just thinking I'd seen this user's editing style before.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- See new section below, which I have been preparing since I started this report. Off to a lecture now. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- da diff Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, can you or someone provide a diff to the account's claim of cleanstart? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- No problem... See here**Terra Novus's Diff**..I will stop editing this article if it really is such a issue due to me being a recent WP:CLEANSTART, but I hope that the more experienced editors involved will fix this article's WP:NPOV issues...--Novus Orator 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a relevant aside, I'm about to close the Climate Change ArbCom case (once I have breakfast) and will be posting the details later today. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- No problem... See here**Terra Novus's Diff**..I will stop editing this article if it really is such a issue due to me being a recent WP:CLEANSTART, but I hope that the more experienced editors involved will fix this article's WP:NPOV issues...--Novus Orator 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
About the user
After some additional research, here is some further reading:
- WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Edit warring on Cryptozoology articles – 13-15 September, ANI discusses what to do with the disruption caused by the Gniniv in cryptozoology area
- Gniniv claims to retire (15 September)
- First edit by Terra Novus claims clean start (18 September)
- WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Terra Novus/Archive – 28 September, user asks for CU to clear them from suspected connection with FellGleaming
- User talk:Carcharoth#Confirmation – 1 October; user goes to an arbitrator's talk page for rubber stamping of their "clean start" after it came out that they had not notified anyone after disappearing while community action against them was discussed
- WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#User:Gniniv / User:Terra Novus / "Novus Orator" – 4 October ANI discussion
- Undiscussed highly contentious move in climate change area
- Extreme POV editing in climate change area
This seems to be a competence problem rather than bad faith, but something needs to be done. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would encourage this editor to take this opportunity to completely leave all controversial topics, or at least to return to his initial account. To Terra Novus, if you continue having problems like this with the new account, I think you'll quickly be banned, since you will be taking too much community time when people have to figure out what you're up to. If you want to keep trying to improve controversial topics, and you want a fair hearing, you should go back to your other account. Really, I would recommend getting out of contentious topics altogether, since candidly, you don't show a sensitivity to the types of things that will get you in trouble across the board. But for maximum leeway you should surely go back to your first account. Only if you are extremely confident that you can stay out of all controversial topics altogether with this account, as well as any areas in which you've previously edited, is there any remotely plausible chance that you will not be sanctioned under this new account, at least in my opinion. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CLEANSTART is quite clear in its statement that editors who decide to place {{retired}} on their original account and create a new account should not return to edit the articles/subjects that they previously edited as it could lead to WP:SOCK issues. If the intent was to simply keep editing the same way, one cannot claim cleanstart. One can hold an WP:Alternate account for specific purposes, but at this point, the new account does not meet them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, and as I said above I have stopped editing Climate Change articles. If any one will take the time to look at my edit history as Terra Novus (After my cleanstart), they will see that I have adhered to the noncontentious topics policy in the articles I have chosen to edit. This was just a ignorant misstep on my part into a new subject that was too contentious. As I acted in good faith (and, to be honest, in ignorance of the move request policy) I hope that the community will understand my full adherence to Wikipedia's principles.--Novus Orator 04:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CLEANSTART is quite clear in its statement that editors who decide to place {{retired}} on their original account and create a new account should not return to edit the articles/subjects that they previously edited as it could lead to WP:SOCK issues. If the intent was to simply keep editing the same way, one cannot claim cleanstart. One can hold an WP:Alternate account for specific purposes, but at this point, the new account does not meet them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would encourage this editor to take this opportunity to completely leave all controversial topics, or at least to return to his initial account. To Terra Novus, if you continue having problems like this with the new account, I think you'll quickly be banned, since you will be taking too much community time when people have to figure out what you're up to. If you want to keep trying to improve controversial topics, and you want a fair hearing, you should go back to your other account. Really, I would recommend getting out of contentious topics altogether, since candidly, you don't show a sensitivity to the types of things that will get you in trouble across the board. But for maximum leeway you should surely go back to your first account. Only if you are extremely confident that you can stay out of all controversial topics altogether with this account, as well as any areas in which you've previously edited, is there any remotely plausible chance that you will not be sanctioned under this new account, at least in my opinion. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Other recent edits
I've taken the time Terra Novus suggests, to review his edits, and I'm sorry to say that I can't agree that he's stuck to non-contentious topics or edited in a responsible manner within them:
- In this edit to the Pro-life article we get blatant misrepresentation of the cited source, which says, verbatim: "Traditional Jewish teachings sanction abortion as a means of safeguarding the life and well-being of a mother. While the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative movements openly advocate for the right to a safe and accessible abortion, the Orthodox movement is less unified on the issue."
- In this edit to the Green Party article we get the Green Party represented as "Socialism", via a sidebar, with no edit summary and no use of the talk page.
- In the Swedish welfare article we get drive-by POV tagging with no edit summary and no use of the talk page.
- In this edit to the Solid South political article more drive-by tagging, with an edit summary this time but still no use of the talk page.
- Our article on Race initially had this sentence that accurately summarized its four sources,
- Then Terra Novus came along and first gave us this remarkable passage,
- After the rise of the New Left amongst academia, a modified population genetics reflected a new understanding of the sources of phenotypic variation. Pressure from demographic groups in society has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon, although, ironically, they were the ones who historically popularized the concept. (See also Political Correctness).1234
- and then eventually gave us this sentence, which cites the same four refs but grossly misrepresents their meaning:
- In this edit to the article on Messianic Judaism we get argumentative, pro-Christian tags inserted into a simple statement taken directly from its cited source on what Jews believe about Jesus.
- In this John Birch Society edit we get a change from the correct full statement,
- The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a "Patriot' Group". Its definition of patriot groups includes: "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order' or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines".
- to this truncated one,
- The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a "Patriot' Group". Its definition of patriot groups includes: "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order'.
- The SPLC cited reference did indeed include the phrase "or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines."
I appreciate and value Terra Novus' contributions to space vehicle articles, volcano articles, and similarly non-controversial articles. I also imagine he believes he's doing the right thing by making these kinds of changes. But it's my clear impression from these and other edits that he's so agenda-driven that he will purposely distort controversial articles to match his political and religious beliefs without respect for the sources they cite. He doesn't seem to be able subordinate his beliefs to the policies we're all required to abide by in order to contribute here. I have no idea what the best remedy for this problem might be, but I know it needs one. This pattern cannot be allowed to continue. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the impressive presentation. Since this came after a claimed clean start (which was very ill-advised but presumably in good faith), I guess the best way forward would be a mentorship, possibly in combination with a topic ban for contentious topics and contentious edits, and an understanding that once there is a mentor available the user can no longer claim to have been ignorant about an edit's controversial nature. Hans Adler 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Ledenierhomme
Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for one week following the repeated insertion of negative material about a living person on the article Jonathan Cook. The user then evaded the block as an IP and the block was reset (see here). After repeatedly removing the block notice and declined unblock requests, the user's talk page access was revoked. Since the block expired, the user has returned to continue with the same problematic behavior. His very first edit, after removing the block notice and unblock requests, was to reinsert the very same material he was blocked for reverting on the Jonathan Cook article (here). The user then hounded my contributions, reverting my edits at two unrelated articles, both times reintroducing problematic material here and here. The user also has made reverts of multiple users at the article Expédition d'Irlande in the day since he returned. It appears that a 1 week block was not enough to get the message across. nableezy - 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked indef which = The amount of time it takes for them to understand that they cannot edit war over BLP questionable material. I do not need to be consulted if another admin decides that point has been reached. Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good block. --John (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support block -- This editor has not gone to much trouble to show that he is editing in good faith. He is always just on the edge and this time he fell over. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Problematic IP editor
92.10.108.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just made this grossly offensive edit. For background, it is also the same editor as 92.11.242.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who previously made similar remarks, and was blocked for 55 hours. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- And is now edit warring to keep it on the page. O Fenian (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Revealing personal identity
User ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in this diff reveled my personal identity. That was my username before, so he knows it from then. As this problematic user (whose last block expired in less the 15 days ago) was well aware of Wikipedia:Harassment policy, and informed several times about it, i would like urgent admin reaction regarding this incident. Also, i would love some insurance that this user will not again do this. I didn't removed my name, but someone should do that also. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)