DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →Right to exist: really, cut it out |
|||
Line 474: | Line 474: | ||
*Note: his IP just got a block by Materialscientist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.194.205.29]... the account should get the same. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 12:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
*Note: his IP just got a block by Materialscientist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.194.205.29]... the account should get the same. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 12:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: It really is offensive that you continually ask for blocks everywhere. Indeed, as has already been noted, your [[WP:BATTLE|personal combative nature]] is causing you needless trips to ANI, AN3 and elsewhere. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 12:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:42, 21 January 2012
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) |
|
Incivility and disruption of an RfC
- User: AndyTheGrump
- Insulted party: R-41
- Discussion: Talk:East Germany (RfC)
- Diff: [1]
- Policies: WP:NPA (personal attack), WP:CIVIL (civility), WP:DISRUPT (disruptive editing)
Request: As a neutral observer, but involved as I opened (but not started) the discussion, I am asking for either a short block or a topic ban of AndyTheGrump from the RfC.
Background: In order to resolve an on going edit war at East Germany (now protected), I created an RfC on behalf of the editors in an attempt to attract a broader consensus from the community. The RfC has degenerated into a war of opinion and comment that is not directly related to the RfC proposal, which specifically asked participants to keep the discussion on friendly terms. AndyTheGrump may not be the only participant that might be responsible for what is possibly a disruption of the process, nevertheless his behaviour is unacceptable, apart from which, anyone visiting this RfC and seeing this confrontation may decline to participate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. You are right. Implications that I'm some sort of apologist for the crimes committed in eastern Europe in the name of the Soviet Union isn't 'directly related' to the topic of the RfC. User:R-41 has repeatedly insinuated that I am, but provided no evidence. He has also repeatedly refused to provide any sources whatsoever to back up his arguments - instead indulging in endless WP:OR, and asking for me to provide sources that disprove his unsourced assertions. As I commented on my talk page, if Wikipedia considers calling someone an 'asshole' to be offensive, whereas repeatedly implying that someone is an apologist for the criminality committed in the name of the USSR isn't, it is quite entitled to block me. Can I suggest a merger with Conservopedia? (BTW, in my defence, I used the term 'asshole' metaphorically ;-) ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have to ask, what do you think you're accomplishing by continuing to argue with R-41? Do you think you'll persuade him to come around to your point of view? It ain't gonna happen. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Probably not. That is the point of the RfC though. He is proposing that Wikipedia should have a point of view, and assert it as a fact. That might happen. I don't think it should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Andy.This ANI is not for discussing the RfC topic or its possible outcome; it is for discussing the demeanour of the participant(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
- I have to ask, what do you think you're accomplishing by continuing to argue with R-41? Do you think you'll persuade him to come around to your point of view? It ain't gonna happen. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, that diff is completely unacceptable. That said I'm a little disappointed that R-41 has continued to argue with AndyTheGrump after I explicitly asked him to disengage. In my view both R-41 and AndyTheGrump should step away from that discussion, via a brief topic ban or page ban if they're not willing to do so voluntarily. There are plenty of other editors who can weigh in, those two don't need to monopolize the discussion. 28bytes (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can understand your disappointment - I wanted to discuss more with others on the talk page than Andy, but he's there and I was still there. I have told User:Collect that I am intending to take a break from this hot potato issue for a while - at least until near the end of the vote session when I have compiled more evidence. One of my last contributions - I hoped - would be to ask Kudpung if we could bring in Eastern European users who would have access to their sources in their languages that could help out here at English Wikipedia - it is an accepted Wikipedia policy to take note of other language Wikipedias' content - especially if content on one is less than on another. Actually in response to the point that it is "not possible" for me to change my point of view, it is possible - but I need to see scholarly evidence - I've changed my view on Israel being a client state - a user showed me that Israel initially made much of its arms purchases from France, plus made the good point that no large non-domestic military is within its borders - so I rescind that claim. I have agreed on some issues with users on the Opposed side - including POVbrigand, Mewulwe on the issue of United Nations General Assembly speeches being unreliable sources - such as Bush's speeches on WMDs in Iraq or Ahmadinejad's condemnations of the US and Israel, and maybe TFD - but TFD and I have constructively collaborated with editing articles for years now. I am currently looking up material on the issue of sovereignty within the United Nations in relation to the Eastern Bloc - I just recently have found some tidbits of information that justify points on the "opposed" side - such as that a government being able to maintain its sovereignty even in treaty with a greater power that even includes allowing a large non-domestic military force to be in its territory or external intervention into that territory - provided that the government party to such agreements allows these things to take place (but also says that this is only if it doesn't amount to domination by a foreign power). I can and will provide this as an issue of discussion.--R-41 (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: According to this discussion earlier today - in which I profited from the occasion to suggest that some commentators 'step back for a while, as it is quite possible that others who would have commented are not bothering after seeing the passionate, but not very objective arguments that are now dominating the discussion' - it appears that R-41 may already have the intention 'to compile detailed material for this issue '. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Note: That link might not work because the header is so long. The thread is: Is it acceptable in Wikipedia policy to spread a user contribution effort by administraotrs (sic) in English Wikipedia to ask for support from users from other language Wikipedias? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- A comment on this. I suggested to R-41 that rather than dragging Kudpung into this again (who probably regrets getting involved in the first place), that this question should probably be raised at the village pump. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that a broader input on the question might be appropriate. But an attempt to throw the question open, while not actually addressing the substantive issue as to whether the proposed edit is backed up by sources, isn't. The last thing we need is a vote on whether Wikipedia editors think that the DDR was a 'satellite state' or not. This isn't how we are supposed to work. Appeals to emotion, and insinuations that those who doubt the objectivity of proposed edits are apologists for state criminality, are totally inappropriate. Yes, I lost my temper (again), and I shouldn't do this. But what matters more? Suggestions that article content should be determined by popular vote, rather than on the basis of evidence, are a darned sight more harmful then my metaphorical comparisons between R-41 and a biological orifice, at least in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - That's the lowest of the low insult by Andy and disgusting abuse of the discussion. I once used an obscenity towards him but I fully apologized to him for such, I asked him to apologize in turn for being sarcastic and demeaning to me - he said he'd wait until a dispute was resolved - and then he never did apologize. And now this - just blatantly calling me an a**hole - after I asked him to apologize for something earlier, I have ZERO tolerance for this. I have discussed with User:Collect on taking a break from the discussions because I could see the rising hostility between Andy and me and I am frustrated. Andy has little respect for the efforts of users like me or Collect - we bring out sources from the United Nations and he just shrugs them aside. My inquiry to Kudpung to request bringing in other users from other Wikipedias was completely legitimate.--R-41 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since Andy the Grump has removed his comment,[2] I do not see any need for administrator's action. However the RfC will proceed better if all editors avoid name-calling, including insinuations of other editors' beliefs. TFD (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Really, does it? I apologized to Andy for swearing at one point and asked for him to apologize at that time for being demeaning to me. Andy doesn't seem to be apologizing for calling me an "a**hole" to me at all - he just says "I lost my temper (again)" and he certainly hasn't apologized to me. And I certainly doubt that he wishes to honestly apologize to me now - because me and him have become very intransigent to each other on this issue - the difference with me is that I've told User:Collect that I'm taking a break to cool down - because I don't see my contributions at Talk:East Germany as being taken seriously. As we can see from his response, he doesn't care that he made a massive breach of Wikipedia policy - because according to him the ends justify the means - abusive behaviour involving obscenities does not matter because according to him "what matters more?" - his abuse or evidence. Evidence can be discussed, abuse is NOT tolerable and NON-negiotiable on Wikipedia. Maybe this section having him address his constant WP:CIVIL issues with me and multiple users on the Talk:East Germany page attack will make him realize that he can't get away with the excuse that he has a bad temper - too bad - I assume we are mostly at least young men or women or grown men and women - this kind of immaturity is in-excusible. --R-41 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you thought about responding to the substance of Andy's comments? Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I and other users have responded to the substance of Andy's comments many times. We have sought to accomodate his requests by hard searches for facts, when we have presented evidence - such as UN documents, he shrugs them off over technicalities. I am not the only user to be frustrated - and secondly I never brought up this issue at the noticeboard. In response to his claim that I see him as some sort of "apologist" for the Soviet Union - I did not say that - what I did say is that his inability to accept the views of major German historians or recognize the behaviour of the Soviet Union in the Eastern Bloc - especially towards Hungary especially in 1956, Czechoslovakia especially in 1968, and East Germany, was extremely naive - many East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks know that their states were under the domination of the Soviet Union. It gets tiring when everything you provide to a user is deemed "unacceptable" by them unless of course it supports their view - I provided one source that he accepted because it supported his view: and this was the only source he has accepted from me because it did support his view - and after a while you wonder whether you are being taken seriously at all - so I've responded to the substance of his comments again and again - his abusive and uncivil behaviour towards me and other users is the issue that needs a resolution. Does this quote right here in this section from Andy sound like an apology or an admission of responsibility of his serious breach of Wikipedia civility policy: "BTW, in my defence, I used the term 'asshole' metaphorically ;-)" - quote by AndyTheGrump. I don't see this as accepting responsibility by Andy, I don't see this as even recognizing the major breach of Wikipedia policy - it's an excuse he is using to allow him to get away with this clearly immature behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you thought about responding to the substance of Andy's comments? Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Really, does it? I apologized to Andy for swearing at one point and asked for him to apologize at that time for being demeaning to me. Andy doesn't seem to be apologizing for calling me an "a**hole" to me at all - he just says "I lost my temper (again)" and he certainly hasn't apologized to me. And I certainly doubt that he wishes to honestly apologize to me now - because me and him have become very intransigent to each other on this issue - the difference with me is that I've told User:Collect that I'm taking a break to cool down - because I don't see my contributions at Talk:East Germany as being taken seriously. As we can see from his response, he doesn't care that he made a massive breach of Wikipedia policy - because according to him the ends justify the means - abusive behaviour involving obscenities does not matter because according to him "what matters more?" - his abuse or evidence. Evidence can be discussed, abuse is NOT tolerable and NON-negiotiable on Wikipedia. Maybe this section having him address his constant WP:CIVIL issues with me and multiple users on the Talk:East Germany page attack will make him realize that he can't get away with the excuse that he has a bad temper - too bad - I assume we are mostly at least young men or women or grown men and women - this kind of immaturity is in-excusible. --R-41 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Incivility is one of AtG's "most noted characteristics" <g> and I daresay this is not as bad as some other cases where I have defended him here. The problem, though, is that there is a strong tendentious thread in the RfC, and additional editors are well invited to enter. The issue is whether East Germany (DDR or GDR depending on your language) was a "Satellite state" ("Satellitenstaat"). So far the only sources disputing it appear to be Soviet sources (which simply call the DDR a "friend" or "ally" , and a very large number of Western sources using the word "occupation." Former DDR officials (Egon Krenz etc.), however, in a number of cases have themselves called their own former country a "Satellitenstaat", including in court. With a huge preponderance of sources using "satellite" and the second-highest number of sources using "occupation", is it a violation of NPOV to use the term "satellite" or "satellite state" for the DDR is what the entire argument boils down to. At this point, I fear, the nay-sayers are grasping at straws, including claims that "satellite state" is only a "metaphor", that NPOV requires unanimity for any description in an infobox, and that unless the UN officially and unanimously issues a paper using that term with regard to the DDR<g>, that we can not use the term (a footnote in an official document which was approved by the representative of the Russian Federation appears not to count.) Cheers. And Andy - tone down your language, and even consider that you might be wrong here - I fear at some point you will hit the "Malleus Fatuorum wall"! Collect (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Denial that East Germany was a Soviet satellite starts to take on the character of
Holocaust denialthe Flat Earth Society. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)- An ingenious analogy now. Collect (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- A totally irrelevant comment by BasballBugs. This ANI concerns behavioural issues, not the content of an article or a discussion about it, or a prognosis of its outcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Even though I disagree with Andy on his excessive demands for confirmation and am disgusted with his personal attack on me and unacceptable uncivil behaviour towards multiple users, nowhere did he specifically deny that East Germany was a satellite state - and to compare his disagreement of validity of sources on the use of the term "satellite state" as a formal technical term to Holocaust denial is an extreme stretch of the imagination to say the least. Please Baseball Bugs, don't say such extreme accusations that give him more fire and anger to legitimize his inappropriate uncivil behaviour and personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is a malformed RfC the root of the problem here?
I suspect that most of this trouble could have been avoided if the RfC had been properly worded, and the issue under debate been made clear in the first place. The RfC asks "Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR?", but what was actually at issue was whether the term 'satellite state' should be used to describe the DDR in the infobox - effectively as an assertion of fact, in Wikipedia's voice. Nobody has argued that the term hasn't frequently been applied to the DDR, and nobody has suggested that we shouldn't state in the article body that the DDR was frequently referred to as a satellite state. What I have objected to - on the basis that it contrary to policy, is that the RfC seems to have become an opinion poll on the matter - an attempt to determine 'Wikipedia's POV' on the issue. Add to that R-41s repeated insistence (entirely unsupported by cited evidence) that 'satellite state' is a neutral academic 'technical term' with a precise definition, and the whole thing looks like an attempt to rewrite history from the perspective of a supposed 'victor' from the other side of the Atlantic. Regardless of the usage of the term 'satellite state' elsewhere, in the context of eastern Europe it was a propaganda term - and one that obscured more than it revealed. The postwar history of eastern Europe was a lot more complex than is implied by simple labels, and it does nobody any credit to reduce it to an ideological battle between good and evil. It hardly sets a good precedent for Wikipedia either, to be having debates about what our opinion is of this or that state, and what label we should attach to it in the infobox. R-41 has already stated that he considers Israel to be a satellite state of the US, though his half-hearted attempt to raise the issue on Talk:Israel fortunately seems to have come to nothing. There may well be easier targets for such editorialising though - and editorialising on the basis of often-uninformed opinion derived from second-hand mass-media trivialisations and outright propaganda isn't exactly becoming for what is supposedly an international project. I submit that the RfC was improperly formed, and should be closed as such - indeed, given that many of the later participants seem to have been entirely unaware of what it was actually trying to determine, there seems no way it can be used to arrive at a decision in any case. Maybe then, we can all step back, let tempers cool, and reflect on exactly we thing infoboxes are for, and on whether they are an appropriate place for opinions, editorialising, and recycled Cold-War simplifications. I submit that they aren't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The root of the problem is AtG choosing not to act civilly during a content dispute. Nobody Ent 14:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- This ANI is about AndyTheGrump's incivility/personal attacks and disruptive editing. It has nothing to do with the content of an RfC. The RfC is simply the vehicle for another demonstration of his unwillingness to interact with others in a civil manner. Trying to place the blame elsewhere will only add another breach of a behavioural guidelines to the list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, Kudpung, don't you think for clarity's sake you should make it clear that it was you that started the RfC, with the wording I've suggested was the root cause of much of the trouble? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not relevant. RFC was started 10 Jan, AtG was third commenter then and did not express objection to the wording. Personal attack was on the 16th. Nobody Ent 15:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- See also Talk:East_Germany#Is_the_RfC_above_valid.3F, and on the subject of personal attacks, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Etiquette_issue_with_User:AndyTheGrump_and_acknowledgement_by_me.2C_User:R-41.2C_that_I_unacceptably_swore_back_in_frustration_at_him.2Fher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- So what action would you like this community to take such that you refrain from incivil acts, such as calling people "asshole," in the future? Nobody Ent 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- See also Talk:East_Germany#Is_the_RfC_above_valid.3F, and on the subject of personal attacks, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Etiquette_issue_with_User:AndyTheGrump_and_acknowledgement_by_me.2C_User:R-41.2C_that_I_unacceptably_swore_back_in_frustration_at_him.2Fher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not relevant. RFC was started 10 Jan, AtG was third commenter then and did not express objection to the wording. Personal attack was on the 16th. Nobody Ent 15:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, Kudpung, don't you think for clarity's sake you should make it clear that it was you that started the RfC, with the wording I've suggested was the root cause of much of the trouble? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- How about action to discourage insinuations that I'm some sort of apologist for Soviet criminality? Yes, I shouldn't have said that, and yes, it was unacceptable. But which is more offensive? Some contributors seem to think that 'polite' mischaracterisations are somehow acceptable even on WP:ANI. Given that BaseballBugs had earlier compared me to a Holocaust denier (which he seems to have had the sense to redact), I have to ask whether this is going to be the way that WP:CIVIL is going to be interpreted in future? "Say what you like, as long as it doesn't involve swearing"? I hope not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I NEVER SAID you were an apologist for "Soviet criminality". The worst that I said was that I thought you were naïve in claiming that satellite state - a term widely used by scholars - including German historians - is not worthy or accurate to describe East Germany or other Eastern Bloc states - I said this because of the known massive resistance by Hungarians in 1956, Czechs and Slovaks in 1968, the defections of Yugoslavia and Albania from the Eastern Bloc, and East Germans in 1989 that were all especially based on opposition to Soviet domination.--R-41 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- How about action to discourage insinuations that I'm some sort of apologist for Soviet criminality? Yes, I shouldn't have said that, and yes, it was unacceptable. But which is more offensive? Some contributors seem to think that 'polite' mischaracterisations are somehow acceptable even on WP:ANI. Given that BaseballBugs had earlier compared me to a Holocaust denier (which he seems to have had the sense to redact), I have to ask whether this is going to be the way that WP:CIVIL is going to be interpreted in future? "Say what you like, as long as it doesn't involve swearing"? I hope not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The alleged incivility/tendentiousness is found in that RfC - this discussion is noton the RfC, but on what I fear is your routine "grumpiness". And when DDR leaders use what you think of as "Western propaganda" in referring to the country they actually ruled, I think it possible that your assertions are not borne out by reliable sources in any significant number. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Collect, it has already been explained to you that your assertion that East German leaders used the term "satellite state" to refer to their own country is false. Your continual restatement of information you know to be false contributes to the lack of civility in the article by provoking other editors. Could you please correct this. TFD (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- And I would point out that the BBC (usually considered a reliable source by everyone else) assigned the term to Krenz, and that I also cited another who specifically used "Satellitenstaat" in German and that the translation of "Satellitenstaat" is "Satellite state".
- (translation from Italian account)Guenter Schabowski had premiered recently as spokesman of Krenz was certainly not an expert in communication. That evening he announced a new decree on travel ". He said that henceforth the permits to travel in Western Berlin, through the gates of the wall, would be refused only in exceptional cases. It was clear that the Government he loosened the reins under popular pressure. The daily mass disubbidienze and the absence of rituals revealed the fragility of the repression power. The four hundred thousand Soviet soldiers, stationed in Eastern Germany since 1945, not intervened to restore limited sovereignty in the country rather than satellite: they thought as making ends meet, as in the mother country there was a climate from bankruptcy and money for wages and subsistence arrived irregularly from Moscow. [3]
- Asserting that thers is any "restatement" on my part is sufficiently absurd as to demonstrate exact;y what the problem cited is. Thank you for providing the conslusive evidence. And kindly note that the cites are not false as you so typify them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Shabowski of course announced the new travel decree but the reference to "satellite state" was not part of his announcement but part of an explanation by the reporter about the circumstances surrounding the announcement. You are continuing a clear pattern of disruption. Google searching for sources to back up your viewpoint then presenting them without even reading or understanding them, causing frustration to other editors who have to spend far more time examining your sources than you have. Incidentally choosing a 1999 article from an Italian language tabloid journal as a source for an article about Germany in 1989 is not the action of someone who wished to make a serious contribution to an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- And I would point out that the BBC (usually considered a reliable source by everyone else) assigned the term to Krenz, and that I also cited another who specifically used "Satellitenstaat" in German and that the translation of "Satellitenstaat" is "Satellite state".
- Collect, it has already been explained to you that your assertion that East German leaders used the term "satellite state" to refer to their own country is false. Your continual restatement of information you know to be false contributes to the lack of civility in the article by provoking other editors. Could you please correct this. TFD (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- What does this have ANYTHING do do with Andy's self-admitted repeated incivility and his personal attacks on me and others. Is he trying to blame Kudpung for creating a section that made him - as he says - lose his temper "{again}". Too bad - if a section aggravates him - that doesn't justify or legitimize his incivility to me and multiple other users on repeated occasions as User:Collect has stated here. You don't get to vent your anger on other people because you are frustrated - you have three acceptable options: (1) take a break from Wikipedia for a few days to cool down, (2) channel frustration and anger you may have against someone (in this case Andy towards me) into energy - go exercising - Andy could think of beating me in a jogging race and feel fulfillment from that and come back more refreshed - exercising reduces psychological frustration, or (3) if the first option fails and second option fails, and antisocial hostility towards others continue, I am serious about this - you need to discuss these emotional problems with loved ones to resolve them or if it is serious, seek help from a medical professional - I personally suffer from depression and I have a psychiatrist - so I don't mean seeking professional medical help as an insult. Nevertheless, I do not imagine this as being the solution in the short term - Andy needs to know that there are real consequences for repeatedly venting anger on other people - I leave it up to the administrators to determine what discipline is necessary to make Andy realize this and hopefully change his way of handling his temper and ending his venting on other users, because his present behaviour of repeated temper tantrums, displacing blame on others - such as blaming Kudpung's RfC for his actions (the devil made me do it argument), and shrugging off calling someone an a**hole as somehow not being a significant violation of Wikipedia policy are all completely unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really consider discussing my mental health on ANI to be appropriate? Oh, and quote: "you are behaving like a total asshole to me", "you treat me like shit", "you are treating me like a dog". [4]. If you'd taken your own advice, maybe none of this would have happened.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- It sure is acceptable to bring up psychological concerns if you are exploding in multiple temper tantrums and lashing out by venting anger at people as User:Collect states you have done on repeated occasions - I at one point was severely depressed on Wikipedia - another user noticed this and told me to take a break and said that I should talk with someone about it - and I did. I FULLY apologized to you for my unacceptable behaviour - and remember this, because you know that I did this: I REPORTED MYSELF FOR INCIVIL BEHAVIOUR and you for your demeaning behaviour toward me to this board earlier for violations BY BOTH OF US on Wikipedia policy - the administrators decided that blocks at that point were not necessary. I took responsibility for my unacceptable earlier behaviour towards you - you have refused to accept responsibility. I am frustrated and yes it shows in what I say - and in this state of frustration I cannot make constructive contributions to Talk:East Germany - that's why I'm taking at least a week-long break from the East Germany article and working on more enjoyable and less contentious things.--R-41 (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are you claiming to be medically qualified? And what is all this nonsense about 'multiple temper tantrums'? My reference to me losing my temper again was in regard to an earlier incident, where I, um, reported myself to ANI for incivility. [5]. Anyway, you called me an asshole, I called you an asshole. We've both admitted it isn't the right thing to do. I didn't make a fuss about it when you did it [6] - you, um, reported yourself. There seems to be an alarming degree of symmetry here, but little other reason for your righteous indignation. Evidently we rub each other up the wrong way. That's life. If you want to engage in controversial issues on Wikipedia, you'll need a thick skin - I've had far worse. Hell, I've had worse in this thread (though coming from Bugs, it is a little difficult to take seriously - and yes, he retracted it too). Anyway, we'll both be on an enforced break for a bit in a couple of hours, so I suggest you go out for a jog or whatever, and worry about it in a couple of days... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Emotional problems": insulting and uncalled for. AtG was provoked by an egregious and totally unfounded insult (as he has repeatedly explained). Cut him a little slack. That he retaliated by calling the other guy an asshole (which he redacted) may be a little strong for your conversational tastes (where I live the epithet is so commonplace as to be anodyne) but it doesn't justify your insulting accusation. Or, IMO, this pathetic
dramafestANI. Writegeist (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)- Alright I will retract that - It's not insulting to me because I HAVE problems with emotional regulation - I take medication and seek psychiatric help for major depression - I told everyone this just minutes ago - that I seek help. Besides if you noticed that was the LAST option, the other options I gave were taking a break from Wikipedia or going exercising to let off some steam because exercising is known to reduce stress and frustration.--R-41 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did note your recommendation of exercise and perhaps should have acknowledged it as an attempt (as I know it was intended) to be helpful, although AtG hadn't sought any help for a problem that presumably doesn't exist (he simply expresses himself in a robust way). I appreciate your openness about your depressive illness.Writegeist (talk)
- On consideration, I should probably point out that the symmetry I noted earlier extends to a proneness to depression too - and yes, I have sought treatment for it. However, it is up to individuals to disclose such matters, should they so choose, and it certainly isn't appropriate for others (whether qualified or not) to indulge in 'internet diagnosis'. I'd suggest that R-41 needs to reflect a little on how he would have reacted if I'd made such comments, and maybe be a little more circumspect about making assumptions about others mental state. Anyway, its almost 'wot-no-Wiki' time, so we can all get some exercise, a life, or whatever else takes our fancy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- OMG we're going to have to find something to do in the real world. No wonder we're all depressed!Writegeist (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, and what's worse is we'll have the frustration of having major 'zombie outbreak' stories in all the mass media, and no chance to start an article - by the time Wikipedia is back up, they'll have figured out it's just us, venturing out in daylight. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- OMG we're going to have to find something to do in the real world. No wonder we're all depressed!Writegeist (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- On consideration, I should probably point out that the symmetry I noted earlier extends to a proneness to depression too - and yes, I have sought treatment for it. However, it is up to individuals to disclose such matters, should they so choose, and it certainly isn't appropriate for others (whether qualified or not) to indulge in 'internet diagnosis'. I'd suggest that R-41 needs to reflect a little on how he would have reacted if I'd made such comments, and maybe be a little more circumspect about making assumptions about others mental state. Anyway, its almost 'wot-no-Wiki' time, so we can all get some exercise, a life, or whatever else takes our fancy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did note your recommendation of exercise and perhaps should have acknowledged it as an attempt (as I know it was intended) to be helpful, although AtG hadn't sought any help for a problem that presumably doesn't exist (he simply expresses himself in a robust way). I appreciate your openness about your depressive illness.Writegeist (talk)
- Alright I will retract that - It's not insulting to me because I HAVE problems with emotional regulation - I take medication and seek psychiatric help for major depression - I told everyone this just minutes ago - that I seek help. Besides if you noticed that was the LAST option, the other options I gave were taking a break from Wikipedia or going exercising to let off some steam because exercising is known to reduce stress and frustration.--R-41 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- It sure is acceptable to bring up psychological concerns if you are exploding in multiple temper tantrums and lashing out by venting anger at people as User:Collect states you have done on repeated occasions - I at one point was severely depressed on Wikipedia - another user noticed this and told me to take a break and said that I should talk with someone about it - and I did. I FULLY apologized to you for my unacceptable behaviour - and remember this, because you know that I did this: I REPORTED MYSELF FOR INCIVIL BEHAVIOUR and you for your demeaning behaviour toward me to this board earlier for violations BY BOTH OF US on Wikipedia policy - the administrators decided that blocks at that point were not necessary. I took responsibility for my unacceptable earlier behaviour towards you - you have refused to accept responsibility. I am frustrated and yes it shows in what I say - and in this state of frustration I cannot make constructive contributions to Talk:East Germany - that's why I'm taking at least a week-long break from the East Germany article and working on more enjoyable and less contentious things.--R-41 (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really consider discussing my mental health on ANI to be appropriate? Oh, and quote: "you are behaving like a total asshole to me", "you treat me like shit", "you are treating me like a dog". [4]. If you'd taken your own advice, maybe none of this would have happened.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, if what I said about my experience with dealing with my major depression and suggesting addressing issues of anger to a medical person is offensive then I am sorry. I cannot add anything more, other than to say that I never compared Andy to being an "apologist" for Soviet activities in Eastern Europe - at worst I called his opinion naive. I do not regard Andy as a "bad person" - I am frustrated with him but to be frank and honest I have run into truly horrible and perhaps even evil people on Wikipedia who have supported Holocaust Denial and one user who aggressively fought with other users over his agenda to remove all sources written by Jews on topics relating to fascism, because Jews according to him were "unreliable sources" - that would include removing accounts written by Jewish Holocaust survivors on the Holocaust - that person I cannot deny that I hold in complete contempt as being an evil person. Andy is nowhere close to that, I think he is benevolent person who has become frustrated with the topic we are discussing whom I view as perhaps being confused or naive on certain aspects of the topics discussed, and frustrating given his tendency to be very emotional and aggressive in his responses to many users. But, I think he needs to know that venting anger on users in explosions of temper is not acceptable and not tolerated at Wikipedia. I will not discuss this anymore, I need a break from all these arguments here and on Talk:East Germany - I am having a break from contributing there for at least a week, as for this issue it is up to the administrators to decide what to do.--R-41 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- In all sincerity, I wish you well. Enjoy your break if you can, and try not to take this all to seriously - I think the one way to alleviate depression that I've found most successful is to try to see the funny side of things, when possible, and accept that as far as the universe is concerned, we're just a minor blob of peculiarity in a sea of nothing-much-happening - self-importance is entirely unjustified, and we might as well enjoy the jokes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment: despite this not yest resolved ANI, AndyTheGrup and R-41 are still continuing their private battle in spite of requests from other discussion participants for them to calm down. I really think an immediate topic ban for both editors is the solution that is needed right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of points: Firstly, I'd like to see diffs indicating where I've done anything wrong since this thread was started. And secondly, I feel that I have to suggest that given that you were responsible for the problematic RfC (which failed to actually make clear what the issue under dispute was), it might be more appropriate for you not to propose anything. I have tried to discuss things calmly with R-41, but he seems to be swinging wildly from one position to another: compare this [7] where he basically concedes my point that 'satellite state' is a subjective term which shouldn't be used in an infobox, with this [8] where he accuses me of being "openly prejudiced" for suggesting that the term 'client state' is also subjective. I note also that R-41 stated above that he was going to take a break from editing the article, which he has not done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks and incivility by User:Zenanarh
After a series of uncivil personal comments on Talk:Zadar and Talk:Luciano Laurana directed at (the truly incredibly patient) User:Silvio1973, User:Zenanarh has decided to post a few personal attacks at me as well when I tried to offer my opinion in favor of Silvio1973. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia, where he started a WP:CANVASSING thread trying to garner support among other Croats, Zenanarh posted his first personal comment regarding my always having been "superficial" [9]. On Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) he posted a real set of personal attacks [10]. I asked him to strike them, he did not respond.
"Direktor, you should try to stop with any comment about history because you don't understand history. Separate coronation ceremonies do not necessarily indicate the existence of a personal union - really? So if Bela IV for first coronated in Hungary as the king of Hungary, then a few months later in Dalmatia as the king of Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia - 2 separate coronations for 2 separate kingdoms - what is that? A joke? Stick to your communist stuff if that's all you can do. Don't mess with things you don't understand."
Aside from the attacks directed at myself, I think a wider review of this user's recent conduct on Talk:Zadar and Talk:Luciano Laurana is necessary, however arduous that task might be. I went through it briefly and frankly I was amazed at the restraint shown by Silvio1973. At Talk:Luciano Laurana the exchange begins here and pretty much takes-up the entire talkpage. At Talk:Zadar the exchange starts here and again takes-up most of the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, when Silvio brought this up we were perhaps not as sympathetic as we might have been. Looking at more of his edits, he is coming across as a "Croatia or Die" type, which is always wearisome. I note also the existence of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silvio1973 and Zenanarh which appears to have been quite improperly filed by the mediator, and which I have just deleted as it's been open nearly 4 days and he was the only editor who certified it (yes, I know he added another editor's name as a certifier, but (a) editors have to certify themselves, and (b) it was apparent from what the person named as the second certifier said that he had played no part whatsoever in any attempt to resolve the issue).Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was quite surprised when I was named as the second certifier, considering the minimal involvement I have in this issue. However I do believe that Zenanarh needs to be less confrontational regarding this issue, as I had opined in the RfC in question. However this is unquestionably a content dispute (more so than editor conduct) - thus it may be more beneficial to take this issue to formal mediation rather than ANI (I am of firm belief that ANI creates more controversy than solutions in these situations). —Dark 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have to admit that, that was the first time I filled out one of those forms, and I wasn't quite sure how the process works. However, I would like to comment that I went through very length discussions with these two users through mediation. They went through lengthy discussions on the talk page. In addition, there are RfCs open for the pages that are in dispute. Wherever one editor goes the other follows and almost immediately changes what the other says about Croatian-based comments. I know that it is more likely a content dispute over whether it should say "Croatian" or something more generic on many disputed articles. I don't like to see things escalate, and I strongly believe that if previous discussions have not ceased this dispute, formal mediation will not either. Even if a decision is made, Silvio1973 will continue his quest to remove "Croatian" from articles and Zenanarh will continue his uncivil comments even after careful reminder over and over. Both of the users seem to make fairly infrequent edits, though. Whenaxis about | talk 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was quite surprised when I was named as the second certifier, considering the minimal involvement I have in this issue. However I do believe that Zenanarh needs to be less confrontational regarding this issue, as I had opined in the RfC in question. However this is unquestionably a content dispute (more so than editor conduct) - thus it may be more beneficial to take this issue to formal mediation rather than ANI (I am of firm belief that ANI creates more controversy than solutions in these situations). —Dark 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Whenaxis, Silvio1973 will not continue any quest at all. I did some research and found out that the most of the users that get in touch with Zenanarh get blocked sooner or later.
And I do not want to end the same way. Zenanarh can do what he wants, I will not try to make any oppostion.
It is true that I found the content of some articles concerning Dalmatia not fully balanced. Indeed in some cases (such as in Zadar) the article is supported by a majority of sources that cannot be verified because not in English, or in other cases (such as in Luciano Laurana) Croatian sources are preferred to international sources. However, there was a mediation on such items hence there is very little to contest now, if any. Still, I remain doubtful about the stability of those articles in the future: there are too many sources supporting facts different than those stated in the articles. With his methods Zenanarh can discourage other users to contribute but cannot destroy the fact that such sources exist.
A side note: I tried to remain very calm during Whenaxis' mediation and it was not easy. Indeed I paid on my personal balance to resist to so many uncivil comments. I have read on some talks that I could be a previously banned user or a kind of "nationalist irredentist". This is extremely sad. It is sad that some users of en:wiki consider the contributors with different views as "enemy of their country" .
--Silvio1973 (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello to everyone! Elen of the Roads, I am not "Croatia or Die" type. Maybe you can get such impression if you read my posts during last month, but you don't see the whole picture. What you people don't see and probably don't know is that around 10 quality Croatian editors left en.wiki for good, in period 2 or 3 yrs ago. Because it became impossible to balance articles continually attacked by the politically led editors and nationalists from the other sides who made use of principles like "votes of the majority". Serbs in the first place, but also Italians concerning Dalmatia related articles. In both cases these struggles were results of unresolved political problems in reality. I was also one of the editors who decided to move away from en.wiki and I didn't edit it for cca 2 yrs. Just accidently, I saw edit warring between IPs and Silvio in Zadar article over the same and already resolved problems and decided to come back, if nothing else, just to balance this old dispute. However it seems it is impossible to contribute here objectively. There are probably only 1 or 2 other Croatian editors who are able to contribute in history article paragraphs at the moment and all bunch of "agenda attackers" who produce total imbalance in the articles. When I see History of Dalmatia article I'm not sure should I laugh or cry. It is so full of wrong definitions, innacuracies, POVs etc that it will be best to erase it completely. At this moment en.wiki is used for spreading false information worldwide concerning this part of Europe, and nothing can be done to stop it. I have no so much time to be some Don Quijote. I'm coming from the family of the scientists, mostly historians and archaeologists, but rich scientific documentation as well as my knowledge of what is objective and what is not, doesn't help too much. I'm simply losing my nerves and that's what you can see in my posts during last month so I will definitely leave en.wiki to save my health, this time for good.
- When Silvio reported me it was funny, he was breaking a several wiki policies, but I was the one accused for something. I don't give 2 cents on anything said by him after all. This guy is a liar and I cannot respect such people. He wrote that many wikipedians were banned because of me. Not even one editor was banned because of me ever. Giovanni Giove was banned because of his breaking restrictions and not me. Who are the others banned because of me? None. Zero. Also, I was never banned, except once, 2 yrs ago when it was my own decision. You can check my contributions and see that I asked administrator to "ban me to the end of this century". That was when I decided to leave en.wiki. I was revolted for reasons not related to this particular issue, so I will not explain my motives, my motives are known to the wikipedian who caused my anger and after my reaction he was probably ashamed and then he also left wiki a few days after me or changed his wiki identity.
- Direktor and me are old friends from this wikipedia, but I never supported his way of discussing and editing. I told him many times and I'm repeating again, he is superficial but anyway he likes to present himself as well educated and objective. He is probably well educated in some other regions but his knowledge about any older history than 20th century is very poor in the best part. As well as I didn't accuse Silvio for irredentism directly - I've warned him about ideology which arguments are his own in our dispute, I also didn't attack Direktor personally in direct way. He knows very well what I've meant. He builds his image of an objective user in completely wrong way - artificial balance as replecement of his lack of knowledge. None of them two are straight and open.
- Concerning Italian view of Dalmatian history. It's special story. Now I will be completely open. Italian historiography presents one completely distorted version of it. Just take a look at Zara article in it.wiki and compare it to Zadar article in en.wiki. They have 2 Zara Veneziana periods! All together from the 11th to the 19th century! Unbelievable! What is reason? Older Italian historians were writing in support to Italian political pretensions, irredentist and fascist in the 19th and 20th century, and modern Italian historians use them as references. In the same time they don't use historical archives in Dalmatian cities, just some selective data in support to their views which is around cca 5-10% of all available data. Modern Italians don't know it. They think that Croatian historiograpgy is based on some Croatian bias. It is stupid. We are small nation in comparison to the Italian and all we can do is to be as more objective as we can, since we can not produce so much literature as they can, we must produce quality to be accepted in the international science. But it's not obvious from the first sight. In English wikipedia there is dictature of majority and not dictature of quality.
- That's why I don't see any way to contribute here by quality. You can treat me as "Croatia or Die" type of editor, you can treat me as Croatian nationalist, you can treat me any way you want. I can do nothing to change it. One person can not fight all army of the Italians armed with deep seated prejudice. I hoped that my presentation of quality university material can be helpful to produce any balance but now I see there is no chance. Now I'm definitely one more Croat who doesn't want to touch this shit anymore. I feel sory for a few of Croats who are still fighting against nationalists in other articles, it is lost battle. Probably you don't know it, but in Croatian scientific circles, en.wiki is treated as a platform used by certain anti-Croatian political circles to spread anti-Croatian propaganda. While in some other topics, en.wiki is very good and quality, it is general shit (excuse me but this is proper word) concerning Croatian and Dalmatian history and language. My tip to anyone would be - not to learn anything about Croatia from en.wiki!
- Now I'm asking again - ban me to the end of this century, please. I was never sock puppeteer so it is guarantee that I will never come back. Don't mind if my sins are not of that level. Please make that service to me. Bye bye. Zenanarh (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- "pro patria mori" is moving on a war memorial, but wearying in a Wikipedia debate. I believe Zenanarh's contribution above illustrates the problem. He may well have good edit's to contribute, and as recent straw poll in another venue pointed out (illustrating it with the difference between the French attitude to Dunkirk and the English version) kids are actually taught different versions of history depending on where they went to school, but viewing himself as a solitary Croat surrounded by legions of Italians really is not helping. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Blatant canvassing for a RFC
Tagishsimon (talk · contribs) has been posting very charged messages to several users, attempting to get participation for his side in a RFC. [11] is one of the messages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Proposal for the closure of this project is a post he made to his entire WikiProject. These are all his messages he posted: [12]
The RFC has nothing to do with the closure of his project; it is about coordinate tagging road articles and is located at WT:HWY#RFC on coordinates in highway articles. Unfortunately, it seems to have altered the course of the RFC. --Rschen7754 19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that contacting such a large number of editors on their talk page (and with in that tone) does seem to be an over-reaction but I lean towards assuming good faith. I'll post a comment on Tagishsimon asking him to be more measured in future. --RA (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, and hopefully the closing admin will take this into account. --Rschen7754 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll post a note on the RFC as well. --RA (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- My opinion is that he was indeed acting in good faith by bringing the discussion to the attention of the Geographical coordinates expert community, who would clearly have valid opinions on this subject and are exactly the right people to engage in the discussion. In any case, they would not necessarily oppose the proposal regarding geotagging road articles. Bazonka (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- So I would be acting in good faith to go post a very biased, opinionated, and misleading statement to a cherry picked list of 100 editors that I believe would support my opinion? Sorry, I can't assume good faith when the evidence is stacked towards manipulation. The results of the RFC are now completely skewed by the notion that the proposal affects all articles. Would you want a jury at your trial if they were sworn in to convict a murderer, or would you want that jury not to have predisposed thoughts before they received the actual evidence? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree. This is blatant canvassing. Just to note, I've never been involved with the subject being debated, haven't commented in the discussion, etc. I have no dog in this fight at all. But Tagishsimon left messages on over 100 user talk pages, and the messages were far from neutral. That violates our canvassing guideline, both in "scale" and in "message". And it looks to have blown up the discussion, which is precisely why our guideline restricts this behavior. I see that Tagishsimon has already been warned about this behavior, strongly, so I don't think there's any further action needed, but it should be said that this behavior is not at all appropriate. -- Atama頭 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Making people aware about a discussion isn't wrong - in fact, it should be encouraged, the more people who comment the better. However, by saying "this means you" made it personal & clearly implies that the RfC is a threat, and intends to sway it in his favour. Blatant ccanvassing. GiantSnowman 19:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree. This is blatant canvassing. Just to note, I've never been involved with the subject being debated, haven't commented in the discussion, etc. I have no dog in this fight at all. But Tagishsimon left messages on over 100 user talk pages, and the messages were far from neutral. That violates our canvassing guideline, both in "scale" and in "message". And it looks to have blown up the discussion, which is precisely why our guideline restricts this behavior. I see that Tagishsimon has already been warned about this behavior, strongly, so I don't think there's any further action needed, but it should be said that this behavior is not at all appropriate. -- Atama頭 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- So I would be acting in good faith to go post a very biased, opinionated, and misleading statement to a cherry picked list of 100 editors that I believe would support my opinion? Sorry, I can't assume good faith when the evidence is stacked towards manipulation. The results of the RFC are now completely skewed by the notion that the proposal affects all articles. Would you want a jury at your trial if they were sworn in to convict a murderer, or would you want that jury not to have predisposed thoughts before they received the actual evidence? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- My opinion is that he was indeed acting in good faith by bringing the discussion to the attention of the Geographical coordinates expert community, who would clearly have valid opinions on this subject and are exactly the right people to engage in the discussion. In any case, they would not necessarily oppose the proposal regarding geotagging road articles. Bazonka (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll post a note on the RFC as well. --RA (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, and hopefully the closing admin will take this into account. --Rschen7754 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Target for Today and category churning
Target for Today (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has created dozens of categories over the past few days, particularly relating to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the battle thereof. Almost all of these are headed to WP:CFD and there are numerous complaints on his talkpage about this, to no apparent avail. A block on page creation at least might be in order. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Mangoe for raising this. While a number of Target for Today's stub articles on Gettsburg have also been merged per discussions here andhere, and he has been the subject of some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_History#Gettysburg_articles, I'm not informed enough to express an opinion on the article side of things. However, his category work as revealed by the growing list of red links on his Talk page speaks for itself, I think. And now, I believe he's taken to essentially recreating deleted categories with slightly altered names, as I stated today at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:People_of_Adams_County.2C_Pennsylvania.2C_in_the_American_Civil_War and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Geography_of_Gettysburg.2C_Pennsylvania. This, I think, is the tipping point. He is clearly a knowledgable editor when it comes to Gettysburg and Gettyburg is an extremely important topic: but his trend of category re-creation tips the scales to where his work becomes more detrimental and WP:POINTy, and I support that he blocked from further category creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that there are, additionally, two more Target for Today Gettyburg-related WP:OC discussions underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_15, which do not appear on his user talk page. Also, the problem is not limited to Gettysburg: he has created a similar torrent of Cold War related categories and a templates, most or all of which have been deleted or are now nominated. So any topic ban should include Gettysburg and Cold War categories, or categories in general. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...and I've just had to nominate another, freshly created. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which is in fact a duplicate of one he already created. Bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...and I've just had to nominate another, freshly created. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that there are, additionally, two more Target for Today Gettyburg-related WP:OC discussions underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_15, which do not appear on his user talk page. Also, the problem is not limited to Gettysburg: he has created a similar torrent of Cold War related categories and a templates, most or all of which have been deleted or are now nominated. So any topic ban should include Gettysburg and Cold War categories, or categories in general. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've now had to nominate another big subtree of these categories, and am looking at another, and there are a bunch of other nominations besides. He's quiet at the moment, but there's no reason to think he won't start up again. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban for Target for Today (talk · contribs) blocking them from the creation of categories/creation of new pages in categoryspace. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Dealing with the categories created by this user is becoming a bit of a headache. Recently I came across Category:1995 in the Cold War, which when considered can kind of serve as a symbol of the kind of problems inherent in the categories that are being created. I'm not sure what the answer is here, but at least some sort of temporary topic ban on categories may be in order until the user can get the hang of how categories typically work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Sorry, but I find all this AN/I "ban him now" behaviour quite intolerable. YES, there is an issue here, but it's not highly disruptive. NO, a topic ban is not the answer, and would be excessive. This "ban now, problem gone" attitude really doesn't do anyone any good, and is pretty immature IMO. I think at most a week or two is needed to restrict this editor from making new categories whilst someone mentors him in the basics. I do accept there is a minor problem, and that something needs to be done soon. I don't accept any form of ban, which is more punitive than anything, as a reasonable solution, without trying other things first and seeing if the editor can adapt. Wiki is supposed to be a community, so where he hell is the community spirit to help educate or advance editors working in good faith, who are apparently knowledgeable about a subject, which has been noted above, instead the typical over-reactive polemic shit that goes on here on AN/I way too much, just to satisfy a few egos but achieves nothing supportive for the editor in question? Who do we place first, the interests of Wiki, or the interests of people making complaints? In this case, I strongly believe this editor was trying work in the interests of Wiki and a topic they are clearly very enthusiastic about. I see no controversy here that poses a threat, I see nothing that can't be tidied up. All he needs is a helping a hand, a couple of weeks tuition, from experienced editors in categorisation methods and on what the standards are. I don't know what they are, sure I know the difference between a trivial and major category, but that's about it. Perhaps he doesn't. Clearly this editor needs similar knowledge to get him on the right track. So perhaps the good people here who are looking for a solution might do better by offering the editor some much needed guidance, before going like a pack of wolves after him. My 2c. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of "typical over-reactive polemic shit," one such good faith effort by admin Mike Selinker was met with a stream of vitriolic responses and personal attacks at XfD. There's a longer history here with Target for Today than one can glean from this discussion section here, Marcus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, now we're getting the full story? It helps to know these things from the tee, some of us don't want to go digging through an editor's entire history looking for background. Can you provide diffs on this? Although it sounds like reference to uncivil comments, which bears no relation to category creation, to me, unless there's material suggesting COI or similar. We need to see it to know, though, please. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not the behaviour has been highly disruptive is somewhat of a judgment call. For those who work heavily in the categorization system, I can appreciate the view that it has been highly disruptive. I know it has been fairly disruptive at CFD, what with the repeated discussions over the same things over and over again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tricky to say. Categories are really just a wrapper for articles. Creating them isn't really disruptive. It's the process of discussing whether to keep/delete them that takes time. But then, who to blame, the creator of those categories, or the editor who nominates them for deletion. We can't say that it's highly disruptive, because nothing has been damaged, really. Only the extra work is disruptive, but if the editor really feels they are creating them in good faith, and not anticipating deletion noms, then it is unfair to be dismissive. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree and think that creating categories can indeed be disruptive. Maybe it's not disruptive to you as an editor, but it certainly can be disruptive to WP in general. For instance, User:Pastorwayne was initially banned indefinitely from category creation essentially for disruptive creation of categories. Same story for other editors—it's not a unique phenomenon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tricky to say. Categories are really just a wrapper for articles. Creating them isn't really disruptive. It's the process of discussing whether to keep/delete them that takes time. But then, who to blame, the creator of those categories, or the editor who nominates them for deletion. We can't say that it's highly disruptive, because nothing has been damaged, really. Only the extra work is disruptive, but if the editor really feels they are creating them in good faith, and not anticipating deletion noms, then it is unfair to be dismissive. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not the behaviour has been highly disruptive is somewhat of a judgment call. For those who work heavily in the categorization system, I can appreciate the view that it has been highly disruptive. I know it has been fairly disruptive at CFD, what with the repeated discussions over the same things over and over again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, now we're getting the full story? It helps to know these things from the tee, some of us don't want to go digging through an editor's entire history looking for background. Can you provide diffs on this? Although it sounds like reference to uncivil comments, which bears no relation to category creation, to me, unless there's material suggesting COI or similar. We need to see it to know, though, please. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of "typical over-reactive polemic shit," one such good faith effort by admin Mike Selinker was met with a stream of vitriolic responses and personal attacks at XfD. There's a longer history here with Target for Today than one can glean from this discussion section here, Marcus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just a thought: Is Target for Today even aware they have a personal talk page? Since November 2010 they don't appear to have ever responded to anything on it. Seems odd, does it not? Ma®©usBritish [chat] 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, this is one odd character. Marcus, to respond to your request for diffs: you'd be particularly forgiven for not finding them yourself because the comments I'm referring to were made during a brief period when Target stopped editing under his ID and launched a series of personal attacks at XfDs for his creation using an IP. or so I believe. There's a clear pattern of Mike trying to reason with him and being met by personal attacks and incivility here here, here, often embedding personal attacks in the edit summary as well, when all Mike (who I have a lot of respect for) was trying to do was work the issue out. (Mike was so taken aback he opened an SPI that was declined, but a checkuserwould not have matched the IP to Target's account anyway.) I for one believe User:69.46.35.69 was clearly Target, or a meat or sock puppet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I find it kind of difficult to buy that the user would not have figured out his own user talk page yet, especially since the user has participated in CFDs, AFDs, sockpuppet investigations, "Wikipedia talk" space, and another user's talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. And again, my !vote above was for a block on category creation only, for CfD-related reasons only, just as Good olfactory discusses. I simply don't see this editor as someone open to tutoring in the way Marcus suggests, but if he proves to be, and Marcus or someone might wish to take that on, with positive results, great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, I don't work categories myself to know what to teach. Nor would I have the time or patience. Given the lack of SPI matching this IP to TfT, I won't comment on whether I think this is him or his behaviour, that would best be left to an admin. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. And again, my !vote above was for a block on category creation only, for CfD-related reasons only, just as Good olfactory discusses. I simply don't see this editor as someone open to tutoring in the way Marcus suggests, but if he proves to be, and Marcus or someone might wish to take that on, with positive results, great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I find it kind of difficult to buy that the user would not have figured out his own user talk page yet, especially since the user has participated in CFDs, AFDs, sockpuppet investigations, "Wikipedia talk" space, and another user's talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've checked his contributions, and there are a few, a very talk messages from him, so one has to assume that he knows about doing that. Of course, unless there's some setting that prevents it, he should be getting notifications of the fifty-odd updates to his own talk page each time he views a Wikipedia page while he's logged in. It's hard not to conclude that he has decided not to bother with that. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, this is one odd character. Marcus, to respond to your request for diffs: you'd be particularly forgiven for not finding them yourself because the comments I'm referring to were made during a brief period when Target stopped editing under his ID and launched a series of personal attacks at XfDs for his creation using an IP. or so I believe. There's a clear pattern of Mike trying to reason with him and being met by personal attacks and incivility here here, here, often embedding personal attacks in the edit summary as well, when all Mike (who I have a lot of respect for) was trying to do was work the issue out. (Mike was so taken aback he opened an SPI that was declined, but a checkuserwould not have matched the IP to Target's account anyway.) I for one believe User:69.46.35.69 was clearly Target, or a meat or sock puppet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion as to whether a topic ban is appropriate for such a string of ill-conceived categories. I would very much like to see Target for Today's (and, if any of the other accounts are his sockpuppets, those accounts') personal attacks on me cease. As far as I can tell, they have ceased for the time being. I have found his behavior and those of the other accounts to be chilling on my desire to close the nominations of the Gettysburg categories, because getting a constant stream of vitriol and accusations doesn't make me want to participate. That said, I probably will still do so, since I try not to let personal feelings get in the way of continuing to help out on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support a ban on all edits in category space. I have thought for some years that some extra sign of competence should be displayed before people are allowed to create categories. I can create a plausible but useless category in a few seconds and the cfd process takes weeks to uproot it. Eg Target created 8 new categories on 16 Jan and 6 are already at cfd. This is just a waste of time. Oculi (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- This history is older. There are problems as far back as November at least. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Yea, I got a notice on my talk page since I have nominated a few of this users category creations. While some categories that I have looked at appear to be OK, the vast majority seem to be ill conceived. So I would be inclined to support a creation ban of some kind. While the current uproar is over categories, has anyone looked at the article creation record? From my browsing of the history, I suspect that a few of these articles will also be suspect. Category creation is very fast and simple. Category deletion/merging/renaming is time consuming and requires an administrators time. Given the backlogs at CfD and other places, adding more work for admins should be discouraged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have looked over the articles somewhat. There's been a lot of AfDs for his Gettysburg geo or structure stubs, most of which seem to be getting merged into larger articles. (A merge tag or just boldly going ahead with it would be my preferred course, if possible.) For example, 11th Mississippi Infantry Monument is an article about a block with a plaque, for heaven's sake. Imagine how much more useful it would be for readers if this were integrated into, say, High-water mark of the Confederacy. That's the biggest knock against Target with articles imo: he applies his knowledge to spinning off a myriad of stubs on every ridge, brook, tree, etc. in Gettysburg, it seems, instead of offering readers an integral picture. As with categories, one gets the sense that he is not really considering the best interests of the encyclopaedia or its readers, but rather, some private fascination with his own ordering of things.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree, somewhat. I get the feeling he is using categories more like an "index", expecting readers to view articles in a logical order based on how they are sectioned. The logic makes sense, in a detailed book you would expect to find an index, chapters, sections, headings, but it is not how Wiki works. As I said earlier, the fact that he can create articles quickly but it takes weeks to remove them is not necessarily his fault, but that of the red-tape which Wiki operates behind. I still think you're looking to point fault at the editor here, and it comes across as demeaning rather than AGF. There have been plenty of chances for editors to be WP:BOLD and to merge stubs, request speedy deletion of superfluous categories, etc. A will also note that in some of the CfDs people have voted "keep", so I should caution that the comments made here on AN/I are not entirely supported by everyone. Also, until he responds here, assuming he does (I have left a somewhat frank comment on his talkpage), people should not be speculation too much in his "motivations". Again, AGF, he has done nothing that warrants being shamed, and just because the excess of categories has upset a few editors, we don't make pointy accusations or pre-judgements. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's good advice and I'll remember it. So let me just say, less dramatically: no, I don't think any action is required for the stub articles, all of which can and should be dealt with easily via Template:Merge or just boldly doing it; AfD has been overused in this case, imo. His categories -- which are often duplicates, empty or nearly so, recreated against community consensus, and time consuming to repeatedly remove -- are a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree, somewhat. I get the feeling he is using categories more like an "index", expecting readers to view articles in a logical order based on how they are sectioned. The logic makes sense, in a detailed book you would expect to find an index, chapters, sections, headings, but it is not how Wiki works. As I said earlier, the fact that he can create articles quickly but it takes weeks to remove them is not necessarily his fault, but that of the red-tape which Wiki operates behind. I still think you're looking to point fault at the editor here, and it comes across as demeaning rather than AGF. There have been plenty of chances for editors to be WP:BOLD and to merge stubs, request speedy deletion of superfluous categories, etc. A will also note that in some of the CfDs people have voted "keep", so I should caution that the comments made here on AN/I are not entirely supported by everyone. Also, until he responds here, assuming he does (I have left a somewhat frank comment on his talkpage), people should not be speculation too much in his "motivations". Again, AGF, he has done nothing that warrants being shamed, and just because the excess of categories has upset a few editors, we don't make pointy accusations or pre-judgements. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have looked over the articles somewhat. There's been a lot of AfDs for his Gettysburg geo or structure stubs, most of which seem to be getting merged into larger articles. (A merge tag or just boldly going ahead with it would be my preferred course, if possible.) For example, 11th Mississippi Infantry Monument is an article about a block with a plaque, for heaven's sake. Imagine how much more useful it would be for readers if this were integrated into, say, High-water mark of the Confederacy. That's the biggest knock against Target with articles imo: he applies his knowledge to spinning off a myriad of stubs on every ridge, brook, tree, etc. in Gettysburg, it seems, instead of offering readers an integral picture. As with categories, one gets the sense that he is not really considering the best interests of the encyclopaedia or its readers, but rather, some private fascination with his own ordering of things.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think we are starting to exhaust the possibilities of discussion here, absent contribution from the subject of the report. And that's really where I'm coming from. If he's willing to talk to us, to take direction, to at least communicate, we can work with that. He hasn't been on in several days, so it's also possible he has gone off in a huff. The thing is that if he returns, and ignores all this, and starts recreating this stuff, or picks another subject for the same treatment, we are going to go around this all again; I think at this point he has some obligation to explain himself, get direction, something before he resumes editing. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes.. before we accuse someone of "going off in a huff", let's read [13] where he states "I use Waypoint at a coffee shop where I'm at now and I get here once or twice every week or so (I don't have home internet access)". The problem I see is that he does not respond to his talkpage messages, despite a large number of notifications about things, so he could just as easily ignore the AN/I one, not bother to search the archives for it, if he doesn't login for days, and continue as before, ignorant of the concerns raised
(whether intentional or not)which he has made clear he is aware of "Shouldn't someone have posted a notice for me? I didn't get informed of this allegation at my talk page", in the SPI comment [14]. That would mean a block is in order, but again, given his random e-café access, we could block him for, say 24–72 hours and he could totally miss it by not visiting the e-café during the block period. Any longer block would be questionable, and I don't think we do a "you're blocked until you read and respond to this AN/I discussion" hostage-style block. Which makes this editor very hard to communicate with. He doesn't appear to have made "email me" available either, so that someone might try to gain his attention. Hard work, this one. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)- Blocks are meant to do one thing, to prevent disruption. If a block is unlikely to affect an editor then it is of insufficient length. If (for example) an editor seems to edit once a week, then it isn't out of line to block an editor for a week for a first offense after sufficient warnings. We aren't restricted to a rule for a set block length for particular offenses, and administrators are given leave to use their judgement when determining what is an appropriate block length. So I don't think it should be considered out of line to block someone longer than usual because a shorter block won't even be noticed. -- Atama頭 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. I'm not saying we need to block him for disruption, because I don't feel he has been that disruptive. I'm saying, we need him to respond to the concerns and engage with people, here or on his talk page. If he continues to ignore the notifications being left, I see no other way of getting him to respond, except by imposing a block and making his talk page the only place he can discuss this problem. But I also see a problem in blocking an editor simply to gain and hold his attention.. seems a bit dramatic. You get my point? The issue was the category creation, now the issue is getting him to acknowledge it and accept that he is not doing things agreeably, and needs to change his approach. I don't see need to topic ban anyone if they can accept they were at fault and refrain from doing it again. The discussion above requests a topic ban as though this guy has done something wrong. But given his lack of response, we can only assume he isn't aware that he is going over the top. What are we really going to do.. topic ban a guy for being enthusiastic? Seems rather draconian. We need him to speak to us, and see if he's willing to back off from over-categorising. If he persists after that, then we have a problem. Editing is like having a driving licence – you get points for speeding before you get a ban, unless it's severe. This is not that severe, and he has not had his say. So it's really just a 1-sided issue from those after his neck. People need to calm down and play fair, it's just a fricking website and a few extra categories aren't going to kill anyone or fry Wiki's servers. Patience is a virtue, sometimes. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 22:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Marcus, I've never seen you at CfD, and I don't think you have any idea of how much otherwise productive time and energy is wasted by editors who serially create pointless categorization schemes. The are editors on this page, like me, who have done the clean up work. And I have spent many weeks, even months, working with these other editors to get bad categorization schemes cleared up. So on this one point, I disagree strongly with what you're saying. You haven't done the work; you don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're over-complicating the matter, and I doubt it's that complex. I see no point in claiming that his contribs make your job harder, when the truth is that the CfD process itself is at fault. I think there has been ample room for merges, speedy deletions, and such if someone had been bold enough to do the merges, flag the empty cats, and be done with it, and not bother with all these nominations. No point blaming an editor working in what they believe is good faith for an inhibiting process they didn't develop. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can't merge categories without the whole time-consuming CfD process. It doesn't work that way. There is no speedy shortcut. I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to continue this exchange, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Facepalm I know exactly what I'm taking about, clearly you don't, or I was unclear. I didn't say "merge categories", did I? I was referring to boldly merging the list of trivial stubs that Wild Wolf listed on AfD into the main articles on Gettysburg's battle/battlefield then redirecting them to those parent articles to make them searchable. That would have effectively rendered the categories on insignificant trees and rivers, etc in those stubs redundant, and probably empty if excluded from the main article. Empty categories can be speedy deleted under C1 Unpopulated categories. That would have left relatively few for CfD to worry about. So say again, who doesn't know what they're talking about? The fact remains, this whole clean up process has been handled quite poorly, with a lack of bold initiative, and now people are looking to point blame out of all proportion. It's contemptible. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can't merge categories without the whole time-consuming CfD process. It doesn't work that way. There is no speedy shortcut. I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to continue this exchange, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're over-complicating the matter, and I doubt it's that complex. I see no point in claiming that his contribs make your job harder, when the truth is that the CfD process itself is at fault. I think there has been ample room for merges, speedy deletions, and such if someone had been bold enough to do the merges, flag the empty cats, and be done with it, and not bother with all these nominations. No point blaming an editor working in what they believe is good faith for an inhibiting process they didn't develop. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Marcus, I've never seen you at CfD, and I don't think you have any idea of how much otherwise productive time and energy is wasted by editors who serially create pointless categorization schemes. The are editors on this page, like me, who have done the clean up work. And I have spent many weeks, even months, working with these other editors to get bad categorization schemes cleared up. So on this one point, I disagree strongly with what you're saying. You haven't done the work; you don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. I'm not saying we need to block him for disruption, because I don't feel he has been that disruptive. I'm saying, we need him to respond to the concerns and engage with people, here or on his talk page. If he continues to ignore the notifications being left, I see no other way of getting him to respond, except by imposing a block and making his talk page the only place he can discuss this problem. But I also see a problem in blocking an editor simply to gain and hold his attention.. seems a bit dramatic. You get my point? The issue was the category creation, now the issue is getting him to acknowledge it and accept that he is not doing things agreeably, and needs to change his approach. I don't see need to topic ban anyone if they can accept they were at fault and refrain from doing it again. The discussion above requests a topic ban as though this guy has done something wrong. But given his lack of response, we can only assume he isn't aware that he is going over the top. What are we really going to do.. topic ban a guy for being enthusiastic? Seems rather draconian. We need him to speak to us, and see if he's willing to back off from over-categorising. If he persists after that, then we have a problem. Editing is like having a driving licence – you get points for speeding before you get a ban, unless it's severe. This is not that severe, and he has not had his say. So it's really just a 1-sided issue from those after his neck. People need to calm down and play fair, it's just a fricking website and a few extra categories aren't going to kill anyone or fry Wiki's servers. Patience is a virtue, sometimes. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 22:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blocks are meant to do one thing, to prevent disruption. If a block is unlikely to affect an editor then it is of insufficient length. If (for example) an editor seems to edit once a week, then it isn't out of line to block an editor for a week for a first offense after sufficient warnings. We aren't restricted to a rule for a set block length for particular offenses, and administrators are given leave to use their judgement when determining what is an appropriate block length. So I don't think it should be considered out of line to block someone longer than usual because a shorter block won't even be noticed. -- Atama頭 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes.. before we accuse someone of "going off in a huff", let's read [13] where he states "I use Waypoint at a coffee shop where I'm at now and I get here once or twice every week or so (I don't have home internet access)". The problem I see is that he does not respond to his talkpage messages, despite a large number of notifications about things, so he could just as easily ignore the AN/I one, not bother to search the archives for it, if he doesn't login for days, and continue as before, ignorant of the concerns raised
In this case, instituting a block may be the only way to start a discussion with him. I have been watching this unfold and I haven't seen Target for Today replying to any of the messages on his talk page or on any of the deletion discussions. A temporary bloc might get his attention. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- MarcusBritish, this admin certainly does "blocked until you get your ass over to your talkpage" blocks - communication is key to this project. Also, creating duff categories is hugely disruptive, I had enough of it with a certain previous user that ended up indef blocked. It's like putting library books back on the wrong shelves. He hasn't edited since the 16th, and he has one of Marcus's helpful comments on the page as well as the deletion notices etc, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - he may be at his sister's wedding or in bed with the flu. However, if he edits anywhere again without responding to the issue at hand, give me a shout and I will block him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fair enough. His categories are not "duff" or "misplaced", by the way, that would be an unfair analysis. These are more like a bunch of flimsy pamphlets being shelved between major volumes. He's not creating hoaxes or forks, just over-doing it somewhat. Perhaps he isn't aware that it's not a welcome method, yet. So let's drop any idle speculation and wait and see.. even I'm not hazarding a guess here, as I think his level of interest could prove valuable to American Civil War topics for Military History, if and when he learns to follow the guidelines more closely. Too many keen editors are driven off for making simple mistakes, and too many simple mistakes are blown out of proportion on AN/I. Topic bans are for belligerent or unashamedly disruptive editors, we'll just have to see if he is one of those when he responds. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I should note that I have been working my way through all of this editor's category creations. While most recommendations to delete or merge are gaining consensus, there are are few exceptions. I'm not bothered if there is consensus to keep something I'm recommending for deletion or merging. But bringing these to a discussion is resulting in some being kept with help from the community to fix the issues that I see. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fair enough. His categories are not "duff" or "misplaced", by the way, that would be an unfair analysis. These are more like a bunch of flimsy pamphlets being shelved between major volumes. He's not creating hoaxes or forks, just over-doing it somewhat. Perhaps he isn't aware that it's not a welcome method, yet. So let's drop any idle speculation and wait and see.. even I'm not hazarding a guess here, as I think his level of interest could prove valuable to American Civil War topics for Military History, if and when he learns to follow the guidelines more closely. Too many keen editors are driven off for making simple mistakes, and too many simple mistakes are blown out of proportion on AN/I. Topic bans are for belligerent or unashamedly disruptive editors, we'll just have to see if he is one of those when he responds. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
IP and blackout bypass instructions
24.192.77.46 (talk · contribs) added to three pages instructions on apparently how to bypass the blackout. I removed them from Jimbo's talk page as this seems disruptive (and very WP:BEANS) and someone else has since removed them from Talk:2012 Wikipedia blackout, but Stubbleboy (talk · contribs) restored them to Jimbo's talk page and "warned" me about removing them only because I support it. That "warning" I don't care about as it's simply a failure to AGF, but what to do with the instructions? Should they be removed or not? Calabe1992 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would say not unless Jimbo wants it removed. He beat the system, more power to him :). Noformation Talk 03:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am unsure why these instructions are being posted everywhere when it looks like it'll be mentioned on the Q&A/Learn More page during the blackout anyway. Whether the same information sits on these low profile pages for the next hour seems totally unimportant. – Steel 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Moot point now but confur it seems a bit silly to remove something the foundation themselves mention. As with all users, Jimbo can of course remove whatever he wants from his page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wasted considerable time today finding several sequentially better ways to be able to see Wikipedia content, such as pressing "printscreen" before the blackout banner appeared, then viewing the page in Photoshop, or viewing cached versions of the page on Google, or viewing the mobile edition, before hitting on the trick of turning off Java scripts. If some group of Occupy Wikipedia activists want to climb the US Capitol dressed as Spiderman, to attempt to influence US legislation while still being a 501(3)(c) charity, it is quite considerate for them to leave a backdoor for users to view content. Trying to keep it a secret seems pointless. BnBH (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...says the man in the Spiderman suit... [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wasted considerable time today finding several sequentially better ways to be able to see Wikipedia content, such as pressing "printscreen" before the blackout banner appeared, then viewing the page in Photoshop, or viewing cached versions of the page on Google, or viewing the mobile edition, before hitting on the trick of turning off Java scripts. If some group of Occupy Wikipedia activists want to climb the US Capitol dressed as Spiderman, to attempt to influence US legislation while still being a 501(3)(c) charity, it is quite considerate for them to leave a backdoor for users to view content. Trying to keep it a secret seems pointless. BnBH (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Moot point now but confur it seems a bit silly to remove something the foundation themselves mention. As with all users, Jimbo can of course remove whatever he wants from his page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Please note, BnBH, that U.S. tax code allows 501(c)(3) organizations to attempt to influence legislation as long as they don't spend more than 5% of their budget doing so. Too bad you spend so much time trying to work around the blackout, instead of reading about how effective the blackout was. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder how many people called their congressmen and asked, "Why did you shut down wikipedia?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah Cullen, the NYT made it easy: just hit ESC after loading. I used it to read our article on Aeneas so I could improve that on the Dutch wiki. ;) And then I went outside and peed in my legislator's yard. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only if your internet was slow enough. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks and talk page hounding/stalking by Wikireader41
The User:Wikireader41 has been repeatedly making personal attacks and hounding me on my talk page (since quite some time) to get past a few disputes I've had with him and is continuing to do so even after they're over. He goes over commenting at every place calling me a POV pusher while I'm having a civil discussion with reasonable arguments on disputes in question (this can be verified by the consensus formed in one of the RFCs given below as well as in the on going one or the one with no consensus).
Attacks at RFCs: [16] (has been rebuted by an unrelated editor for this attack) & [17] (after warning).
Attacks on talk page: [18], [19], [20] & [21] (after repeated warnings of not editing my talk page while he continues to barge into discussions he did not start or was invited to).
[22] (The latest where he just entered the RFC, and then barged in to attack me on my talk page)
He's escalating to personal attacks inspite of repeated warnings and needs to be checked. All his RFC comments are containing personal attacks (being more on editors rather than on the content). He also has a block log with the same reason for two of his blocks, one of which was indefinite, and the third one actually states him as a POV pusher. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: This got archived after the black out.. I've restored it since it was not replied to. User has been informed since filing the original report here. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please link to diffs instead of talk page discussions? It will help the intervening administrators understand the situation better. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looking through all that, I can't really see anything in the links you've provided which constitute a personal attack. TopGun, I also think that wikireader41 has a point; it sometimes seems to me that you have a habit of provoking other editors into a response and then coming running to ANI looking for sanctions. I think it would be best for you to just try and work things out with him yourself. Just my opinion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- For instance, refer to the warning by an uninvolved editor to Wikireader calling his oppose comment as a blatant attack on a previous RFC mentioned above. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Repeatedly calling me a POV pusher unprovoked is a personal attack in my opinion. Please tell me where do you think I provoked him into a response to get him sanctions, I strongly disagree with that. I do try to work things out but you might look through the RFC discussions where I've been civil all the way long. Also, there's no excuse for commenting on my talk page with allegations where he's is not even involved. The latest was done inspite of the fact that I didn't even interact with him in the RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Calling someone a POV pusher is usually not a good idea, though I don't think it is a blockable offense. Have you tried simply avoiding him? That might do more to diffuse the conflict than anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, but then I have tried your suggestion previously. As I said, the latest one was done without interaction which pushed me to report.. otherwise I was simply intending to ignore such remarks. An example of this is him calling me an SPA to which I just responded there civilly and took no further action till his further involvement. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Calling someone a POV pusher is usually not a good idea, though I don't think it is a blockable offense. Have you tried simply avoiding him? That might do more to diffuse the conflict than anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
User notified [26]. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 17:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I notified him 2-3 days ago. See his talk page. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- With the blackout, I figured it couldn't hurt to get a more recent message up, along with the big orange bar of notification that will show up. :) -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm...you pretty much stick to similar topic areas and you certainly defend your point of view via AN3, ANI and other areas ... does WP:SPADE apply? None of the terms being used are specifically violations of WP:NPA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- You should check my edit count and then check my contributions. I'm not sticking to a single topic rather working on the whole wiki project Pakistan. See "Editing only within a single broad topic" in the WP:SPA you linked (as an admin I expected you to be aware of that). It would be ridiculous and a blatant attack to say otherwise. I don't defend my views 'via' these notice boards. If you see, this report is not about a dispute at all... infact I specifically mentioned that the disputes with the mentioned editor are over and he's continuing the hounding after that. WP:SPADE, I don't think so... prejudice - maybe. I don't think personal attacks are restricted to using specific terms. Labeling me as a POV pusher, ironically when he has a block log with the same title, without provocation is a personal attack... maybe not when done once but see how many times he has repeated it. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- ... and now you're accusing me of a "blatant attack"? Um, you really should go back and re-read WP:NPA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I said it would be a personal attack to say that, which Wikireader did(regardless of your view of that since that is not per WP:SPA as I just cited). And lets not take it out of context, is it completely ok for him call me SPA and a POV pusher on every talk page he sees me? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Assisting in building civility between editors is the purview of WP:WQA. There's quite obviously nothing that is leading to a block here. The best way to beat being called an SPA is to go edit articles about, Oh I dunno ... The Humane Society of Arkansas or something ... try sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I said it would be a personal attack to say that, which Wikireader did(regardless of your view of that since that is not per WP:SPA as I just cited). And lets not take it out of context, is it completely ok for him call me SPA and a POV pusher on every talk page he sees me? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- ... and now you're accusing me of a "blatant attack"? Um, you really should go back and re-read WP:NPA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- You should check my edit count and then check my contributions. I'm not sticking to a single topic rather working on the whole wiki project Pakistan. See "Editing only within a single broad topic" in the WP:SPA you linked (as an admin I expected you to be aware of that). It would be ridiculous and a blatant attack to say otherwise. I don't defend my views 'via' these notice boards. If you see, this report is not about a dispute at all... infact I specifically mentioned that the disputes with the mentioned editor are over and he's continuing the hounding after that. WP:SPADE, I don't think so... prejudice - maybe. I don't think personal attacks are restricted to using specific terms. Labeling me as a POV pusher, ironically when he has a block log with the same title, without provocation is a personal attack... maybe not when done once but see how many times he has repeated it. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't explicitly ask for him to be blocked, I did however mention his block log as it was relevant. The least that could be actually done here is to ask him to stop labeling people. I can bear him but simply saying that this venue can not deal with the issue (while it can atleast attract admin opinion on his labels and barging into user talk discussions) will definitely encourage his behavior. About the SPA, I guess I've quoted WP:SPA itself which would be sufficient. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- If he's reading this page, which he should be if he was notified, then he now knows to be careful with labeling, and understood that days ago. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Continuous recreation of deleted pages despite warning
HARMONJR (talk · contribs) continues to recreate articles related to a non-notable musician, despite warnings. He has recently begun resorting to re-adding the content in the dead talk pages of the previously deleted articles in an effort to circumvent page protection. See here and here. Also here. Can someone please block. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- He's also now re-created the PREPARE article here, and filing a deletion contest on a talk page containing the entirety of the content of the subject article here. Stinks of someone using wiki to promote their own work. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've blocked them indefinitely as a promotional account and will try to clean up the duplicated articles littered across the Wikipedia landscape. Drop me a line on my talk page if you think I've missed anything. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Suggest too salt/blacklist article name to avoid recreation by (possible) sock. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- The major article space names have all now been salted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Suggest too salt/blacklist article name to avoid recreation by (possible) sock. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've blocked them indefinitely as a promotional account and will try to clean up the duplicated articles littered across the Wikipedia landscape. Drop me a line on my talk page if you think I've missed anything. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, someone has nominated the article about me for deletion. Again.
Whether or not it's the same person (it's a new editor name, but...), could someone either kill the AfD or point it to the new reason (if any). This doesn't technically require admin action, but I cannot act on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fortheloveofbacon who nominated it: inactive since May 2010, then suddenly appears to start an AfD. Two previous nominations started by socks, another by an account currently blocked as it may be compromised. Any chance this new nominee's account is hijacked also? Ma®©usBritish [chat] 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, man. Maybe an article with an image like that should be squashed... Come on Rubin, surely there is a more glamorous photo of you. Where's Shankbone when you need him? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe that account is compromised--it's odd. Maybe someone else can have a look; I've never dealt with such a thing before. Oh, Rubin, you're kept. I expect some currency in my secret Swiss account soon, since you math people are notoriously rolling in money. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose that if I had an article under my real name it would be annoying for it to go to AFD, but is there some inherent notability for this editor? Standards change over time, and letting the next AFD run for the standard period seems appropriate. If it gets kept, it gets kept. Why the urgency of halting the AFD? Edison (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because number one and number two were thorough and long enough, and they established a clear consensus--I don't see any reason to suppose that Rubin's notability has lessened since then. Sometimes you run into old AfDs (often pre-2008 or so) that do not offer much in the way of discussion and investigation, with just a couple of votes, but that's not so in this case. BTW, Edison, maybe you're up next? Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- AfDs should only be started by legit editors, with legit reasons. If the nominee is questionable, the nomination is equally questionable. Time should not be wasted on trolls, socks or petty disputes, just to see how the result turns out. In this case the nominee is suspicious. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Next nomination is salted for 1 year. —Dark 07:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)_
- Nominator here. This is not a compromised account, and I think my logic is sound. I looked for some more information/sources to expand this, but I couldn't find any, so that's why I nominated it. I would appreciate it if the discussion was re-opened and let run for the proper amount of time as was suggested earlier. All of the previous noms have been closed pretty quickly, so I don't think a full length discussion is out of order. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say being the youngest ever Putnam Fellow establishes notability quite nicely. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that most of my edits have been IP edits, as I rarely consider them earth shattering. However, in this case I decided to dust off the account I made in undergrad as I felt it was important to take accountability. So it's a different editor "name" and a different editor "person." Not a sock, and not a troll. I don't begrudge you an article, either, so I just want to be sure that the discussion isn't tainted by the unfortunate recurrence of jerks that seem to have been participating previously. That said, I'm not sure it satisfies WP:N either. Find me on my talk page if you want to verify that I'm not compromised. The Bushranger I assume you'll contribute that to the discussion, when it is hopefully re-opened. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fortheloveofbacon - creation date 11:55, 29 April 2010
- Electroshoxcure - creation date 17:56, 26 April 2010
- Bacon-lovin, indeed. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm shocked. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I note, though, that their message on my talk page is almost perfectly punctuated (except for one missing hyphen). Then again, perhaps the copy of Strunk and White that I sent for Hanukkah did in fact arrive. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- CoM's ban expired but he has not returned to use the original account. It does look odd to me, but if CoM is not currently banned or blocked and if Fortheloveofbacon is an alternate account, does this constitute abusive sockpuppetry? That's the question, I guess. Maybe someone wants to run CU. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I initiated a sockpuppet investigation on Fortheloveofbacon: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Let's see how that turns out. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- If one account is stale and another account is current, would hard-blocking the stale account have the effect of also blocking the current account? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only if they're using the same IP address and the stale account logs in. 12.165.222.214 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- So it won't block the current account. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only if they're using the same IP address and the stale account logs in. 12.165.222.214 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have responded to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Block needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would some kind admin take this person off our hands? [27]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I neglected to inform the person involved, but another editor has done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
ad hominems, budding edit warring, and insults by AnonMoos
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:AnonMoos put a rather impolite rant on Talk:Plateosaurus. After receiving several replies he proceeded to become more impolite and aggressive, reverting an explained revert of his edits. I admit that my first response to his continued impolite replies was not friendly. However, he continued to swear and belittle people. I posted a statement to his user page, asking him to stop [28]. This edit he reverted with an insulting edit reason [29]: "rv patronizing condescending nonsense from obnoxious asshole". User:AnonMoos also reverted a revert of his edit [30], despite the issue being under discussion on Talk:Plateosaurus, showing that he is unwilling to use talk discussions. HMallison (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- User:HMallison has chosen to play a purely negative and unconstructive role on Talk:Plateosaurus, engaging in fact-free and content-free flame wars for the sole and exclusive purpose of having a flame war. Since he chose to intersperse his injection of childish and juvenile taunting and personal attacks into a thread which had not previously contained them[31] with smug sanctimonious lectures on my user talk page about how I should strictly obey Wikipedia policies, he sure seems like an obnoxious asshole to me (though I'm sorry if it was unwise to say so). AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and they can judge you based on your complete refusal to engage in any form of meaningful factual and substantive dialogue on Talk:Plateosaurus in response to a basic reasonable question ("What does the word `broadway' which appears very prominently in this article mean here?"), and your resort to immature tauntings and flaming for the sake of flaming instead... AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos continues ad hominems on both User_talk:HMallison and Talk:Plateosaurus: HMallison (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- User:HMallison continues not to display the slightest bit of shame or even self-awareness about the fact that he was the first to resort to "ad hominems" in this matter, and has frequently descended to a level of childish and immature taunting which no-one else has attempted to match... AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It was pointed out by several people, several times, that your question was irrelevant, and that we do not have second sight. Your question was, in fact, answered as well as possible. HMallison (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's nice that you finally posted a comment to Talk:Plateosaurus which has some factuality and addresses the actual issue to some degree. It would have been even nicer if you had done this at the beginning -- instead of after about ten comments consisting almost solely of substance-free flame-warring... AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are you two done your little name-calling session yet? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend an interaction ban between the two users.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tempted to agree - they lost me at "You started it" and "Nuh-uh". UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fine with anything that stops him from insulting me all over wikipedia. If that involves ripping out his fingers one by one I want to be a witness ;) Alternatively, I want a free pass for calling him names. HMallison (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- In other words you want me to be punished, but you want a "free pass" for your own distinctly worse behavior. Unfortunately, that "I don't have to obey the rules, but other people do" attitude has been part of the problem from the beginning... AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Mr. Linguistics, for all your bragging your mastery of the English language is somewhat - shall we say "lacking"? Ever heard of the word "alternatively"? HMallison (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fine with anything that stops him from insulting me all over wikipedia. If that involves ripping out his fingers one by one I want to be a witness ;) Alternatively, I want a free pass for calling him names. HMallison (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tempted to agree - they lost me at "You started it" and "Nuh-uh". UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
User:MarkAlexisGabriel
MarkAlexisGabriel (talk · contribs) seems to be a huge fan of Jessica Lange, and he has just greatly attacked me just because I did not let his constant POV be left on the page and edited out some greatly fan-led text (which the article still has plenty of throughout and which must be taken care of). It all started with a major edit I did to improve the lead (Diff) and remove much of the glorification of Lange which was not in place. He reverted me completely at first, saying, "I like the lead". I of course started a talk page discussion, which one editor agreed with. But MarkAlexisGabriel kept restoring the previous lead sporadically from time to time, using his IP (sock?) 76.109.99.165 (talk · contribs), which other editors kept reverting (Diffs: 1, 2). But now I'm not going to tolerate it any longer because I received a message from him, which is incredibly hostile and terribly brutal. Apart from referring to me in such terms as "twat", "asshole", and using such words as "fuckung", he also shows the most evident signs of WP:OWN, having demanded from me that I stop editing the page because he is its major contributor. Shahid • Talk2me 11:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- User notified about this discussion - please remember to do so in future. GiantSnowman 11:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarkAlexisGabriel and recent attack on user:Σ: diff, preceded by another offensive edit summary. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Blocked 3 days for harassment. I was inclined to make it longer, but WP:ROPE comes into play here. --MuZemike 12:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
On all anon contrib pages and talk pages (otherwise known as MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon), there is a "GeoLocate" link, which currently goes to ip2location.com. A couple months back, ip2location.com started using a "credit" system for IP searches. They also took away the Google Map that was quite useful when trying to figure out where users were located in emergency situations, plus some tracking information for rangeblocks. For any admin who uses the "GeoLocate" link often, the "credit" (of only 20 per day) would be used up quickly (it is not renewed for 24 hours). There is another and better option, infosniper.net. Gives all the information that ip2location.com once did, the useful Google Map, tracking information for rangeblocks and no "credit" system to worry about.
I previously posted this on WP:VPT before the blackout (see here and only got one response from User:Goodvac who suggested that WhatIsMyIPAddress.com would be better as it includes a proxy checker. I, in turn, suggested a compromise and have a link for each. One marked as "GeoLocate - Proxy" and one as "GeoLocate - Technical". The user or admin could choose which one to use based on what information they need at that moment. After that response from Goodvac and myself, no action was taken. Blackout was announced and it was all but forgotten (more like ignored). I tried to get eyes on the discussion post-blackout, but to no avail. So, I have no choice but to bring it here.
I would like to propose that the "GeoLocate" link on the contrib pages and talk pages of anon accounts be changed from ip2location.com to WhatIsMyIPAddress.com for proxy information, marked as "GeoLocate - Proxy" and InfoSniper.net for technical information, marked as "GeoLocate - Technical". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's not an incident, so I'm not sure it goes here - but, if it got no traction at VPT, I'm not sure where else to send it. Note also that it's kind of been a busy week. For my part, I would have no objection to the proposed change. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say do the change and see if someone complains. I have a free account at ip2location so I'm not really affected by the 20 queries limit. However, whatismyipaddress is a good resource too and I have no objection of using it instead. -- Luk talk 14:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Try submitting an edit request here. I'd make the edit myself per WP:BOLD, but I'm afraid I might break something, since this is a template... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems someone already posted there. Neat, dueling posts. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome! Thanks TParis. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems someone already posted there. Neat, dueling posts. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Try submitting an edit request here. I'd make the edit myself per WP:BOLD, but I'm afraid I might break something, since this is a template... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Blocked sensitive IP?
I blocked the IP 66.230.230.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for CSS vandalism on many pages, redirecting them to my user talk page with invisible pictures. (Don't ask me why....) When I went to block it, I got this message: "You are blocking a sensitive IP address belonging to the Wikimedia secure gateway. Please be sure to notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee immediately." However, the IP has been blocked repeatedly in the past by TorNodeBot (talk · contribs) for actually being tor, and the IP is not in the range listed on Wikipedia:SIP. So should my block be overturned? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...and I've just revoked its talk page access for adding the CSS vandalism to its talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Lots of TOR shenanigans going on today. You might check with the devs and see if they're moving IPs around, or where the system list (the one that generates the warning) is kept (and who updates it). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
disruptive IP, likely sock
Could an admin please block 217.34.55.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He appears to be spamming racist propaganda. This user is likely a sock of the banned user mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). aprock (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked, but I'm sure they'll move right along. Can't keep a good racist down. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Serial spammer, copyvio
Please block Charukishnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Only edits are spam from site http://www.cardekho.com/, and copy-pastes of copyrighted, POV text from same website. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've given them a final warning, but I'm in a good mood. If another admin feels I'm being too nice, I won't oppose an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Spamming after final warning, blocked indefinitely. WilliamH (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Crank
Anyone interested in sifting through a few years worth of edits from an editor who appears to be almost exclusively a crank? The end goal would be a community ban for wasting our time. I've reviewed his last thirty edits and most or all of them have been cranky. The complicating factor as that this editor has been editing since 2005 and has over 2,500 edits. I'll post the user name only if there's interest in pursuing the matter as I don't wish to create unnecessary drama. Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why not put it on hold until we have better guidance from Arbcom in the civility enforcement case?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could you use help from a non-admin? --NellieBly (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like a long and thankless task, but it's my kind of long and thankless task. What general subject area is it? I'd be grateful if you could email me so I can run through a few contribs (I promise not to create drama). bobrayner (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do any thankless job as long as it is agreed upon that it needs to be done. Let me know. — Moe ε 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Attempted outing
Feelings his oats due to recent support from some users, timed exquisitely (he thinks) and knowing full well that I'll probably get more scoldings for complaining about him - OH, NO, NOT THAT AWFUL SERGE WHINING AGAIN (SIGH!!!)" - than help, User:Pieter Kuiper's latest caper in his 4-year harassment campaign is this attempt to out me. Once again: help, please!. Interaction ban, as recently discussed again (SIGH!!!), would be a good idea for us all, including him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't forget to notify people of ANI threads relating to them. (And please no caps or bold text.)
- This would appear indeed to be a possible outing. Per WP:OUTING:
Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.
- I'm going to block for 48hrs. --RA (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Eomund asked me what I thought. This was relevant, possible hoax. And SergeWoodzing is acting for Ristesson on Commons, no secret at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for using capitals (meant as entertainment, even if admittedly way too loud) and for not notifying PK myself. I can't bring myself to post anything on PK's talk page and had immediately asked another very active editor, who has acted as a go-bewteen before, to notify him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Proposed interaction ban: SergeWoodzing be banned from interacting with Pieter Kuiper (but not vice versa)
I would suggest, SergeWoodzing, that if you want an interaction ban so badly that you stop interacting with him/her yourself. Why are you reverting edits and opening threads about the edits of a user you want to be banned from interacting with?
You would appear to be hounding this editor. So, I support your request to be banned from interacting with Pieter Kuiper (per your previous requests also). However, at this time, I don't propose that Pieter Kuiper be banned from interacting with SergeWoodzing. --RA (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- What you are claiming about me cannot be substantiated. I have never once, not on any of three projects, sought out, stalked or in any other way impacted any of his work unless he in each and every case has impacted work of mine to start the unpleasantries. Nothing else can be shown in fact, simply because it has never ever happened. Kuiper has stalked me for 4 years. If that's unclear to you, you might want to check the facts and figures a bit more carefully. The one and only link you are basing this on is all about PK removing info that he knows I have been heavily involved in providing. He knows everything about me and all of my work because he has policed my watchlists and contributor pages for years. What he's up to isn't always obvious. He's talented at what he does.
- Why not also read up a bit on all the support I've had for the mutual ban before, rather than jumping on me at once like this? 6 against 1 (PK) last time, with him categorically refusing to cooperate. Respectfully, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- PS one of the few thing PK does not know about me is who I am. I'd like to keep it that way. I am truly frightened of him, especially when he wins good people like you over with his innocent act. His behavior is well known, here and at Commons, so is mine. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't answered why you were initiating interactions with someone that you have asked three times on this board to be banned from interacting with. I am supporting your request to be banned from interacting with him/her.
- If Pieter Kuiper continues to follow you, despite you no longer interacting with him, it will be clear that he is stalking you and so he/she can be banned from interacting with you also if that time comes. But, in the mean time, you will have had your request to be banned from interacting with this person. --RA (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I must have written something unclear above, even though I took the rather drastic step of bolding. Here's the answer to your question as clearly as I am able to answer it.
- I have never once initiated interactions with Pieter Kuiper and have never had any interest in doing so, nor will I ever have any interest in doing so in the future. Anything that looks like I have done so is misleading because it at first glance does not show how it was my work, not his, that was interacted upon, thus creating the illusion of an intitated interaction by me, not by him. Any such case, if investigated just a bit into the details, will reveal the truth of what I'm stating here.
- Pieter Kuiper has initiated interactions with me hundreds of times on Swedish and English Wikipedia and on Commons. There is ample evidence of this on all three of his contributor lists, especially on English WP where an substantial amount of his visits are devoted to argumentative, sarcastic, ridiculing attacks on my work, intercations always initiated by him, never by me.
- I hope my reply is clearer this time and that, upon a bit of investigation, should you care to perform such, you find me totally vindicated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are you asking me to agree to a ban w/o him agreeing to anything? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am exhausted tonight (our time) and will need to think about that. Right now, I can't see any advantage or disadvantage. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I must have written something unclear above, even though I took the rather drastic step of bolding. Here's the answer to your question as clearly as I am able to answer it.
You are interacting with him/her while at the same time asking to be banned from interacting with him/her. Do you not see the irony in that?
Am I asking you to agree to a ban without him/her agreeing to anything? Yes. Will you accept a six-month voluntary interaction ban? During that time, you voluntarily agree not to:
- edit Pieter Kuiper's user and user talk space;
- reply to Pieter Kuiper in discussions;
- make reference to or comment on Pieter Kuiper anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
- undo Pieter Kuiper's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).
An exception to (3) is that you may raise concerns about Pieter Kuiper's behavior either here, or another suitable venue, or directly with an admin. You can come directly to me, if you want. If you breach this voluntary interaction ban, you may be blocked. However, merely agreeing to this voluntary interaction ban is not to be seen as a "black mark" against you or as an indication of poor conduct on your part.
In parallel, Pieter Kuiper's behavior will be observed. If he/she is seen to be genuinely stalking or harassing you (or otherwise in breach of policy towards you), that will be obvious and action will be taken as appropriate. I will warn Pieter Kuiper about this on his talk page, if you agree to the above. --RA (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- RA, thank you for getting on this. I am getting sick of seeing these two names (which, individually, are really cool) come up together at ANI time after time after time after time. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's not true. Indeed the boilerplate interaction ban (which the points above are copied from) is one directional. In my experience, conflicts like this can be resolved by even one editor involved "being the bigger person" and just stepping away. SergeWoodzing has asked several times for an interaction ban (whereas Pieter Kuiper has refused to agree to one), so SergeWoodzing is the natural choice. Edits in their usual zones of interest can continue but SergeWoodzing would merely stop all interaction with Pieter Kuiper.
- In the warning to Pieter Kuiper that I suggest above, I would foresee strongly urging him/her to adopt a similar (even informal) interaction ban. Certainly, it should be emphasised that to him/her that by SergeWoodzing agreeing to an interaction ban, Pieter Kuiper's behavior towards SergeWoodzing would now come under a microscope and if Pieter Kuiper is harassing SergeWoodzing that will be seen immediately.
- I do want to emphasise that the terms are that merely agreeing to this voluntary interaction ban is not to be seen as a "black mark" against SergeWoodzing or as an indication of poor conduct on his/her part. Only if he/she breaches it, after agreeing to it, should there be seen to be a pattern of poor behavior on his/her part. Until then, certainly in my opinion, he/she would be seen to be "the bigger person". --RA (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken
- Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)
User:Beyond My Ken seems to have become so annoyed at what he sees as pointless formatting changes made by me that he has started mass reverting my edits, apparently with no regard whatever for what they are or for whether they violate Wikipedia style guidelines or not. I really couldn't care less about most of his reverts; many of them may actually be perfectly justified. Unfortunately, because he is now reverting me without regard for the content of my edits, he has violated a number of guidelines (including WP:MOSFILM. He has among other things restored trivia sections and 'year in film' piped links, which WP:MOSFILM prohbits. Could someone please tell him to stop this crap? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll repost here what I just posted at WT:FILM, since PoC didn't wait to receive a response there:
That's about the size of it, I got a few edits wrong in trying to correct PoC's unnecessary edits, and apparently a Federal case is being made out of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Please see this I was invited by PoC to revert edits he made which made no difference in the redering of a page, but which made editing the page a little more difficult. It was my intention to only delete those edits, but perhaps I made mistakes -- without any assitance from PoC, such things will happen. I've now been warned twice by PoC about those edits, when the timestamps on the edits will show that they were all made at one time, and all before his first warning.
In short, this is a tempest in a teapot. PoC should stop making edits which make no different in rendering a page, and I won't have to delete such edits. Thanks.
- Seems like a rather silly dispute to me, and BMK's edits seem ok to me. I think this is best solved by continuing discussion at WT:FILM, rather than forum-shopping it here. --John (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Incidentally, the "mass reverting" referred to was 20 edits, all (except one) which were slugged as "formatting". I checked a handful of them first, and they were all the unnecessary edits, so I assumed (my error) that all edits marked "formatting" were of that type. I skipped over edits that said "formatting, etc." or mentioned MOS in an efort to keep the reverting focused -- apparently that wasn't suifficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like a rather silly dispute to me, and BMK's edits seem ok to me. I think this is best solved by continuing discussion at WT:FILM, rather than forum-shopping it here. --John (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
John, respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. WP:MOSFILM prohbits year in film piped links. Beyond My Ken went ahead and restored them anyway. Hence, ignorant and disruptive editing. What more need be said? I've no idea what kind of "assistance" he expects me to give him; it's his responsibility to learn how to format properly. Please see his behavior at A Fish in the Bathtub, edit warring with me over formatting even after I explained that he'd done it wrongly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit is a specific example of Beyond My Ken violating style guidelines in the process of mindlessly mass reverting me. Same story with this edit, re-linking dates and restoring trivia as well. Please explain how violating the guidelines is OK - and note that he reverted me despite explaining in my edit summary that dates should usually be delinked in film articles. Totally clueless behavior. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Reverting edits simply because the have no effect on the rendering of a page is a nonsense argument. There are innumerable improvements that can be made to an article's wikitext that can greatly improve things without any change to the appearance of the page; Some examples: Diff of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery, Diff of Neville Chamberlain. Alarbus (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, Alarbus, I don't disagree with you, but the edits I complained to PoC about were the ones where he deleted a blank line between the end of the infobox and the beginning of the article text. Such a blank line does not effect the rendered text, but it does make it much easier to pick up where the lede starts when scrolling quickly down the top of an article. His deletion of those links was therefore not only unnecessary, but, in a very small way, made editing just a little harder. I let a few of these go by before I contacted him about it in what I thought was a neutral tone, one experienced editor to another [32], and got a response that accused me of patronizing him, and invited me to undo the edits. [33] That's what I attempted to do, and did so in a less than clean manner. That part is my fault – I should have taken more care in my reverts – but the escalation of an extremely minor dispute to an AN/I report, that's not on my head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Having edited thousands of articles, I can safely say that the formatting issue BMK mentions makes no difference whatsoever to how difficult editing an article is. At least it makes no difference at all to me - I am interested to learn that others might find it makes a difference. Whether anyone else agrees with BMK on this issue, or whether it's just his personal idiosyncrasy, I'd be interested to find out - it would effect how I went about editing. The stupid mistakes BMK made in mass reverting me just go to show why mass reverting someone is generally a bad idea. His creating the appearance that he was reverting me vindictively makes editing much more difficult than minor formatting details could ever do. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- ok, I prefer a blank line after infoboxes... but it's not the sort of thing that need "warnings" and reversions. Outta here. Alarbus (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm siding with BMK on this, though I'd like to see him take care and view each edit prior to reverting. It's time consuming, but the results of failing to do so are predictable. Rklawton (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. If I have taken the time and effort to insure that every edit I made was reverting only the thing I wanted to undo, I would have spent a little more than then but saved the larger amount of time I'm wasting now. That's my lesson for the day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If we are talking about BMK adding whitespace or other style to articles, despite all MOS guides against it, and then edit warring to replace it when removed.... this has been going on for years. BMK has his own style guide that only he follows. Whitespace, image sizes, how to place footnotes and unreferenced headers, etc. He's been asked to knock it off countless times by numerous users. The only excuse ever given is that he likes it better that way and he's following WP:IAR. Really, it should stop. It's ridiculous and fairly minor, but his stubbornness on this has driven away good editors. He's been invited to discuss it at MOS pages relevant to what he's doing, but he's never done so. That's totally not the way a collegial project works. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
(edit conflict) Both PoC and BMK make some valid points about different edits/reverts, but (1) this whole topic is trivial and (2) PoC has a bad attitude and should lose it. The stuff about "mass reverting", "vindictively", "stupid mistakes", etc., are unsupported and uncalled for. As an aside on the trivial aspect, I agree with BMK that the blank line makes it easier to edit, but I wouldn't have bothered reverting it. Can't we close this as much ado about nothing?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- With a recommendation that BMK take up his style choices at relevant MOS guidelines and not continue on his own lone crusade? His behavior is correctable and belongs at ANI even if the underlying issue is trivial. If the underlying issue about style is indeed trivial, then close it with a demand he take it up on MOS talk pages and not stubbornly cling to his own preferences. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I looked at MOSFILM twice now, but cannot find where "year in film" piped links are forbidden. Enlighten me, please. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Near the bottom of the page in the Clean-up section is the line: "Following WP:EGG, dates should be linked only to articles about the linked date, and they should be linked only when the date's article provides important information or context specifically related to the film." I also found this discussion from March 2010 that touches on the subject. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 03:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I never understood the idea that linking, say "1954" in a film article to the article "1954 in film" was an "Easter Egg", and unwanted "surprise" to the reader. To me, it seemed like precisely the thing we would work towards having, which is context-sensitive links -- but that discussion is over and done, and I routinely unlink dates in film articles, per consensus. If I did that in one of PoC's edits, it was purely by accident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I saw that--I guess I didn't realize that its intent was so restrictive as to make the link completely dependent on the content of the thus-linked article. I've linked that way (maybe never in film, which I rarely edit, but in poetry) thinking that it would lead to broader context, which may (or not, of course) add to the reading of the original article. I find this overly restrictive. What if the linked article happens to be vandalized, or a work in progress? What if a movie is, say, a decent success--then the linked article may give an overview of the most successful films, which would contextualize without even naming the movie one started with? Or, am I to believe that the editor who's duking it out with BMK clicked on every single one of those to make sure that there is no "important information or context specifically related to the film"? I didn't see them making any such claim. I'll look at that discussion link, but this strikes me as a bad guideline for style since "important information or context" is a very malleable concept. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I read it and I'm none the wiser. Let me say this, germane (defined in the 2010 discussion linked above) to the topic: I do not see know, prima facie, BMK's addition of "year in film" links is contrary to MOSFILM and other conventions unless it be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the linked article ("year x in film") contains no content at all that is "provides important information or context specifically related to the film". Rationale: 1. such was never proven here in the first place for each of BMK's edits; and 2. "important information or context" is a malleable concept, and the linked article need not even mention the film to give "provides important information or context specifically related to the film" on it. Now, when it comes to blank lines between the infobox and the text, I don't believe the MOS forbids it, and I don't see how that can count as disruption. Is there anything else to the complaint? Now, can someone who cares about film (which is probably all y'all) consider rephrasing the all-too vague guidelines, preferably (IMHO) by scrapping it altogether? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Near the bottom of the page in the Clean-up section is the line: "Following WP:EGG, dates should be linked only to articles about the linked date, and they should be linked only when the date's article provides important information or context specifically related to the film." I also found this discussion from March 2010 that touches on the subject. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 03:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- To Bbb23: the topic isn't trivial if BMK is reverting edits for no reason other than that I've made them, and intends to go on doing so - that's a serious behavior issue (though I grant that his giving the appearance of behaving that way may well be just ineptness or incompetence on his part, not malice). I've no apology whatever for calling BMK's relinking dates and restoring trivia to articles stupid - that's exactly what it was.
- To Drmies, whose comments I don't quite grasp, I think the safest response is that delinking dates in film articles is, in general, uncontroversial. I haven't delinked absolutely all dates I've found in film articles - I'm not a robot, and a few of the linked dates could seem appropriate. I have done it in the large majority of cases, however. BMK is perhaps one of a handful of holdouts on the issue, and his reverting me to relink dates was quite inappropriate. Many of BMK's other reverts appear to conflict with WP:LAYOUT, at least as I read it. Drmies misunderstands me if he thinks I was suggesting that adding lines between the infobox and text is disruption, however; I didn't say that. My point was that reverting me just for the sake of reverting me is disruption. BMK has just made a weird post on my talk page, telling me that he doesn't wish to interact with me in future - in principle, that would be just fine, but if he does plan to go on reverting me because he doesn't like my formatting....well, it's clear what will happen. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Help on BLP issue
Hi... over 18 hours ago I posted to the BLP noticeboard requesting advice, but have yet to receive a response. I have come across a living person's biography article that has in its history revisions claiming (without evidence) that this TV star has previously performed in pornography. Without investigating, I am 99+ % sure that the claim is untrue. The article's talk page still refers to these claims. I am unsure if this calls for rev-del or oversight or what. I am not indicating the article here because I am seeking advice; if emailing oversight or similar is appropriate then I will. Or, am I over-reacting given the claims were removed long ago? Even though mentioning them on the talk page means allegations are still visible? Please, someone give me some advice. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- As you apparently don't want to name the subject, your best bet might be to send an email to your most trusted admin, and spell out the details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I invite neutral intervention, particularly this section on "Pakistan", which, I believe, has been deliberately skewed by Pakistani nationalist editors, User:TopGun [34],USer:Mar4d[35],and the sock of indefbanned user USer:Nangparbat ([36]) into promoting non-neutral anti-Indian sentiments. In particular these statements are reproduced from partisan Pakistani blogs and presented as fact:
"It is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist as a nation independent from India. Indians cannot let their nostalgia for the past–which is, in fact, the national pain over the Partition in 1947 which led to the creation of Pakistan – blind them to the reality of Pakistan as a sovereign state." [37]
In addition, the remark "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist." is Original Research, since India officially only rejects the Two Nation Theory, not Pakistan's sovereignity as such. Furthermore, the cited source here indicates the opposite of what this article claims i.e. it is Pakistan that denies India's right to exist[38].
Furthermore, I was compelled to come to this and the RFC board rather than use the rfc template because the Pakistani militant editors kept removing it from the article talk page[39].Underhumor (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- We do not deal with content disputes here ... have you tried opening an WP:RFC or third opinion request on the article talkpage? We go by WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus is reached on article talkpages, or follow dispute resolution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- He tried an RFC, it was removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- The above user (I assume is the IP editor) who repeatedly removing sourced content without any edit summaries and was non responsive to warnings until recently. His RFC was not neutrally written and was full of personal comments instead of content related comments so I refactored it per WP:RFC I have no objection of he starts it again given that a neutral editor phrases the summary. Check out his IP contributions btw, vandalizing a range of articles and then socking allegations with some unknown editor. Also there was zero discussion on talk page before he started his attack RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: his IP just got a block by Materialscientist [40]... the account should get the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- It really is offensive that you continually ask for blocks everywhere. Indeed, as has already been noted, your personal combative nature is causing you needless trips to ANI, AN3 and elsewhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)