Line 729: | Line 729: | ||
== ''De jure'' ban for Paul Bedson == |
== ''De jure'' ban for Paul Bedson == |
||
{{archive top|1=Obvious snow consensus is obvious. I will inform Paul of this closure — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 14:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)}} |
|||
A while ago, I indefinitely blocked {{userlinks|Paul Bedson}} as a result of closing [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson]], where I found that the RfC unanimously concluded that "Paul Bedson has over a long period of time, among other things, added original research, fringe theories, unverifiable or materially false content to articles, and actively continues to do so. The RfC also concludes that Paul Bedson is not capable or willing to collaborate constructively and collegially with others." |
A while ago, I indefinitely blocked {{userlinks|Paul Bedson}} as a result of closing [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson]], where I found that the RfC unanimously concluded that "Paul Bedson has over a long period of time, among other things, added original research, fringe theories, unverifiable or materially false content to articles, and actively continues to do so. The RfC also concludes that Paul Bedson is not capable or willing to collaborate constructively and collegially with others." |
||
Line 746: | Line 746: | ||
*'''Support''' Interaction with Bedson has been one time- and soul-sucking drain on the project. The mission here that he's obviously on has to be stopped. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 13:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' Interaction with Bedson has been one time- and soul-sucking drain on the project. The mission here that he's obviously on has to be stopped. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 13:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - his disruptive editing and sockpuppetry demonstrates that we cannot waste any more time on him here. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 13:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' - his disruptive editing and sockpuppetry demonstrates that we cannot waste any more time on him here. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 13:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
Revision as of 14:53, 20 March 2013
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) |
|
We have a now long-running battle going on over articles about Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and his theories and related organizations. The subject first came to my attention in a FT/N notice back on 10 January concerning Progressive utilization theory (also called PROUT), which appears to be Sarkar's central socio-economic theory. This quickly ballooned into concern over other pages, and I set up a page listing all articles relating to Sarkar simply to make it easier to keep track of things without having to re-search constantly.
My personal assessment of these articles is complex. Sarkar, PROUT, Ananda Marga and a few related articles are plainly notable on their own due to involvement in Indian politics and a couple of incidents abroad; there is also an economist at SMU who published a bestselling and spectacularly wrong book. These articles suffer greatly from being written by Sarkar's followers from primary sources, and they tend to be promotional in large part. What has really kicked up the conflict, however, is the constellation of minor articles surrounding these. For instance, Sarkar wrote lots of books and pamphlets, many of which had articles and none of which has any significant footprint outside of the movements. These have been put up for deletion and all have either been deleted or redirected back to Sarkar's article. These deletions have been fought doggedly by a group of editors, all of whom apparently have some connection to Sarkar.
We very quickly fell into two camps. First, there was FT/N camp:
- Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who started the FT/N thread
- Garamond Lethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Location (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and possibly others. These were opposed by the second camp:
- Abhidevananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cornelius383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Universal Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Joining these, however, were a group of SPAs, all with almost no edits outside these articles and especially the AFDs for the various books. Not surprisingly this raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, and that led to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda, which was preceded by an earlier check. Both of these were technically inconclusive, but that didn't stop a lot of people from raising meatpuppetry and canvassing accusations all around. My index of articles has been accused of being a hit list aimed at deleting all of these articles.
As I said above, I don't intend to have everything deleted, and I've largely stayed out of the AFDs to try to lessen the ganging up impression. For the same reason I haven't gone after the various articles with a machete as by rights I could have. But it seems clear to me that there's some sort of canvassing going on to get more votes on the deletion discussions, and the pro-Sarkar camp has buried us in walls of text and other "policy is not going to get in the way of delivering The Truth to the world" tactics. This needs to be brought to some sort of resolution that doesn't involve so much Wikidrama. A simple RFC isn't going to do it because the scope of the problem isn't one well-bounded issue. Eventually someone is going to have to go after all the extensive primary sourcing in the articles which we all agree ought to stay. And behind all of this is a huge navbox template which promises the creation of many more articles which are also likely to be considered for deletion or merger. We need to stop the madness. At a minimum the SPI needs to be closed and archived, but from my point of view the pro-Sarkar side needs to be made aware that the articles are going to have to be brought into line no matter how true his teachings may be. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This seems like an obvious question, but what are they trying to accomplish by creating all these articles on WP, at best rewording all the info from their own publications and websites? Do they just like the wiki style of editing and presentation? If so, is it possible that is hasn't occurred to them that they could establish their own wiki installation? It's free and they would have complete control over its policies and presentation, versus trying constantly to work around and defeat WP's policies (which are necessary to keep it from becoming a pile of crap). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Mangoe, how do we get to awareness "that the articles are going to have to be brought into line"? As I'm very sure you're aware, we're tripping over really basic levels of policy: what is and is not an independent, reliable, secondary source, the idea that articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources, that canvassing is bad and so is removing talk page comments written by others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Is this the time and place to propose bans? Are you looking for 1RR on the remaining Sarkar-related articles? What, specifically, do we need to do to move forward? Garamond Lethet
c 17:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment & complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I repeat here what I've repeatedly said even here. I created the two tables below (the 1st is on a collapse box) to show the "persecution" of one group of users against all the articles related with the indian phylosopher Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. These users are user:Mangoe,user:bobrayner, user:Garamond Lethe, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:DGG and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints. As everyone can see from the summary table (the second below) they proposed 16 AfDs all directed against the same topic in about a month. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page containing all the links related with this author on a sandbox of user:Mangoe. We have an evidence of the strong connection of these users' follow-up in the revision history of their "agenda" here and in some of their thalks.
1st Table: all the 21 AfDs on the same topic proposed by the same users. (Click on "Show" to display it) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2nd Summary table: Total number of AFDS and deletions proposed by these users on 21 articles
bobrayner | Garamond Lethe | DGG | Location | Mangoe | CorrectKnowledge | Zananiri | Dougweller | North8000 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AfD proposals (successful) | 4 (4) | 12 (9) (one undecided) | 2 (2) | 2 (2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Delete/merge or redirect | 17 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 8 | 11 | 7 | 5 | 4 |
Keep | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
All the group has always voted in a compact style only "Delete" or at least "Redirect". Not only that, some of them often held an inappropriate behavior sometimes even insulting. Let's start with a few examples of the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe/user:bobrayner/User:CorrectKnowledge:
- Examples of disruptive deletions
- After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted almost the entire article who had recently passed the AfD, as you can see from the revision history here. I reverted it but after a while the user:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition.
- After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted part of the article, and in particular of the incipit, where there were valuable informations that allowed article to overcome the AfD as you can see from the revision history here.
- Examples of disruptive deletions + insulting
- On this talk page of this Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's template, user:bobrayner removed the picture of the indian philosopher, calling it "Sarkarspam". The user user:Titodutta asked bobrayner not to do that, and still bobrayner did it again. As you can see from the revision history here.
- Insertion of inaccurately sourced material on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's articles
- User:bobrayner added inaccurately sourced material to the Ananda Marga article. And later that inaccurately sourced material was compounded User:CorrectKnowledge as you can see from the revision history here.
- Examples of insulting comments on AfDs' talks
- This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet.
- This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: ..on the there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"
I could go on and on but I will stop to make a courtesy to the readers. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop, Cornelius383. The walls of text are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Ditto for the misquotes and the distortion of other people's comments. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Cornelius, the moment you decided to try and claim these people who are "persecuting" you are socks, you lost all credibility here. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. As I have shown above bobryner has said this more than once. Please tell me another word that I can use as a substitute of "persecution". It's clear that I used this word 'cause I cannot find another to describe the behaviors shown in Table 1.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I put no words in your mouth. "I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions" can have only one intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly: it is your own interpretation. Suspicions are never certainties.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Which is the only interpreation any reasonable person would make. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a "single-verse" user. I started editing on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact. Of course I understand and I agree that the text I had to produce in order to defend myself was much. Of course it was not my intention to create a "Text wall" but sometimes the tank is full and the water comes out! What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? And if a group of users (almost always the same) had always voted compactly "Delete" or "Redirect" in all the AfDs? And if those group even created a "Deleting Agenda" on a sandbox that they are strictly following to delete all? And what if some of those users have an improper behaviour as I said in the three points I have outlined above? Please try to understand!--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? What I'd do would be to stop and ask if this was actually a topic that was suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but then again, I might be odd that way. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but you didn't answer the other questions I asked here. Your first answer was quite obvious to me: since you created your personal page on WP declaring to be a Christian practicing abstinence and to belive in True Love Waits (a Christian fundamentalist group that promotes sexual abstinence), I do not expect you to agree with my points on what concerns the deletion of 21 articles related with a very different spiritual path. I will not even worth mentioning as offensive is it to me, as European citizen, reading on your userboxes sentences like: "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it" or "This user supports the restoration of the Tsar and the Russian Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy". As a connoisseur of the crimes perpetrated by the British Empire in India it's even more repulsive to me reading on your WP personal page: "This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire". Or again: "Pahlavi dynasty is the only legitimate regime in Iran" or "independence for Palestinian Arabs has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".. I prefer to stop here. But let me ask you the last question that strongly stimulates my curiosity: I've seen all the awards exhibited on your page, but how did you get some of them on January 2007 if you open your personal page on WP on june 2008? :) I'm sorry if I went a little off topic but I hope that some of those who have to judge my articles on WP doesn't have these ideas! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV is an editing policy I follow regardless of personal POV. There's many editors here with personal positions I find distateful, perhaps even repulsive at times - but their opinions are theirs to hold freely, and as long as we all edit neutrally, we're one big, happy, dysfunctional Wikifamily. I honestly find it more than a bit dissapointing that you would decide that, based on my personal opinions, I would choose to suggest that articles be deleted regarding other practices. Policy is policy regardless of spiritual path. As for the dates, as clearly stated and disclosed, User:Aerobird is my legitimate alternate account. I established it in 2005, when I first joined Wikipedia; in 2007, being a bit burned out for personal reasons, I went on a lenghty Wikibreak. When I returned, I simply abandoned the old account, and created a new one, using the new identity I preferred using for things online, while clearly establishing and disclosing my previous Wikipediaing. When I became an admin (at which point the previous account was disclosed, as required), I re-adopted it as a legitimate alternate account as allowed under policy, as using my main account, which has the tools, on a public computer is potentially risky due to the possibility of password keylogging and such. That said, however, if you cannot trust my neutrality on this position, I can accept that, and will bow out of this debate. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but you didn't answer the other questions I asked here. Your first answer was quite obvious to me: since you created your personal page on WP declaring to be a Christian practicing abstinence and to belive in True Love Waits (a Christian fundamentalist group that promotes sexual abstinence), I do not expect you to agree with my points on what concerns the deletion of 21 articles related with a very different spiritual path. I will not even worth mentioning as offensive is it to me, as European citizen, reading on your userboxes sentences like: "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it" or "This user supports the restoration of the Tsar and the Russian Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy". As a connoisseur of the crimes perpetrated by the British Empire in India it's even more repulsive to me reading on your WP personal page: "This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire". Or again: "Pahlavi dynasty is the only legitimate regime in Iran" or "independence for Palestinian Arabs has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".. I prefer to stop here. But let me ask you the last question that strongly stimulates my curiosity: I've seen all the awards exhibited on your page, but how did you get some of them on January 2007 if you open your personal page on WP on june 2008? :) I'm sorry if I went a little off topic but I hope that some of those who have to judge my articles on WP doesn't have these ideas! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? What I'd do would be to stop and ask if this was actually a topic that was suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but then again, I might be odd that way. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly: it is your own interpretation. Suspicions are never certainties.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I put no words in your mouth. "I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions" can have only one intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- C383, All of us have long and more or less uninvolved careers here. As far as I know, the only common link is through FT/N, except that DGG and I run across each other because we are both active in category maintenance and AFDs. All of us except GL have at least 10k edits. If there's any "conspiracy" between us, it's simply the common objective of preventing fringe crusaders from using Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their causes. Other than the list of articles, there has been no coordination with me and anyone else, and I haven't sought out other people who were not already participants in the issue. It's obvious that someone among Sarkar's supporters here has fetched up more participants: five new accounts are registered as the AFDs begin, and all of them quickly settle into voting on these AFDs, with two making such votes as their first edits. Given the course of these thus far, this tactic isn't working. But we are going to have to deal with the main articles themselves, and the policy-ignoring obstruction will be a much more severe problem there. Already Progressive utilization theory is full-protected because of this.
- Please don't put words in my mouth. As I have shown above bobryner has said this more than once. Please tell me another word that I can use as a substitute of "persecution". It's clear that I used this word 'cause I cannot find another to describe the behaviors shown in Table 1.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Cornelius, the moment you decided to try and claim these people who are "persecuting" you are socks, you lost all credibility here. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I want to repeat what I've said every time something like this has come up: I think that in-movement editors can be very helpful in this kind of article, because they potentially are more aware of secondary sources about their movement than us outsiders are. But the price they have to pay for participation is letting go of the crusade to bring their important knowledge to the world. We are not here to evangelize Anandamurti's teachings. To the degree that they are presented, that presentation must be neutral, and we certainly are required to present what the world thinks of those same teachings. If they are going to treat these requirements as persecution, it will go badly. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have notified DGG, Zananiri, Dougweller and North8000 about the discussion. Cornelius383, please collapse the wall of text, this makes it harder for uninvolved editors to follow the discussion. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've put a collapse box around the table. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have notified DGG, Zananiri, Dougweller and North8000 about the discussion. Cornelius383, please collapse the wall of text, this makes it harder for uninvolved editors to follow the discussion. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think my view of this was best expressed in my question at the afd on Prabhat Samgiita. I will support reasonable articles for which there is good evidence, and even make allowances for the difficulty of finding conventional sources for esoteric material. But I do not support unreasonably detailed articles on multiple books of an individual thinker that in the whole serve the interest of promotion of their views, and I think the introduction of such articles even foolish viewed as promotion, for nobody not already in the group of supporters will read them. I've said this consistently for the 6 years I've been here.
- I don't approve of promotional editing--I is the biggest threat to the encyclopedic for if it is full of advertising nobody will take us seriously. Paid editors we can cope with: since they work for money, if we reject their improper editing consistently they will decide it's not worth the money. Zealous promoters of a cause do not stop, because they have a message. The sensible ones stop after they've achieved a reasonable article, and will take advice on how to get it. If we can turn attempted promotion into encyclopedic articles on notable topics, I will work hard and long with an article or an editor to get there. If they are not sensible, they will not take advice, and they will continue defending their material until we force them to leave, and even then it has sometimes been a problem.
- I have repeatedly urged Abhidevananda to let me help him condense this material; he has politely but consistently declined. If a person will not accept help, nobody can help him. It's hard to be patient with such an editor. Still, it is possible, and we can politely but firmly edit and delete the material without insulting him or his cause. On the whole, I think we have done that, though I would not have used the word "sarkarspam" however I may have thought it.
- In short, I approve of what Mangoe has said and done. He has made every possible effort to help, and he has done this with great courtesy. Perhaps even with too great courtesy--I would have taken a much shorter route with some of the articles, and I would not oppose a neutral editor making careful use of speedy deletion. With the PROUT article, if we cannot get a shorter reasonable article when protection expires, we shall have to consider whether we can do a redirect, which would be a shame. I do not think we need take any admin action on the editors, provided they do not try to reintroduce the articles, but it always helps to clear away any sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would not have made the page [User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles]; I think it useful and not objectionable, but others have objected to similar pages in the past. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please DGG read my answer to The Bushranger above (the one that starts with: "I'm not a single-verse user.."). This is my reply to you too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would not have made the page [User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles]; I think it useful and not objectionable, but others have objected to similar pages in the past. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Definitive proof that Garamond Lethe and DGG aren't socks comes from one of the AfDs linked above: I don't think the DGG I know would have ever made this categorical statement. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please Drmies can you explain? I really don't understand your point.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, suggesting DGG is a sock (or a master) is beyond silly, so much so that I can't even come up with a witty simile. Second, the comment was "References (still) don't count towards notability." Perhaps this is shorthand for "these references (still) don't count towards notability", but having looked at the references I doubt that DGG, who knows academic publishing like few other people here, would have said that. So--have you taken back those suggestions yet? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please Drmies can you explain? I really don't understand your point.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I personally agree with you Drmies. In fact, I never thought and I also never suggested that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you did; at the SPI, for instance. It's unfortunate that Cornelius383's comments so frequently contradict Cornelius383's actions. Personally, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I might be the same person as DGG; it's even better than a previous incident on this page where I was accused of being PZ Myers. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. A portion of what I had to say about your behavior is written on my four points above. Please keep a more constructive approach and be less controversial. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you had any suggestions on who controls the army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets that !vote "keep" on all your articles at AfD. Who would want to do that? bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be better that you did it. Frankly you seem to be the most suitable person for such suggestions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you had any suggestions on who controls the army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets that !vote "keep" on all your articles at AfD. Who would want to do that? bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. A portion of what I had to say about your behavior is written on my four points above. Please keep a more constructive approach and be less controversial. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you did; at the SPI, for instance. It's unfortunate that Cornelius383's comments so frequently contradict Cornelius383's actions. Personally, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I might be the same person as DGG; it's even better than a previous incident on this page where I was accused of being PZ Myers. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I personally agree with you Drmies. In fact, I never thought and I also never suggested that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Moving forward
Garamond Lethe asked above what I wanted moving forward, and looking at the direction the discussion is taking that is a question which really does need to be addressed. I suppose my first step is going to be to end my tolerance for the use of primary sources, so I expect to cut down most of the major articles drastically based on their reliance on Sarkar's own writings. I don't know that we've gotten to the point of 1RR-style protection, but it would be nice to get some assurance from uninvolved admins that they aren't going to protect this material from the deletion/redaction it most roundly deserves. I notice that Abhidevananda hasn't responded at all here, which is a problem. I personally am not so concerned about the puppetry/canvassing issues since in the end they don't seem to be having much of an effect on the outcome of the AFDs where they figured most strongly, but I would really like to see some responses from the pro-Sarkar side that show they understand the rules and are willing to play by them. Otherwise I don't see how we are going to avoid arbcom. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- On Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory I've made a few attempts at a modest proposal that editors comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV in future, but the article's defenders have avoided the question completely. This is quite frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- From Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory, this is my statement on moving forward:
- Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. The consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR.
- The weight of consensus favors one side, so I think 1RR-style protection would be very useful in moving forward. Location (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- So that's a request for 1RR at Progressive Utilization Theory, Ananda Marga, Neohumanism... anything else? Garamond Lethet
c 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)- IMO, everything in Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, including the template itself, should be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let me ask a slightly different question then: which articles (other than the three I mentioned and the template) are so far outside policy that they need a full rewrite? I'd rather not preemptively apply 1RR to non-problematic articles. (I'm also wondering if a Sarkar wikiproject would be useful for coordination.) Garamond Lethet
c 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)- Those three articles appear to be the most problematic, but I think 1RR should apply to the entire "category". I'm happy to elaborate on this once we request Arbcom action on it. Location (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm hoping we can avoid arbcom but that's not necessarily a rational hope. Garamond Lethet
c 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm hoping we can avoid arbcom but that's not necessarily a rational hope. Garamond Lethet
- Those three articles appear to be the most problematic, but I think 1RR should apply to the entire "category". I'm happy to elaborate on this once we request Arbcom action on it. Location (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let me ask a slightly different question then: which articles (other than the three I mentioned and the template) are so far outside policy that they need a full rewrite? I'd rather not preemptively apply 1RR to non-problematic articles. (I'm also wondering if a Sarkar wikiproject would be useful for coordination.) Garamond Lethet
- IMO, everything in Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, including the template itself, should be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is the most ridiculous template I've seen (outside of J- and K-pop). Drmies (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda
I did notify Abhidevananda of this discussion, and as you can see he hasn't responded. Instead, over at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory he has simply been reduced to complaining about User:bobrayner's admittedly less-than-tactful edit summaries, as in these edits: [1] [2] [3]. This was after someone proposed what seemed to me to be a pretty decent summary taken from an unquestionably independent and secondary source: [4], a proposal which the pro-Sarkar side utterly ignored. Instead, Abhidevananda dropped a huge and essentially irrelevant 8kbyte wall of text (including a gratuitous image) on us: [5]. In the period leading up to the article being locked, he made almost no forward edits, instead repeatedly reverting bobrayner's attempts to cull the article of primary-sourced material (too many examples to list them all, but for example there's [6]). I can only conclude that he is intent on protecting an advocacy-laiden version of the article against any attempt to force it to conform to policy, and will bury us in walls of platitudinous text and nuisance quibbles about the behavior of now-frustrated editors in order to delay the inevitable. He is absolutely uncooperative and shows all the signs of being an irredeemable POV-warrior. I ask therefore that he be topic-banned from anything having to do with Sarkar including all articles about PROUT and Ananda Marga. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have to concur with this. Although Abhidevananda has always been polite, he has never been willing to edit cooperatively, and has blocked essentially every attempt to compromise on a more reasonable article. Thinking correctly I would be sympathetic to anyone adding information about small religious or related groups, he asked for my assistance, but has not been willing to follow it--he has not yet seemed to realize I am sympathetic to reasonable articles about such groups, but only reasonable articles. Others here are also sympathetic, but not to the sort of redundant articles he insists on writing. I am always reluctant to remove the principal editor for a specialized topic, but in this case I think the rest of the editors involved can do it justice without him. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I also concur. After 20 AfDs I don't have any reason to think that Abhidevananda understands the notability guidelines, and after weeks of page protection I don't have any confidence he understand that articles need to be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources. The Sarkar-related articles might be improved despite him, but I think the question here is whether a topic ban will happen now or after another two months of obstruction. Garamond Lethet
c 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC) - I am inclined to agree with the above editors. Would the implementation of 1RR – rather than topic ban – bring this under control yet allow him to contribute to the subject matter? Location (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to saddle the subject area with such a provision if it turns out that a couple of problem editors get topic-banned anyway and the editing conflicts disappear. Also I gather that 1RR restrictions work more for situations where there are more sharply focused points of disagreement. Abhidevananda is essentially trying to keep any of us from doing any editing at all; I suspect that he would end up trying to game a 1RR limit and send us back here for another round. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Although I think a 1RR would be immediately beneficial, I do agree that there is no need for 1RR if a topic-ban is in place. What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- The PROUT article has already been protected twice due to editwarring (and there has also been a little light editwarring on related articles); I don't see how 1RR would stop it getting locked up a third time, other than taking a few steps out of the revert-war. 1RR is not the answer because editors on both sides are still determined to revert edits that are "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- And then there is canvassing etc. to consider, 1RR would be very easy to game. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Sarkar-promoters are outweighed by the neutral editors at this point. A revert-war would be very brief in that Sarkar-promoters will quickly find themselves blocked in violation of 1RR if the neutral editors collectively take steps to enforce the consensus that has formed. That's my take on what should specifically be done right now. Alternatively, shit or get off the pot... there is lot of bitching about the Sarkar-promoters' editing behaviors but no one wants to open a WP:RFC/U or take it to WP:ARB/R. I responded to your initial Rfc but I don't intent to muddle through this indefinitely. Location (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't count on numerical superiority of neutral editors. None of the SPIs about suspicious editing patterns have been conclusive, which means we can't rule out similar behaviour in the future. Besides, Abhidevananda's position regarding the use of primary sources hasn't changed much since last November. Note the similarities between this discussion with an editor who has a vast experience of cleaning up Indian related articles and the ongoing discussion at Progressive Utilization Theory. In all likelihood 1RR won't help, we can of course try it. Before deciding to file a WP:ARB/R, taking a look at WP:ARBIND might help. These issues are not new to India related articles and standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIND might be an effective tool to deal with them. I am not sure whether they would apply to all Sarkar related articles though. Only an Arb can answer that. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't familiar with WP:ARBIND, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Do we need to file at WP:ARCA to find out if it would apply? Location (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. An informal query on an Arbcom member's talk page would do. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've left a note with User:Risker but I'm doubtful that WP:INDIA applies, since it was set up to deal with India/Pakistan conflicts. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:ARBIND is no longer restricted to India/Pakistan conflicts. It was amended in July 2012 to include "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- BTW: What part of WP:ARBIND is relevant to Abhidevananda's actions? I see that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 which appear to be similar to what we are dealing with here. Location (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Mangoe may have already seen this, but it appears that "conduct at Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the scope of discretionary sanctions" authorized by WP:ARBIND and that we "can reasonably bring an enforcement request against Abhidevananda". (See User talk:Risker#Need a quick Arb opinion.) Location (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:ARBIND is no longer restricted to India/Pakistan conflicts. It was amended in July 2012 to include "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've left a note with User:Risker but I'm doubtful that WP:INDIA applies, since it was set up to deal with India/Pakistan conflicts. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. An informal query on an Arbcom member's talk page would do. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't familiar with WP:ARBIND, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Do we need to file at WP:ARCA to find out if it would apply? Location (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't count on numerical superiority of neutral editors. None of the SPIs about suspicious editing patterns have been conclusive, which means we can't rule out similar behaviour in the future. Besides, Abhidevananda's position regarding the use of primary sources hasn't changed much since last November. Note the similarities between this discussion with an editor who has a vast experience of cleaning up Indian related articles and the ongoing discussion at Progressive Utilization Theory. In all likelihood 1RR won't help, we can of course try it. Before deciding to file a WP:ARB/R, taking a look at WP:ARBIND might help. These issues are not new to India related articles and standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIND might be an effective tool to deal with them. I am not sure whether they would apply to all Sarkar related articles though. Only an Arb can answer that. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- The PROUT article has already been protected twice due to editwarring (and there has also been a little light editwarring on related articles); I don't see how 1RR would stop it getting locked up a third time, other than taking a few steps out of the revert-war. 1RR is not the answer because editors on both sides are still determined to revert edits that are "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Although I think a 1RR would be immediately beneficial, I do agree that there is no need for 1RR if a topic-ban is in place. What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to saddle the subject area with such a provision if it turns out that a couple of problem editors get topic-banned anyway and the editing conflicts disappear. Also I gather that 1RR restrictions work more for situations where there are more sharply focused points of disagreement. Abhidevananda is essentially trying to keep any of us from doing any editing at all; I suspect that he would end up trying to game a 1RR limit and send us back here for another round. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Does the page protection on PROUT come off automatically today? Garamond Lethet
c 01:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- My mistake. I found the log and protection expires at 13:00-ish. 05:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Abhidevananda has indicated that he does not acknowledge the consensus that has formed and may revert to his previous version. diff He has been made aware of this discussion again and I have warned him that he may be subject to the measures outlined above (i.e. the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBIND). diff Location (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Add tag bombing to the list: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Location (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC) last edited 06:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
- Hello,
- I would like to report a new user with non-constructive/disruptive behavior (mass adding (WP:SPA) of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE) on articles related to Hejaz, replacing "Hejaz" by "Tihamah" on more than 100 articles (!). Even if many users asked him to stop that, as it can be seen on his talk page, he refuses and persists on these edits (referencing them by a book written in 1228).
- Since this user doesn't seem to be ready to accept what other users ask him (i.e:consensus) nor to respect Wikipedia policies, I ask the admins to do the necessary to prevent him from continuing in that way.
- Thanks in advance
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I do not understand the reason behind this request. I was (removing wrong information, adding sourced information, and moving some parts of some articles to other articles that are related to the information). Omar-toons however was undoing all of my edits clearly without even reading some of them even though some of them were about other topics. The resources I have put are verifiable and genuine about this geographic matter and all of them cited and differentiated between the two neighboring regions of Hejaz and Tihamah. There is a huge misunderstanding in wikipedia that Mecca is part of Hejaz and that originated from Kingdom of Hejaz that became an independent state in 1916. Before that, all the sources regarded Mecca as being in the region of Tihamah whereas Medina is regarded to be in the region of Hejaz. Wikipedia is about sourced and true information and not misled information that originated from the name of this very modern state relative to the age of those cities. All Islamic and Arabic sources before that differentiated between the two regions. I am correcting this mistake in wikipedia citing these resources that are from multiple scholars in different centuries.
Omar-toons however does not like the sources so he deleted the information I added with the sources in a move that I think against wikipidea rules. I have been in discussion with other users and I have clarified the matter ti them and submitted the sources and all of them accepted that and accepted the sourced information. However, this user unfortunately insists on undoing my edits. I ask you please to review my edits closely. I have not removed sourced information from any articles, and I was not replacing Tihamah with Hejaz everywhere. I replaced it when appropriate and you can see that I left the mention of Hejaz in most of the articles I edited. Please see the article of Tihamah that I improved. In the article of Hejaz, there were some parts that talked about Tihamah and some of its cities so I moved those sections to the article of Tihamah and I left the parts talking about Hejaz in the article of Hejaz. Thank you for your cooperation.--LePatro (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- The edits that you were edit-warring in were totally unnecessary. I'm pretty sure we've all been through the sources as part of the numerous debates about these articles, and if the information was wrong, we'd have found it then. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately in aggressive editing, Omar-toons is continuing to delete the sources I put in the articles. He is continuing to delete the mention of the region of Tihamah from all articles. He wants to remove it from everywhere in Wikipedia just because he does not know about the region. All gepgraphic Arabic books cites the difference between the two regions of Tihamah and Hejaz. Even today, people still know the difference in Arabia. Mecca is geographically in Tihamah while Medina is in Hejaz. When someone talks about Mecca, the region associated with it in articles should be Tihamah not Hejaz. In fact, Tihamah is one of the names of Mecca. I find it very annoying to see the resources of the information I provide to wikipedia get deleted in the blink of an eye just because a user does not like what they say. --LePatro (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Help! Any admin to consider this request? Cuz' the user persists on editing that way--Omar-toons (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that the other users discussed the issue but they did not delete the sources. Omar-toons is insisting on deleting the sources (and deleting the mention of Tihamah from all the articles). I have listed multiple sources from several centuries BUT he is trying to imply that it is one source only. He does not have sources that contradicts this geographic view with the same old background so he is trying to say that old is bad. He is just deleting the sources because they contradict his understanding about the issue. He even undid some of my edits that have nothing to do with this issue (He is really engaging in a very aggressive and annoying manner unfortunately). I also do not see his point about the sources being from multiple centuries ago, does not that prove the idea especially that there are no contradicting geographic sources ?
To summarize the discussion to the admins:
All he is saying is that he knows Hejaz and does not know Tihamah. He says that Hejaz is more known than Tihamah so let's keep saying that all the cities of Hejaz and Tihamah are in the Hejaz only and delete the mention of Tihamah.
What I am saying is that geographically from centuries ago up until now, Arabia is divied from the east to west into: Najd, Hejaz, and Tihamah. Cities like Medina and Taif are in Hejaz wheras cities like Mecca and Jeddah are in the region of Tihamah. I have proved that with multiple books that talks about the georgaphy and history of Arabia from different centuries.
The user then responded by deleting the sources, undoing every edit I made, starting edit war, and now implying that all I put was one source even though that is NOT true. I ask you please to review his edits deleting my sources even though I put pictures of some of the sources on his talk page so that he can read it. Thank you. --LePatro (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can someone please do something about this guy. He's running around the whole 'pedia pretty much changing almost every reference to Hejaz to Tihama despite being asked to stop by several users. It's going to be a real pain to sort the mess he's creating out. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
What you are saying is simply NOT true. I was not replacing all Hejaz mentions with Tihamah. I was replacing it whenever there was a mention about a city in Tihamah that is referred to be in Hejaz. I was also adding the region of Tihamah to some articles when there was only the mention Hejaz representing the whole western side of the Arabian peninsula. I added multiple sources from different time periods. Very recent western books are not familiar with the geography of the region as much as the Arabic scholars who talked about it and differentiated between Hejaz and Tihamah regions. Insisting on removing Tihamah from wikipedia because people know hejaz more is going to continue this geographic mistake. And I will provide some modern sources from geographic scholars in some of the Saudi universities that differentiated between the two regions and referred to Mecca as being within the Tihamah region geographically. --LePatro (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is another example of Omar-toons deleting sourced statements because he does not like what the souces say. One of the sources he delete is a very notable work of Ibn Hisham !! --LePatro (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- So what's happening with this? Is any sort of mediation taking place? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
More Echigo mole socks, now disrupting SPI report
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
- Aquisextian (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Fruit pastille (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Intestinal villus (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Actiniform (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 46.65.53.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 86.183.125.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
There have been a number of new socks of which Aquisextian is the latest obvious troll sock, taking the user name from the Latin name for Aix-en-Provence and in their second and third edits trolling in the SPI report about mathematics beyond their competence (a recent article Borel-de Siebenthal theory that I created on Lie groups and symmetric spaces ). All their edits are typical of the community banned user Echigo mole. Please could someone block these sockpuppets and semiprotect the SPI page to stop non-autoconfirmed accounts trolling there. The other accounts are described in on the SPI page listed above. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked the first two accounts as obvious socks as I was making this report. Since Intestinal villus has edited the same articles as Fruit pastille (including the mathematics articles), please could that account be blocked too and the SPI page semiprotected? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Semiprotected the SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I know post-close comments are now out of fashion, but as someone who has regretted their rather boring username from the start, some of those sock names are just boss. I'm very tempted to ask how I can change mine to "Hydraulic hat" or "Keynesian beauty contest". Chortle - "Keynesian beauty contest" - I LOL'd.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CHU if you really want to. Blackmane (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- how about User:Keynes to the Kingdom? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- User:The Emperor's new Keynes? Blackmane (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- how about User:Keynes to the Kingdom? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Widescreen and Civility
Widescreen (talk · contribs) has recently made some abrasive remarks over a dispute in psychoanalysis.
- (diff) Sorry Snowded, he got us! Theres a "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" edited by Dr William F. Williams as article in Wikipedia. Let's pack up and go home. This argumentation is so cleare I can't found any arguments anymore. Thats it! He pulped us.
When I asked for an apology he responded with another insult:
- (diff) It's your decision what you add here at wikipedia. You have to bear the response. Particularly when you are so undiscerning. (my emphasis)
Widescreen has also had a history of personal threats and other uncivil remarks:
- (diff) Sorry, I'm not interested in your faux-indignation. I called your arguments sophistry. Thats not a personal attack. I think such sophistry damage the contents of our articles. Calm down and try to answer my critic, or I will revert you.
- (diff) CartoonDiablo has been clearly violtaing WP:BEHONEST, WP:NOSOPHISTRY; WP:DON'TFABRICATEARGUMENTS; WP:KNOWWHENYOUAREWRONG; WP:NEVERTRYTOFOOLOTHERS and of course WP:NPOV. Diffs are known.
- (diff) You talking such a nonsense. That's not bearable.
- (diff) Sorry, but this dispute can't be resolved, because it isn't a dispute among different authors. It's a dispute among CartoonDiablo and reality.
He has been told by various editors to stop before (diff)(diff)(diff) and has not done so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I'm a bad user and CD is a commendable one. I have no intention whatsoever to follow this siding. --WSC ® 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have had dealings with both of these editors at the Psychoanalysis article. I have to say that each of them has a long way to go before they could be called collegial, collaborative and co-operative. However neither has, in my opinion, yet done anything blockworthy and there is no admin action justified or necessary in this case at the moment. I hope it remains that way. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- NB: I should point out I'm WP:INVOLVED at this article and won't be taking any admin action. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree things haven't been cooperative but this is beyond the pale, I asked in good faith as have other users to stop and he continues to so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just noticed Widescreen's comment here, am I the only person that thinks that's kind of insulting especially right when its in here? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, these comments above are pretty far on the wrong side of the WP:CIVIL, and it's the WP:NPAborhood they're residing in. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just noticed Widescreen's comment here, am I the only person that thinks that's kind of insulting especially right when its in here? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Intemperate, and in a domain that we've historically had major problems with primarily due to our reluctance to enforce the civility policy (pseudoscience), but not quite bright-line territory. It would be best if someone had a quiet word (as you've just suggested on your own talk). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Kim Dent Brown advised me to take this diskussion more seriously. I have to admit that I'm not in the mood to discuss anything with user CartoonDiablo. His last impact in article Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Family Therapy and Psychoanalysis, and some peculiar contributions of him, ends with a request for arbritration. If you want a insight in CartoonDiablos proceed, have a look at it: [11]. I think it's nearly impossible to co-oporate with him in those POV-cases. If you want a insight of his technical way of discussion, please have a look at this. I don't know, but I hope it makes it more comprehensible why I'm not delighted if the user have another issue to citicize any article.
I hope you will not allege me PAs when I say he trys to push POV in favour of his personal hero Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is one of the founder of cognitiv psychology. Futher I hope you will not allege me PA because of the use of irony. Futher I think I follow a scholarly way of discussion which includes to criticize the style and the kind of argumentation.
Futher I have to say that I think, CartoonDiablo has finally good intentions. But his expert knowledge and, abouve all, his way of discussing, is at the border. It makes it impossible to have a exchange of arguments. --WSC ® 06:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've just read through the talk pages at CBT and Psychoanalysis and I agree with CD that your tone, particularly toward him, but also toward others such as Misty Morn, is too often belligerant and belittling. If you know what I'm referring to, could you please cut it right out? It poisons the atmosphere. I'm also unimpressed by CD's behaviour on those pages, but his tendentiousness and warring seems to be being somewhat constrained by community processes, while your disrespectful engagement with others continues unabated.
- The examples of your style of discourse cited above by CD, and many others I encountered today, do not represent good scholarly discussion. Insulting your opponent and ridiculing or mocking the quality of their rhetoric is not valid argument. Refuting their argument is all that is needed. Finally, completely avoid irony in internet arguments.. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand your concerns. But I won't handle someone with kid gloves, who trys to fool me frequently. If someone on the street trys to fool you, you will get peeved also. Ain't it more abusive if someone trys to fool the other or trys to trick him? You said it's poison to the atmosphere if I finde distinct words on an topic. What about the atmosphere if someone trys to fool others? Or, thats the worst case, if someone trys to push POV in articles by using dreadful arguments? Or goes to the noticeboards to avoid a objectiv discussion?
- I understand your concerns but that doesn't mean a atmosphere of constructive debate only means phrases of civility. It contains fairness, honesty, and in our case, fundamentals of scholarly working. If someone brakes this rules you can't cooperate. To allege me my incivility after other fundamental rules being broken by others, is unfair. The problem is, there is only a rule like CIVIL, not for HONEST or FAIR. --WSC ® 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- The best way to deal with somebody who you believe to be misrepresenting things deliberately is to politely express the facts in a manner that leaves them scratching their heads unsure how to counter you, not to spew bile at them. Civility is a two-way street; it doesn't matter if incivility was "provoked" because somebody else is violating policy, we don't make exceptions on a tit-for-tat basis. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous, Widescreen is being uncivil in a discussion about his behavior. This has been a recurring problem with something like 5 editors telling him to stop up until yesterday. I suggest a short 24 hour ban, and I realize things are tense at the psychoanalysis page but to assuage fears of edit warring I'll promise not to do any bold edits for the duration of a ban. An administrator can hold me to that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- (Involved editor comment.) You mean a WP:BLOCK, not a WP:BAN, I think CD. But blocks are preventive, not punitive. And WSC isn't actively editing at the moment so there is no activity which a 24-hour block would prevent. A block of the type you describe would be symbolic only, and we don't do that. But I'm glad you've specified an admin action you'd like to see - that is at least what this board is for. Of course it's not up to me, that's just my two pennies' worth. But uninvolved admins can make their own minds up and respond in their turn. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous, Widescreen is being uncivil in a discussion about his behavior. This has been a recurring problem with something like 5 editors telling him to stop up until yesterday. I suggest a short 24 hour ban, and I realize things are tense at the psychoanalysis page but to assuage fears of edit warring I'll promise not to do any bold edits for the duration of a ban. An administrator can hold me to that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The best way to deal with somebody who you believe to be misrepresenting things deliberately is to politely express the facts in a manner that leaves them scratching their heads unsure how to counter you, not to spew bile at them. Civility is a two-way street; it doesn't matter if incivility was "provoked" because somebody else is violating policy, we don't make exceptions on a tit-for-tat basis. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- This uninvolved admin agrees with all of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Bill Browder
Bill Browder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article appears to be subject of heavy point of view pushing.[12] Could a few uninvolved editors please take a look. I am especially concerned about the allegation of plagiarism,[13] and the attempts to include primary sourced material from dodgy sources.[14] Jehochman Talk 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note that this article was the subject of an ANI discussion last month, "Borderline legal threat". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- That was a different issue, that was done pro-Browder and I reported it at this point we have the other side of the coin with BLP issues being perpetrated by USER:Plutonius1965. Relevant diffs [[15]], a revert with a warning [[16]] which he then basically put it all back in in a series of edits which I reverted [[17]] he reverted again [[18]]. I have placed a warning on his page regarding edit warring as this is an edit war that he is spreading out over time. He responded by telling me I was edit warring and placed a warning on my page (apparently English isn't his first language and he doesn't understand the sequence 1, 2, 3.) This has been an ongoing issue Jehochman, First Light and now myself have raised concerns with his edits which are being completely ignored. I am suggesting that we revert back to the version favored by First Light and protect the page fully or a block be issued to Plutonius who at this point seems to be the sole issue at the article. I am notifying Plutonius to this thread. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Plutonius1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Plutonius seems to be a single purpose account, very determined to present a certain point of view (anti-Browder, pro-Putin). The fervor of Plutonius' editing seems to reflect some sort of strong personal preference or perhaps a business connection to Browder's opponents. See also Magnitsky Affair. This is a hot geopolitical conflict between the US and Russia. Agents for either side showing up at Wikipedia to spin these articles would not be too surprising. Jehochman Talk 11:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jenochman, thank you for opening this thread. Let us keep this discussion constructive. Mutual credibility must be reinstated. There is indeed a small group of active editors involved in the update of the indicated article. All inputs are valuable. However, there is a number of outstanding issues which indeed require resolution for the article to be fair and balanced. We might have (and we do in fact) different opinions, but only this diversity can make the article genuinely accurate, irrespective of the opinions of specific editors that Wikipedia strongly discourages to express in the articles.
- The issues are as follows:
- 1. Admissibility of certain sources. Specifically, Russian-speaking sources. I have put this issue on the talk page. Certain editors like Jenochman believe that ALL Russian media sources are government-controlled and are "dodgy"– standard weasel words to limit the availability of a balanced coverage. I disagreed on the following accounts:
- Independent Russian sources DO exist. Example is Russian daily Vedomosti which is a joint venture with Dow Jones and Financial Times.
- Primary sources (such as owned by the government) MAY be used according to Wikipedia policies. For the current case, the example is the BBC-like government-owned Russian media source called RT and the press-release of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, informing about the court case currently in Russia. While both a primary sources according to Wikipedia, they MAY be used with caution and with a proper reference. This is exactly what I did.
- 1. Admissibility of certain sources. Specifically, Russian-speaking sources. I have put this issue on the talk page. Certain editors like Jenochman believe that ALL Russian media sources are government-controlled and are "dodgy"– standard weasel words to limit the availability of a balanced coverage. I disagreed on the following accounts:
- As the issue is still pending on the talk page, no further attempts to include links to Russian sources were made.
- 2. Inclusion of information from reliable sources of what has been asserted by the Russian sources and not supported by other editors. This amendment concerns reference to handicapped war veterans used by Browder and charges of his attempts to get hold of the financial information of Gazprom. Both pieces have been included with reference to Spiegel Online and Associated Press. Hell in a Bucket DELETED both links on neutrality grounds.
- 3. Plagiarism. There is one paragraph which is a COPY-PASTE from New York Times. Because it is a plagiarism, I included quotation marks on the parts which have been directly taken from the article to make it plagiarism-free and invited to paraphrase the paragraph. Hell in a Bucket reverted the changes. Specifically, he used non-neutral words like "stolen" which were not in the original article. Furthermore, the paragraphs mention the words of Firestone without quotation marks in Bucket's version.
- On the behaviour of Jennochman and Hell in a Bucket:
- Hell in a Bucket reverted my updates THREE TIMES and posted an announcement that I was involved in an edit war which is unfortunately unsubstantiated. Please note that he did not discuss this on the talk page. Please also note that all my updates are original changes, with reverts only when it comes to deleting my contribution. Bucket's updates are reverts only.
- Jennochman continues his egregious personal attacks. In place of focusing on the substance of the discussion, he continues his unfounded subtle accusations that I am somehow related to the case (e.g. pro-Russian government, pro-Putin, "sub rose PR campaign", geopolitics (?) etc.). Not mentioning that he is a professional internet technology consultant [19] who might be paid for his work on Browder’s page. But because this is a mere assumption, I have the dignity not to push that point further unlike Jenochman's comments about my person.
- My only interest in Browder’s article is that I speak more than one foreign language and I am particularly sensitive when there is a one-language bias. It is very sad that Jennochman, speaking only English, does not have the benefit of understanding cultural differences. As a gesture of courtesy, I was trying to evade this point but Jenochman seems to insist. I kindly invite Jenochman to adhere to the wikipedia netiquette.
- To conclude, to resolve the present issue, we must agree on the three points above and develop a constructive and mutually respectful attitude towards each other.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted [[20]] and also [[21]], the sequence is 1, 2 the number 3 proceeds that unless of course you are counting [[22]] this as a revert which this was actually me fixing my own error. Jehochman is a pretty level headed admin, i don't often agree with him but one thing I can say as can any number of other people I have not seen him lose his cool or violate WP:NPA. Your sandbox leaves telling info on the way you lean politically which is another reason we have concerns [[23]] about why you are here. Having a belief one way or another or a supporter of Putin is not important but the way you express that belief or write it here does. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are again beside the point. Sandbox is a private page for training. You again shift the discussion in the direction of personalities. Incidentally, I have the impression that you are not located in Colorado. The timing of your comments strongly suggests that you are not located where you claim to be... --Plutonius1965 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're right I'm not in Colorado, I'm from Colorado as my page states. I don't actually have it listed where I live, as you've raised the point, I am happy to answer I am currently in Hong Kong. That's an interesting way to introduce a non-sequiter to the concerns made by your edits. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- minor Note: Plutonius1965 - the proper spelling for the user is: "Jehochman" (with an H), and not Jenochman (with an N). You can always copy and paste from a sig. if in doubt. — Ched : ? 15:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Jehochman and Hell in a Bucket, that Plutonius1965 is a single purpose account with the sole agenda of putting the subject of the article in as bad a light as possible, and portraying the Russian charges against him as legitimate. For example, he edited the article to claim that Browder "fled" the country,[24] when reliable sources state that he "was expelled from Russia in 2005 and declared a threat to national security"[25] and "stripped of his Russian visa in 2005 on unspecified national-security grounds."[26] There is a drastic disconnect between how Russian sources describe the situation, and how reliable western sources describe it ("Macabre Show Trial"[27] is typical of the western sources). Because this is a Biography of a Living Person we must use only the highest quality reliable sources. Consensus has been against the Russian language sources that show undying loyalty to Putin and the government's case.
- I'm not convinced that we're seeing state backed editing of Wikipedia by Plutonious1965, even though his accusation that Hell in a Bucket is not really in Colorado is rather strange. But clearly the Russian state is the main party interested in swaying public opinion about a trial that is trying two people in absentia— one because he is dead (murdered by prison authorities, according to many western sources vs. dying of natural causes in his cell, according to those Russian sources) and the other because they ordered him out of the country. This article would be greatly helped by a few more editors who understand WP:BLP. First Light (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand why he made that leap, English isn't his first language. Nothing wrong with writing in the English Pedia when it's not your first language but it is pretty apparent sometimes. I teach conversational English in HK so I've learned to see some of those clues. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Ched for the remark on Jehochman.
- I confirm that English is not my first language and I appreciate any comments on grammar and wording. I agree that the word "fled" was not entirely correct in that particular case[28]. However, the second part of the change concerns details of the investigation against Browder with reference to Russian sources. Because there is currently no agreement on the eligibility of the mentioned primary sources, the point was not pushed further for the moment.
- Indeed, I have registered relatively recently. However, claiming that my account is a single-purpose one and that I have an association to any party in a conflict is unfortunately a wrong accusation. I confirm some of my modifications were not perfect. However, the most recent modifications that served as a ground for the current case [29], [30] and which Hell in a Bucket reverted [31], [32] are fair, properly sourced and provide additional details. Der Spiegel and Associated Press are respected secondary sources. Furthermore, Hell in a Bucket in his update [33] supported a COPY/PASTE from the New York Times: it is enough to check the original text. Hell in a Bucket, could you please clarify why you continued to insist on including this copyright-protected passage in place of paraphrasing it?
- The Colorado remark came after Hell in a Bucket fiddled with my PRIVATE sandbox and felt confident to conclude on my political affiliation, although I have no connection to the Russian government AT ALL. Jehochman, Hell in a Bucket and First Light accuse me of promoting a particular view. However, what is seen is that by fighting for the status quo and not willing to consider constructively all possible reliable sources, they try to actively promote the pro-Browder side of the story which is not entirely correct.
- I again kindly call the three mentioned editors to stop their accusations and work on the substance of the case. The involvement of other editors would be indeed very much appreciated.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You're sandbox is not private, any editor can view it as well as any contribution you make on this site. I think this saga is now complete, I've been accused of being pro-russian and now pro-Browder. I asked the question on the talkpage the ramifications made when Jimbo Wales stated that Russian sources were not reliable. I think it raises a disturbing precedent however it is the consensus that because of the lack of freedom of press from the gov. in Russian we could not use those. Everyone, myself included has to bend over for consensus. I have reverted you because the version you are attempting to enforce is not neutral. Would you care to highlight the particular part that you claim was plagiarized? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure how to make it. The part put in quotation marks should be either paraphrased, kept as it is or the paragraph has to be deleted.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
insults
I don't think I have to hear such insults [34] for moving the article Vercelli back to its correct name, after User:Gixz had moved it unilaterally to some obscure local dialect name. noclador (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Someone else beat me to warn them, but I added a stronger version below them. At this stage, I suggest waiting to see if they get the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would ask this, please go politely and explain a little bit about the naming conventions here, including a single link to the policy on it, so they will understand that you have a policy based reason. Maybe, just maybe, that will help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and I added the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template to their talk page. You need to remember to notify anyone when you bring them up here at ANI. The template and notice is at the top of this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Dennis for your help and advice; and I am sorry I forgot to notify the user in question about this ANI post. I will remember this in the future. And I actually do not want to carry this discussion any further, therefore I hope the user will refrain from such language in the future. Furthermore I will also leave a link at the Vercelli talk page to the naming convention. Thank you and with best regards, noclador (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Noclador forgot to mention it, but he insulted me first. I don't see why I have to hear his such insults [35] for moving the article Varsei to its correct name in the first place. Gixz (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way Noclador, when you say "some obscure local dialect name", er ... it might be obscure for you, but it's not to the inhabitants of the city whose language it is. And did I really have to come to Wikipedia, of all places, to hear the native language of a city of 47000 people derided as "obscure"? Just who do you think you are? (Anyway it's *the* local dialect name, there's only one of them.) Gixz (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see an insult in his edit summary. I do see you getting unnecessarily defensive. Maybe "obscure" wasn't the best choice of words, but keep in mind that English words have different meanings to different people, via WP:BIAS, so it is best to listen to what the merits of his argument are, try to give a little benefit of the doubt (ie: assume good faith) and calmly discuss the matter with him. It isn't always easy, but getting bent out of shape rarely brings you anything but pain at Wikipedia. You might also note that if you think someone is rude to you, that does not mean you can be rude back. Even if "obscure" offended you, that doesn't justify telling someone they are full of bullshit. That only turns the issue into a battlefield. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) We're not as concerned about what the inhabitants of a city call it -- or else our articles would be at "Moskva" and "Wien" instead of "Moscow" and "Vienna" -- as we are about whether the city has a common name in English. If "Vercelli" is the commonly used name of the city for English-language speakers, then that is what we use for our article. If there is no common English name, then I suppose the question would be up for grabs, but if the majority of Italian speakers call it "Vercelli" and only those of a specific local dialect use another name (even if it's the dialect spoken in the city itself), then we should probably go with the more widely used name. In case, these are questions for the article's talk page, not for AN/I, since admins have no special powers regarding content questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, BMK and DB are right - there are plenty of examples of Italian locations that have commonly accepted Italian or English names and additional local-dialect names too. I spend plenty of time working on 17th century Italian stuff and come across these all the time. Older sources often use local names as a hat-tip to locals and it's a pain trying to work out what they're talking about. But most contemporary sources consistently use common names. German language places have the same issues, especially those that changed hands several times a century. But most of that is beside the point - the naming conventions are fairly clear and Vercelli is obviously more commonly used than Versei. If I find a place that is commonly called one thing but referred to by locals/others are something else, I create a redirect. Redirects are cheap. That way you can type v.e.r.s.e.i. into the search bar to your heart's content and still end up at the same place. Stalwart111 05:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Checking, it seems that all the potential local dialect names are already redirects, so unless there's some compelling reason otherwise, I think that this report can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Minor nitpick but I think the allegation is the local dialect name is Varsei [36] although Gixz seems to be having problems with that themselves [37]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, BMK and DB are right - there are plenty of examples of Italian locations that have commonly accepted Italian or English names and additional local-dialect names too. I spend plenty of time working on 17th century Italian stuff and come across these all the time. Older sources often use local names as a hat-tip to locals and it's a pain trying to work out what they're talking about. But most contemporary sources consistently use common names. German language places have the same issues, especially those that changed hands several times a century. But most of that is beside the point - the naming conventions are fairly clear and Vercelli is obviously more commonly used than Versei. If I find a place that is commonly called one thing but referred to by locals/others are something else, I create a redirect. Redirects are cheap. That way you can type v.e.r.s.e.i. into the search bar to your heart's content and still end up at the same place. Stalwart111 05:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I thought someone had protected the article but it seems not - the edit-warring continues. Would someone like to dispense appropriate warnings? The back-and-forth seems completely unproductive. An RFC might be in order here, to find consensus on the content itself. Stalwart111 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Dennis, maybe I'm just looking at it wrong or something, but it looks like the edit by Gixz was made in response to this one by Noclador. I don't think "obscure" is what offended him; if someone said a move I made "is major BS" I'd be a little miffed about it too. Am I just reading it wrong or something? - SudoGhost 04:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've WP:BOLDly reverted to the WP:WRONGVERSION and full-protected the page for three days so this can be hashed out at the article talk page over a nice pot of vermicelli. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- And on that basis, I've summarised what I interpreted to be the main points of contention in an informal RFC in the hopes that editors can resolve each issue in turn within The Bushranger's 3-day timeframe. Stalwart111 08:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Edits and discussions unproductive and disruptive editing User:Jfeise
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jfeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to block efforts to improve and add information to International Technological University. I am operating under undisclosed COI as a representative for the university in the entry. Regardless of how my approach is with Jfeise, he persists in keeping any additions from being made. It is an uphill battle for any additions, and he always labels everything I propose as advertising. Jfeise continues to rely on the fact that I am operating under undisclosed COI as his argument knowing that it is a gray area, however, I am doing my best to be be neutral, and receptive. His responses are never productive, and he always goes back to the same points of "sockpuppetry" (which I'm contacting the admin that passed judgement to explain the situation, and will be happy to address if necessary), or advertising. Most recently, ITU received accreditation, and therefore, we would like to add the fact and expand upon our wikipedia entry to reflect that information. In accordance to wikipedia best practices, I post the proposed content onto the talk page, however, Jfeise is always quick to tear it down rather than suggest improvements. He is quick to label it as advertising, revert the changes without discussion, and carry on in a non-productive manner. I try to have a reasonable discussion with him, but he adds nothing new and keeps going on about unrelated incidents: Removing content without warning; another example is he reverted a change after only 5 min. . For the second example, the content was posted taking into consideration Jfeise's concerns of the neutrality, but still he continued his comments about sockpuppetry and advertising with no positive contribution. I hope that some administrators can help take notice, and offer some assistance. Ituhubert (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not surprisingly, Ituhubert misrepresents the issues. I am reverting his advertising on that page, but there are lots of constructive additions and changes that I have no problems with, so Ituhubert's assertion that I "persist in keeping any additions from being made" is simply untrue. Again, the reverts I have made on that article had to do with advertisements. jfeise (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, the the user Ituhubert has previously operated a sock, which had harassed me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive. Recently, the same style of harassment was posted on my talk page from an IP (Special:Contributions/207.204.229.209,) and the same IP also removed content from the article in question, which was reverted first by me, and then by another editor. Yet, Ituhubert only attacks me, which looks like yet another harassment in the previous style. jfeise (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you view the talkpage [38], you'll see that the dialogue almost always goes to Jfeise referring to my operating under undisclosed COI, or to the sockpuppetry investigation, he seems to completely ignore any assumptions of good faith, and constantly labels the content as advertising. It's like talking to a broken record pretty much, and makes progress a tiresome and frustrating experience. I understand that statements should be backed and referenced, but constantly having to respond to allegations without any forward movement seems pointless. Regarding the sockpuppetry, as I have mentioned, there was someone from the same university that was found committing the violations - this person was asked immediately to cease and desist. I cannot control the actions of those that are around me, and even less so online.
- I have never harassed or attacked Jfeise, nor have I asked anyone else harass him in any way. The sockpuppetry investigation is inaccurate. Instead I've put all of my efforts into discussing things and working towards a mutual conclusion. Regarding his reverts, he does not discuss it on talkpage, and when he does it always goes back to the same two points: Undisclosed COI and Sockpuppetry. I could understand if the long discussions led to more progress, however, it's always the same song. Ituhubert (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- The sockpuppetry was real. It was found by Wikipedia administrators to be sockpuppetry, and the sock accounts got blocked indef. You obviously did not consider the findings inaccurate at that time. And you need to learn that advertising has no place on Wikipedia. Please put your advertising elsewhere. And stop harassing people who clean up advertising. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, even Jimbo has said that those with COI should not be directly editing the articles that they have COI on - merely suggesting changes on the article talkpage to obtain consensus ... declaring COI does not absolve you from it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have suggested changes on the article many times, however, the dialogue is always overshadowed with Jfeise's comments. I understand the gray area of COI, but Wikipedia policies do not specify that editors with a COI are not allowed, only advised not to: [39]. Now that I am more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I am sure to post my content on the talk page before just blatantly making it public. However, every time I propose content, this is the type of responses that Jfeise offers:
“ | I agree there's no need to bring up the sockpuppetry here, and the focus should be on content. I have updated the "Student Services" information to sound more neutral: The Student and Career Services Center supports students in identifying and planning for internships with local and national hi-tech companies. Such internships are an integral part of ITU’s educational program.[14] ITU’s Good Neighbor program is the university discount program for students and staff of the university. [15]. Jfeise, which parts do you think are inappropriate, and how can I improve it? Ituhubert (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please keep advertising off this page. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
” |
- If the purpose of having other editors comment on the talk page is to discuss improvements, then I don't see how this comment and other comments like...
“ | I understand your concern, and I've done my best to explain to an admin regarding the accusation of sockpuppetry. I hope that rather than using the talkpage to dispute unrelated details to this article, that you may instead provide suggestions on how to improve the removed content. You may e-mail me from my user page if you would like to find out more regarding the sockpuppetry investigation. You can see from my past activity that I do openly operate under undisclosed coi, and hope that you also realize that in our interactions I have done my best to act in good faith with a neutral point of view. I appreciate any suggestions on improving or changes if anything I post seems biased. Ituhubert (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, your sockpuppet Orientalsoul, quite frankly, did not act in good faith, in particular concerning me. As for emailing you, I won't. If you have something to say regarding the sockpuppetry investigation, please do it in the open. As of now, I strongly suggest you hold off on any edits of this article. You are having a conflict of interest. jfeise (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
” |
- Interesting that you copy from a conversation from July 2012, which was around the time when your sockpuppet OrientalSoul attacked me. It is obviously you who is trying to derail the conversation and going off-topic. It is obviously you who is doing disruptive edits. I have told you lots of times to keep advertising and promotional material off the page. Yet you continue to post advertising and promotional material in blatant disregard of the COI policies. When that gets pointed out to you, you attack me, and post a bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, Jfeise, we're only replaying what is already on our talkpage here. I have never attacked you, nor have I asked anyone else to attack you. I had often hoped that rather than you telling me my content is advertising and promotional that you would offer a rewrite or suggest a rewrite of your own. Every time my expectations were shot as soon as the mention of "sock puppetry" came about in your reply. I do appreciate comments like:
“ | The last half-sentence, starting with "making ITU the first WASC accredited" is, sorry to say, completely vacuous. In the text about CSU Fullerton that you quote, there is no reference to the accreditation agency at all. Accreditation by a recognized accreditation agency is what matters, not which one. Also, if you limit things arbitrarily, like region, accreditation agency, etc., you can always come up with "being the first." First on the block, first on the street, comes to mind. And finally, quoting from ITU's press release doesn't make things true to begin with. jfeise (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | ” |
- Though there is some good points, I took those, and responded.. then the next comment:
“ | Since you quote the CalState Fullerton Wikipedia page, CSUF is also the only university in Fullerton that offers doctoral degrees. Yet, that is not listed on the Wikipedia page for CSUF. Similarly, this is not noteworthy for ITU. And I suggest you stop trying to bully me. Your sockpuppet OrientalSoul seems to have gone back to that as well, under an IP address. jfeise (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | ” |
- Oh, and selectively quoting from the talk page is counterproductive to begin with. I am sure the admins know how to get to the talk page, and they can read the whole context there. The bottom line is that your recent proposed change was not noteworthy, not sourced, and promotional material. That's why I opposed it. The modified change was only marginally better, but it still was promotional material. That's why I reverted it. You have since made some changes that were not promotional, and I am happy with that. You need to understand that promotional material does not belong on Wikipedia, and you need to understand that you can't threaten and harass people who revert promotional material. ANd this whole discussion doesn't belong on ANI, anyway. Discuss this on the article's talk page. jfeise (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at Orientalsoul’s contribs and saw 2 places where he posted to Jfeise's talk page. [40] & [41]. Just for clarity, are these the sock attacks you are referring to? Ditch ∝ 18:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not to speak out of turn, but, yes, Orientalsoul is the user that I have been charged with as a sock puppet. Not to go into too much detail, but I think it's necessary - I would like to clarify that Orientalsoul, who also works for the university, was not authorized and acted on his own accord, and was requested by myself and others to stop his actions online. I have reached out to the admins involved with the investigation, but recently the admin that could have overturned the ruling User:Coren has seemingly stepped down from the sockpuppet investigations, and I've had no luck in communication with Coren. The last person to respond was User: Dennis Brown who suggested I forward it to Coren. Ituhubert (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I read that as: you admit it happened, you admit it was wrong, and one way or another (while not accepting direct responsibility), you are assuring us that it won't happen again. Great. I think this is the "elephant in the room" holding back some of the discussion, and maybe you guys can now put that incident behind you. Ituhbert, you need to understand that you (and your employers) are not doing yourself any favors by attempting to contribute to the article. Indeed you are inviting far more scrutiny of the article by doing so. Coming to ANI with this complaint only makes it worse. The only thing the admins (and for the record I am not an admin...I am just an outside party like you requested) can do in this case is to watch your conduct at this article even closer than before. Go back to the talk page and continue if you must, but perhaps you should consider that, though not strictly forbidding you from editing the article, this is exactly why the COI policy says you should not edit the article. (You also should probably have not re-opened this.) Ditch ∝ 19:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- OrientalSoul also had filed a bogus complaint against me, See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_32#International_Technological_University The sock investigation is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive As for the COI, I have repeatedly informed ituhubert about the COI policies, he just has chosen to ignore that. And yes, I think ANI is the wrong place for this (as I have mentioned above.) jfeise (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Ditch, I sincerely appreciate your objective feedback, and offering your insight. Thank you for noticing that it is in fact holding back discussions. In the wikipolicies, it says that it's okay for an editor with a COI to "make edits where there is clear consensus on the talk page (though it is better to let someone else do it))"[42]. This is what I would hope would be the case, however, the talk page just gets polluted with the back-and-forth between Jfeise and I, and rarely ending in consensus. I understand that my COI puts me under a huge microscope, but I wouldn't post anything in ANI unless I truly believed that I am respecting and operating under wikipolicies and etiquette[43], and that I have exhausted all possibilities in working things out with Jfeise as recommended. Ditch, I will definitely consider your suggestions, but what would you suggest if the banter continues? Ituhubert (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't help that Jfeise is willing to edit war with other editors (e.g., me) despite being previously warned. Yes, the warning is about a year old but the point is that he or she knows (a) what edit warring is and (b) not to engage in it. ElKevbo (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- A year is a long time in Wikipedia. I'd take that as a good thing that Ithubert hasn't engaged in edit warring for that length of time, especially considering the COI. Look, I don't like COI editing anymore than the next guy, but we have a (IMO flawed) COI policy, and I try to remember there is a lot of pressure on their side as well- namely to produce results for their employer. Ithubert could be editing as an IP or running a sock farm...but it seems, for now, he is not, and is at least trying to follow policy, so I can grant a little credit to the editor from that aspect.
- Ithubert, what I would suggest is simply not engaging in the article if you have a COI, but if you have a job to do, and dis-engaging is not an option, I think you first need to avoid complaining about other editors and accept the fact that push-back against your suggested edits is just an unfortunate aspect of editing with a declared COI. I'd take time to read up on wp:rs, wp:primary vs. wp:secondary & wp:thirdparty, make sure you really understand how sources are supposed to work, then find good sources and bring them to the talk page, asking other editors how best to use the sources to improve the article in a NPOV fashion. There is also a way to request a second opinion from uninvolved editors, and maybe a helpful admin can link to that place for me. But if you go that route, make it about you, and not about others. As my Momma would say: "Keep Jfeise's name out of your mouth." Ditch ∝ 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- One second ... if he has "pressure to produce results for his employer" by editing a Wikipedia article, then he most definitely should not be editing said article - that goes beyond mere COI...and is also the sign of a very unethical employer! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let's not pretend that this does not happen all the time. Businesses, organizations, celebrities, etc...they could care less about WP/journalistic ethics. They care about their image, and WP articles are near the top of search term results. It's inevitable. But, for the record, I was generalizing when I made that statement, and that is just my presumption (and my choice of language) from reading the various conflicts on the article. Ithubert has not said this outright, though he has also not denied it, so I don't want to put words in his mouth. Maybe he could clarify? Ditch ∝ 23:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- One second ... if he has "pressure to produce results for his employer" by editing a Wikipedia article, then he most definitely should not be editing said article - that goes beyond mere COI...and is also the sign of a very unethical employer! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ithubert, what I would suggest is simply not engaging in the article if you have a COI, but if you have a job to do, and dis-engaging is not an option, I think you first need to avoid complaining about other editors and accept the fact that push-back against your suggested edits is just an unfortunate aspect of editing with a declared COI. I'd take time to read up on wp:rs, wp:primary vs. wp:secondary & wp:thirdparty, make sure you really understand how sources are supposed to work, then find good sources and bring them to the talk page, asking other editors how best to use the sources to improve the article in a NPOV fashion. There is also a way to request a second opinion from uninvolved editors, and maybe a helpful admin can link to that place for me. But if you go that route, make it about you, and not about others. As my Momma would say: "Keep Jfeise's name out of your mouth." Ditch ∝ 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since my name was invoked earlier: When you use sources like this, it is no wonder that someone questions the validity and appropriateness of your edits. As far as the sock issue is concerned, there is no way to "overturn" it. We aren't a court of law, we are just problem solvers, and it looks like Coren solved a problem after I verified a likelihood that there was a connection. Whether you claim it was meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is moot at this point. As for the COI editing, it is allowed and I agree we should allow COI editing, but you are showing us the price we pay for this generosity. At the heart of this, we have a content dispute: you want to add material, someone else feels it is spam. ANI isn't the place for this since admin don't determine content, WP:DRN is, where it will be reviewed by editors of all kinds. As I don't see a legitimate cause for action here, I would strongly suggest Ituhubert withdraw, use the talk page then WP:DRN, and look around at similar but high quality articles to get a better understanding of what is and isn't "advertising", according to Wikipedia standards, rather than his own. Continuing down this ANI road is just going to drama and hurt feelings. Had I not been named here, I might have just closed it with a pointer to DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Given that Ituhubert is an SPA account, and that Ituhubert is employed by the organization that is the subject of the only Wikipedia article he edits, I indeed think that it goes beyond a mere COI. I still don't know why he (and his sock OrientalSoul) attacked only me and not the other editors who also reverted his advertising. Heck, it wasn't even me who reported the sock, I personally considered that a minor issue, I was more concerned about the harassment issues. jfeise (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- A COI is a COI, as far as policy is concerned. There isn't really degrees of COI. As for the attacks, I've given him a alternative: discuss at that talk page, then DRN if that fails, instead of attacking and bringing empty claims to ANI. If he isn't wise enough to take the advice and continues being disruptive, he knows he will be blocked. He knows first hand that we are fairly adept at determining socks, particularly socks that edit one article only, which means there is no way he could come back under a different name without us catching it within minutes. Period. I'm one of the more liberal minded when it comes to COI editing, but less so when it is disruptive. I'm betting he isn't a fool, and is smart enough to not risk losing all ability to edit the article, when all he has to do is back off a bit, learn a bit more about content and sourcing, and be less aggressive. It isn't that hard. I think everyone should be open minded to his ideas, like you would mine or anyone else's, but it starts with him accepting Wikipedia norms, and complying with them first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well said. Words worth taking on-board. Ditch ∝ 01:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've also left a more detailed message on their talk page. Hopefully we are done, but I can follow up if needed, as I'm somewhat familiar with the editor via the SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well said. Words worth taking on-board. Ditch ∝ 01:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- A COI is a COI, as far as policy is concerned. There isn't really degrees of COI. As for the attacks, I've given him a alternative: discuss at that talk page, then DRN if that fails, instead of attacking and bringing empty claims to ANI. If he isn't wise enough to take the advice and continues being disruptive, he knows he will be blocked. He knows first hand that we are fairly adept at determining socks, particularly socks that edit one article only, which means there is no way he could come back under a different name without us catching it within minutes. Period. I'm one of the more liberal minded when it comes to COI editing, but less so when it is disruptive. I'm betting he isn't a fool, and is smart enough to not risk losing all ability to edit the article, when all he has to do is back off a bit, learn a bit more about content and sourcing, and be less aggressive. It isn't that hard. I think everyone should be open minded to his ideas, like you would mine or anyone else's, but it starts with him accepting Wikipedia norms, and complying with them first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Given that Ituhubert is an SPA account, and that Ituhubert is employed by the organization that is the subject of the only Wikipedia article he edits, I indeed think that it goes beyond a mere COI. I still don't know why he (and his sock OrientalSoul) attacked only me and not the other editors who also reverted his advertising. Heck, it wasn't even me who reported the sock, I personally considered that a minor issue, I was more concerned about the harassment issues. jfeise (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the comments. I didn't mean to stir the pot, and honestly appreciate the advice from all. I now know that there are better places for this type of discussion, and will be sure to exercise better due diligence for all future activities. Incident changed to resolved (Withdrawn). Ituhubert (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism by multiple users at Josephine Butler College
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both multiple IPs and multiple registered editors have been vandalizing this page, as will be seen by the edit history. Each seems to try it once or twice and then stop (or move on to another id or ip), so I am not reporting the individual editors. I suggest semi-protecting the page and removing autoconfirmed status from any recent editors who have vandalized it. Jeh (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- 4 edits yesterday ... 6 today ... not necessarily unstoppable by proper watching, is it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Er, did anybody notice just what Jeh was reverting back TO, and which is still in the article as of this report? [44] RNealK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Jeh may want to apologize to the IP editors he/she was warning for vandalism. RNealK (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ouch, I see. Sorry. Let me get back to my real machine (multiple screens) and I'll review the diffs and apologize as needed. Jeh (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I can no longer review the actual edits to JBC so I can't tell which of the edits I was reverting were solely removing nonsense (I do know that one of them was both doing that and adding nonsense of its own), so I had to settle for a blanket "conditional apology." Clearly I'm not enough of a SME to edit that page again. (In fact I can't remember why it was on my watchlist in the first place!) Jeh (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Unblock request for User:Neo.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Neo. who was recorded as a sock of User:Viran has requested to be unblocked. However, Neo is an older account. The sockpuppetry was pervasive and happened in late 2007. Is there support for an unblock of the user? I have notified them of this discussion. NativeForeigner Talk 02:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't. I'm seeing some really juvenile trolling and no significant positive contributions to offset that. Sizable sock drawer too. No thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would say yes. I don't see any socking attempts since 2009 (and that was only 1 suspected incidence, not confirmed). The only solid evidence suggests that he socked 5 years ago and it was a short burst of socking, not sustained. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Blocks are cheap as they say. 6 years is quite a while and provided no socking has been picked up in the interim, why not? Blackmane (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock. The usual approach to juvenile behaviour is to wait for the perpetrator to mature a bit, and I'd say 6 years since the pervasive misbehaviour and 4 years since the last suspected sock is plenty long enough to see if that has happened. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock - people can change (and grow up) in that time. I say give him another chance. It's not like nobody will be keeping an eye on him. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 09:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock before he becomes senile (then reblock). Thincat (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done TY to NativeForeigner. Starblind reservations are noted, hopefully there won't be a need for a "told ya" in the future. — Ched : ? 12:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I got in on this late, but agree that an unblock combined with a reasonably long piece of rope is appropriate. People can change and we should pride ourselves on being willing to give everyone a second chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Liqwid/JarlaxleArtemis
Is obviously Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis whose been reverting me like crazy last few days. See Special:Contributions/Liqwid. Left a message for editor who usually deals with this sort of thing for me, but in case someone wants to deal with it right now in the wee hours. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 05:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
A large-scale edit warring for the last week, where a subject of the article tries to amend some info about himself and predictably gets repeatedly told that he is not a reliable source about himself. I tried to mediate as documented on the talk page (see also the links there) and failed miserably, since none of the parties was willing to compromize. (Not that mediation was my strong side though). I am not sure what to doi next, just leaving its here. This is essentially a content dispute, but they went into over 10 reverts, which is hardly acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've looked into this a bit. I think it has evolved into a WP:MAJORDICK situation. This is a relatively minor figure in the music world that we're talking about, and from what I can see some of the information that people are doggedly determined to keep in the article is dated. I'm trying to work out a compromise now. I understand 100% the frustration of an article's subject who cannot get outdated statements corrected or at least removed because of what seems to me to be unwarranted faith in the reliability of old information; what other choice would he have? Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is my impression as well. The article subject is inexperienced in Wikipedia policies, and I tried to contact him at the talk page, but so far the other side was reverting everything just repeating "Myspace is not RS, we know better, shut up, period". I was even admonished for trying to discuss smth at his talk page, since all discussion should be kept in one place. How could it be kept at one place, when the guy clearly does not understand what is required, and seems to just get lost?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the information is describing something from the past, then simply change the verb tenses in the article. It's vandalism for the subject of the article to consistently remove entire sourced sections just because the verb tense is wrong. That's not the solution. Qworty (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is my impression as well. The article subject is inexperienced in Wikipedia policies, and I tried to contact him at the talk page, but so far the other side was reverting everything just repeating "Myspace is not RS, we know better, shut up, period". I was even admonished for trying to discuss smth at his talk page, since all discussion should be kept in one place. How could it be kept at one place, when the guy clearly does not understand what is required, and seems to just get lost?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
4chan vandalism at User talk:Elockid
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks to a request by a user on 4chan, Elockid's talk page is currently undergoing repeated vandalism. Some sort of page protection right now would probably be appropriate. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently this isn't the first time it's happened, and the previous semi-protection expired. Might be a good idea to put a longer one on this time. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC) - This was handled by Rschen7754 with a 24 hour semi protect. Thanks! – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz
WP:BOOMERANG. Troll, racist, he's the guy who's now blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am having issues with admin Malik Shabazz. I used a picture as my description for my user page. The post was flagged as vandalism and deleted by the admin. It is a picture of a conniving Jewish man rubbing his hands together. I am an openly antisemitic person and that sums up what the user markofthesun is all about. I tried to talk it over with the administrator but he was unwilling to work out the issue. This moderator is open about his social justice activism and carries that bias in his administrator duties. my speech is being limited because it does not fit his point of view. this is clearly an abuse of power and I would like to see this administrator banned, my post returned, and my vandalism warning reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markofthesun (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
User:81.149.185.174, 213.120.148.60 and others
I wish to report issues with an individual who posts from a number of IP addresses, including...
- 81.149.185.174: already warned once about civility on User talk:81.149.185.174 on 4 Mar 13.
- 213.120.148.60: warned about a disruptive edit [47] on User talk:213.120.148.60 on 5 Mar 13.
- 217.41.32.3: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:217.41.32.3 on 22 Jan 13.
- 81.133.12.45: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:81.133.12.45 on 10 and 22 Jan 13.
- 86.181.25.153
- 86.161.219.51
- 130.88.114.111
If you look at the revision history for Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, you can see how most of these are clearly the same person. Other revision histories fill in the other addresses.
Said user is focused on UK political articles and the UK Independence Party (UKIP). S/he generally favours more coverage and more positive coverage of UKIP and is often involved in disputed edits and in long discussions over disputed edits. There are possible issues here with respect to WP:BIAS, WP:RS and WP:OR. (One of the shorter examples would be at Mid Ulster by-election, 2013: take a look at edits from 23-5 February 2013 and Talk:Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013#UKIP_Press_Release. Long, long examples are at Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, Talk:Eastleigh by-election, 2013, Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (archive) and Talk:UK Independence Party.) I and other editors have sought to work through these, and some of this individual's edits are constructive and are kept.
Most concerning are the repeated violations of WP:AGF. Some recent examples: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]
Again, I and other editors have sought to tackle this through dialogue, but it keeps happening again and again. I have also suggested at Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Semi-protection that semi-protection may be appropriate for that article.
Said user has been active here on this noticeboard twice before: most recently at [60] and there was an earlier case that I can't find right now.
Several weeks back, an editor with a similar modus operandi and topic interest was banned for sockpuppetry: see User:Nick Dancer/User:Sheffno1gunner and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive. I am uncertain whether this anonymous editor is connected or not. Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- There was also this from some months back: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Possible_legal_threats_on_Talk:_Rotherham_by-election.2C_2012. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Bondegezou I have engaged in constructive discussions. I have argued my case to those that don't flatly refuse to engage in dialogue, to your credit you are one of those people. However there are editors who simply choose to edit war and say No No No, instead of giving an explanation as to why, they also will not listen to a well reasoned argument!
I have been an IP editor on Wikipedia that has realised that there is a need to try and redress the balance here! I am not the only one Bondegezou has mentioned others. A number of us have been incredibly concerned at how sources have been used selectively to put across a particular narrative (for whatever reason)! This can be seen in earlier versions of articles such as UK Independence Party, many people agreed that this was not a neutrally written article. Subsequently the entire policy section has had to be removed because neutral and reliable 3rd party sources were not available, this lead to editors putting across a certain narrative. All many of us want is Wikipedia to be neutral and to reflect reality. In many cases it hasn't in the past but it has improved thanks to pressure through constructive discussions from myself and others.
It is no secret that a number of regular editors to the politics section are of a Liberal Democrat persuasion (and that's fine but it does sometimes skew the narrative of articles and judgements of editors). Some examples of this are doktorbuk who admits that they are a "card carrying member" of the Liberal Democrats on their user page, he's even used phrases like "we must defeat the UKIP IPs" and "But we need to close the UKIP loophole". Bondegezou admits an interest in "politics, particularly in the UK and issues concerning the Liberal Democrats". Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs by the way is one reason why a number of us don't have logons and want a bit more anonymity). Now I have absolutely no problem what so ever with the personal views of these 3 editors, that's non of my business but they do spend a lot of time editing this section and it does seem that they are in charge of the final outcomes of almost all discussions. It also seems that the Wikipedia politics section is at least a good year behind reflecting reality based on evidence.
It is important to note that when I have raised a discussion and the issue has been properly debated, I have accepted the outcome! For this reason I have created no need for protection of any Wikipedia articles! All I (and others) are trying to do is address the balance here! Until that balance is struck, more editors other than myself will come along. I really don't see what is wrong with my argument on United Kingdom local elections, 2013! Perhaps that's why Bondegezou has pointed readers of this discussion in the direction of shorter conversations where there is less detail discussed!
I want to get on with other editors but many of us feel like there is a constant battle on Wikipedia to try and redress the balance. We are categorically not trying to promote UKIP! We just want a greater reflection of reality, not to have the party talked up or down! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (and 1 or 2 other IPs - not all of the above)
- I have informed doktorbuk and Emeraude of this discussion at their Talk pages.
- 213.120.148.60, could you clarify which IPs you are and are not. All those listed above appeared to me to be you. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I see I am being misrepresented again! At various times I have been accused by these IPs (or this one person - who knows) of a wide range of things - bias, beign a card-carrying Lib Dem, selective citing etc etc. Some of these accusations have gone beyond the bounds of regular protocol well into the area of personal attack. Each time I have asked for an indication of where I have been biased, or selective, or whatever, but never receive an answer, because there isn't one quite frankly. Now, out of the blue, we read that "Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs....." Now, I don't have to explain to anyone why I am interested in things (I also list on my user page Aviation, Education and Law) but seeing as it's been raised it stems from having a degree in political science and having done postgrad work on hwo minor parties, particularly of the right, perform in elections. Nothing sinister at all. And I would like to know how this anon IP is able to state that I "have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative"? What narrative? (And, as it happens, BNP members/supporters did attempt to use UKIP in the past, which is precisely why UKIP now specifically bans them from membership.) (S)he then accuses me of "victimization and slurs", but will not say when I have victimised anyone or made any slurs. But what do you expect from people who vandalise my user page to say that I am "engaging in bigotry"?!
- The sad fact is that this person or these people have come to Wikipedia with the express purpose of using it as a publicity vehicle for UKIP. I've no objection to UKIP members/supporters editing UKIP related articles on Wikipedia, but their edits must be like everyone else's: relevant, encyclopaedic, verifiable, sourced etc. I've not seen such timewasting behaviour and personal attacks on the integrity of editors since we got shot of Lucy-marie for very similar behaviour. Come to think of it, wasn't she a UKIP supporter too? Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- If I may, the case of vandalism to which Emeraude is referring is this: [61] by 81.149.185.174, which is exactly the sort of problem that led me to bring this case here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- The sad fact is that this person or these people have come to Wikipedia with the express purpose of using it as a publicity vehicle for UKIP. I've no objection to UKIP members/supporters editing UKIP related articles on Wikipedia, but their edits must be like everyone else's: relevant, encyclopaedic, verifiable, sourced etc. I've not seen such timewasting behaviour and personal attacks on the integrity of editors since we got shot of Lucy-marie for very similar behaviour. Come to think of it, wasn't she a UKIP supporter too? Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is a serious problem with UK politics articles and the IP editors attracted to them. Inevitably supporters of political parties want to ramp up coverage of their own party, though as a card-carrying member of a party myself I know better than to try! The current spate of UKIP supporters show little or no attempt to disguise their bias, often changing articles without any regard to building consensus (for example, adding Nigel Farage to a page and THEN going to the talk page to retroactively ask for a discussion). The spate of IP editors from UKIP tend to die down after polling day, as it did last November, so I think semi-locks and temp-bans until June should help reduce the spate of problems we have. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Although both User:Rmhermen and myself have objected to his edits, Xenophrenic has repeatedly revertedchanges to the overly emotional POV language in the Ward Churchill article. He has justified his actions with evasive edit summaries. I invite others to examine the two proposed versions of the article and decide which better suits WP:NPOV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Plainly OTT, and edit warring over it is fundamentally a bad idea, but there's a discussion on that very issue over a year old that was inconclusive and yet hasn't been added to recently. That's where the discussion should take place, rather than at ANI. The same applies to your edit warring at David Stannard, where I note that you're defending a revision which describes an anthropologist of having fabricated evidence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
IP Address rash of vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:209.222.33.202 has had a rash of vandalism since 2009, the IP address received a "last warning" from a bot very recently. I just reverted an edit where a wikilink to Homosexuality out of context was placed. Requesting a block. NickCochrane (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Blocked, in future, report these to WP:AIV. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry about that. Thanks. NickCochrane (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Headstrong4ever (talk · contribs) Bit of an odd one this. I came across this user originally on the I Knew You Were Trouble article, where they made a change to the music genre - a change that wasn't completely incorrect, but was unnecessary (basically, Popstep, the current genre, is basically the combinations of his genre changes), and although it was sourced, the source was less reliable than the original one. At that point, I assumed he was acting in good faith, as my edit summary shows:[62] I went to his talk page today, just intrigued to see what their contributions were like, and was confronted with a literal wall of warnings about making unsourced genre changes to music articles, dating back to July 2012, and they're now on their second block for this kind of thing. Sure enough, when you look through their contributions, although there are some good edits mixed in there (or ones that are close enough), there are plenty of unsourced things going in (I'm going to present the diffs of the reversions, rather than the additions, just to show how many notifications there are) [63][64][65][66] just as a random sample of the recent ones. Now, I'm not sure what needs to be done - they're constantly making edits against consensus, and they've been warned many, many times (in edit summaries and on their talk page), so usually I'd suggest an admin has a word with them, but they've clearly not replied to any warnings, and, in fact, there's no evidence they've acknowledged them, so I'm wondering if, perhaps, the 36 hour block they're on should be extended? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Edit patterns may indicate someone who can't communicate in English as opposed to someone obstinately refusing to communicate and ignore warning and coaching messages. I would suggest an indef block with a message stating that an unblock would be considered if he acknowledges he understands why what he is doing is disruptive and gives some indication he will changes the behavior that led to the block in the first place. Absent that, what will likely happen is a continuing series of increasing length blocks as it is unlikely he will change his behavior with respect to his changing genres to match his personal evaluations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to propose an indef right off the bat, but I'm certainly not going to object to it, and it was what I was originally thinking. I'm not interested in their motives, but regardless, at least 75% of their edits are problematic - those 5 diffs were just ones I looked at randomly from the last couple of months. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Edit patterns may indicate someone who can't communicate in English as opposed to someone obstinately refusing to communicate and ignore warning and coaching messages. I would suggest an indef block with a message stating that an unblock would be considered if he acknowledges he understands why what he is doing is disruptive and gives some indication he will changes the behavior that led to the block in the first place. Absent that, what will likely happen is a continuing series of increasing length blocks as it is unlikely he will change his behavior with respect to his changing genres to match his personal evaluations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Block per WP:CIR. Short blocks do not help at all in these cases, it just makes a page of warnings which lose any impact because it looks like template spam (which it is), ie [67]. If they'd been indef blocked around August, after a final warning, it'd have saved a lot of wasted time. (And they could possibly have demonstrated understanding and then been unblocked). 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. It would also help if an admin blocked (indef), removed all the useless crap from their talk (which clearly isn't helping), and wrote something simple to understand - like, "You've been blocked because of <this>, if you can explain you understand why, I can unblock you". Pro tip: if the first dozen template-warnings didn't help, the second dozen are unlikely to work any better. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, your edit to their talkpage, by hatting things, wasn't exactly appropriate, all of the warnings were valid, and there's no reason to remove them. Not really sure what your point was, after the first bit? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above is in reference to [68], undone [69].
- Luke, do you really think that those 18 template-warnings are helping the situation, considering that the user has nor responded to any of them? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant whether they're helping the situation or not. Fact is, as I said, you're neither an admin nor that user: it's inappropriate to collapse them off your own bat. That's why I undid the collapsing - if an admin decides to go and collapse, hat, delete or incinerate it, I don't care - but it's not for you or I to do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Simple question for you, Luke: Which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? If your answer is (A), and you still object, I suggest you (re)read WP:BOLD and remember why we're all here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Better to keep context IMO then just leave a pointer to this discussion. That is part of the WP:CIR test as well. Inability to scroll to the bottom of the page and read the last message. The welcome message is valuable. As a user talk page he does have the right to delete whatever he finds annoying on his page. The fact he hasn't done so does indicate he likely doesn't look at them anyway and I agree they are not really serving their purpose now. An attempt to edit while blocked should focus his attention if it matters to him. Some of the messages are procedural, admins don't seem to like to block unless there is a reasonable progression of warnings particularly, like this case, when it is not vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm getting very confused by the tangent this ANI is taking (and the fact I got told off for not leaving a notice, when I did, but that's beside the point). WP:BOLD has absolutely nothing to do with a user's talk page, it also says that you shouldn't get upset when a bold edit is undone... Geraldo Perez is right, basically. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Being able to scroll through and comprehend of 18 (now 19) template warnings written in gobbledegook is not the level of competence that is required.
Being able to understand that there is a problem with their edits, and giving them a chance to respond, is a better way forward. Point of order, I did not remove anything at all; I just collapsed it, so it was reasonably clear instead of 10k of wiki-speak obscuring the actual purpose of communication.
BOLD has everything to do with everything. And I'm not upset; I'm just dismayed that you've undone a productive edit just because it wasn't made by an admin. That's the sad state of this project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting a bit away from the issue of what to do with this editor. The standard warning messages were designed to be understandable and instructive and I do think they serve that purpose, if they are actually read, that is. Adding another attempt at saying the same thing is probably not going to be helpful either in this case. Still waiting for an admin response to all this and should probably hold off doing anything to the user talk page until an admin decides what is the most effective thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Headstrong4ever is just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren that edit articles related to the music scene, with the typical Disney emphasis ("Headstrong" is an Ashley Tisdale album). I've been aware of him for a long time. English comprehension tends to be a problem with these editors, and he isn't an exception. It's probably getting to the time to decide that he isn't ever going to make the transition to being a productive editor.
- As for the template issue, I hate them, and don't use them except for block notices. I think they accomplish exactly the opposite of their goal: by being so bright, garish, and overloaded with polite-sounding-but-meaningless text, they make it harder for newcomers to get any understanding of what's going on and what's wrong with their edits.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- KWW, I agree that the user is probably challenged by English comprehension, and likely won't be a productive editor. My point about my edit (and its reversal) was, that if there is any chance of getting the editor on-track, it's by making things more clear.
- I also supported an indef block, until they can (we hope) demonstrate competence.
- The 'aside' is, that I believe my edit to their talk was a good one. Per BRD I was bold, it was undone, so we're discussing it. Hopefully. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- The standard warning messages, do suffer from being "standard", I applaud anyone who leaves carefully crafted custom messages, and support IP's collapsing of stale messages here (they could reasonably have been archived). I am aware there are long standing issues with "genre" editors, maybe the simple injunction not to mess with genres would cover the case? In any event it might be worth someone leaving a note in his native language or even the template pointing to his native language wiki? Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
- The user has made edits like [70] and [71] [72] . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I've added this at the IP's request, since ANI is currently semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Don't put words in my mouth. We have a lot of Brazilian schoolchildren editing in the pop music area. I recognize them from the sites they tend to use for sources and the release dates they tend to add. Many of them are productive. They do struggle at first, though, and many of them never become productive. My use of the word "just" was not to dismiss the editor, it was to indicate that his difficulties are fairly typical.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The user has made edits like [70] and [71] [72] . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I've added this at the IP's request, since ANI is currently semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad the IP didn't try to edit-war that collapsing back in. I'm still sticking to my point: it's for admins to decide whether the warnings should be collapsed, deleted, nuked, or put in a car compactor, not for an IP or for a non-admin like me (so it should be left uncollapsed). Anyway, back to the actual ANI concern, and I'm still refraining on speculating why their edits are so bad, because I really don't care (unless they were going to explain themselves; this is evidently not gonna happen), so the indef is probably the way to go, until we can decide they're competent/understand rules etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete/block
MfD/speedy
Block
These are almost certainly related to a hoax TV show (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose To Fame) and abusive socks of User:Barbara Osgood if we are to believe Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Barbara Osgood. Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
I'll speedy but we don't block editors whose been so inactive like those two accounts who edited in 2006. Secret account 01:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Let me rephrase, they are socks of indef blocked User:Barbara Osgood, and hence potentially sleeper socks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
Requesting and IP user be blocked for abuse to Kevin Harvick article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I hope I'm filling this out correct. Long time editor but first time doing this. An IP user, 72.211.185.40, has been edit warring in the last several hours with myself and two other veteran editors over subjective, unsourced additon to the Kevin Harvick article. IP has been warned multiple times and refuses to obey guidelines. I feel a block is now in order. Thanks for your assistance and apologies if I've fouled this up. Have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not the best place for this request, but I saw the report at WP:AIV (although WP:ANEW would have been more appropriate) and blocked the IP. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Content dispute over POV edits by SPA
I would greatly appreciate other opinions on the editing by User:Veritas_Fans, an apparent single purpose account focused solely on Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society-related pages and posting edits critical of/embarrassing to the organization while removing well-sourced material critical of/embarrassing to their opponents. Upon reverting some of his edits, User:Veritas_Fans has re-reverted and labeled my reverts vandalism (see: diff). I have attempted to initiate a talk page discussion regarding one convoluted POV edit (diff) only to be told that the language used in multiple reliable references should not be used in the article because it is, in User:Veritas_Fans's opinion, misleading and the media are mistaken (see: Talk:Institute_of_Cetacean_Research). As I have no wish to enter into an ongoing personal dispute, I would very much appreciate other experienced editors'/admins' perspectives and input. Thanks. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 07:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Request for guidance
There are or were edit wars at the following articles: Microsoft Office 365, Product activation, Microsoft Office 2013, and Windows 8. In each case, other users (than myself) have done one or more of the following:
- Edit warring without any discussion at the talk page
- Edit warring while ignoring discussion at the page (by at least one user not edit warring in this case)
- Edit warring after some discussion at the talk page but no consensus reached
For some reason, though, I am the only one who has ended up blocked because of any of this. (I obviously consider this administrator abuse, but the report I filed here was basically laughed at by the community, since it is apparently acceptable for administrators to ignore policies such as WP:EDITWAR: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.")
Anyways, to resolve these issues, I have tried one or more of the following in each case:
- Simply reverting the edits that were made without consensus - I ended up blocked
- Reverting the edits that were made without consensus but directing the users in question to talk pages - I ended up blocked
- Reporting another user for edit-warring - my report was closed (without even citing policy) and I was threatened with a block
Leaving the pages in their current states is simply not an option I am willing to consider as there is no consensus for this, so my question now is: what exactly do these very administrators who block me, and others who agree with them, expect me to do in this situation? (Note that WP:DRN - and probably any other such venue - isn't particularly useful in general, as I have discovered, and is even less so when at least one user refuses to cooperate, as is clearly the case here.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- AN/EW link - AN/I archive - tp history — Ched : ? 08:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're expected to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Whatever your understanding of consensus is (and frankly I don't think you're on as solid footing there as you think you are), you're not supposed to keep hitting the undo button every few hours while carrying on the dicussion. Raising things on talk is supposed to be the process by which disputes are worked out, and not just something on a checklist that allows you another revert. That option that you're not willing to consider is very soon going to be a coded editing restriction if this carries on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since you apparently haven't realized this, I'll spell it out for you: I have dropped the stick in terms of reverting by coming here.
- Content issues, on the other hand, are quite a different matter, and your response is not even remotely helpful in this regard. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're still insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong, that you've been wrongly blocked by abusive administrators, and that you want your way on the articles in question. You need to stop all of that. Your decision to stop directly edit warring has merely prevented your being re-blocked. Go and edit articles on a subject other than Microsoft and DRM for a while. Stop talking down to everyone you disagree with. And if, after calming down and getting a bit more of a feel for how collaborative editing is supposed to work on here, you feel that there are specific issues on your target pages that remain unresolved (to the community's satisfaction and not just your own), start an RfC and don't touch the article at all until it's completed. And if that doesn't result in you getting your way, accept that as the will of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm insisting that I'm right and everyone else involved in this is wrong - about not establishing consensus and simply edit warring instead, not about the content issues. That's Wikipedia policy, and you, as an administrator, should know this better than myself.
- I would add something here about the mention of administrator abuse, but given that you seem to be so dismissive of a policy as fundamental as WP:CON I doubt that there is much point in discussing other policies with you.
- As a final note, I would ask that you not project any of your own actions onto me ("Stop talking down"). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I keep seeing you pointing a finger at everyone else including the other editors you got into an edit war with, the admin who blocked you, the admins who rejected your unblock requests, and I predict that you will soon make some sort of accusation against me as well for writing this. What I don't see is you taking personal responsibility for your behavior or making a commitment to following community standards of behavior.
- Dropping the stick does not mean bringing it up in place after place hoping that this time you will get the answer you want. Dropping the stick is not badmouthing everyone who disagrees with you. Free clue: if you have problems with everyone you interact with, maybe you are the problem.
- Can we stop discussing my conduct and start discussing how to obtain consensus to resolve the content issues - which is what this case is really supposed to be about? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have already been blocked - twice - for the conduct issues, so I feel that that has been addressed at this point. Even so, if these blocks had been administered fairly, perhaps I could take personal responsibility for my actions, but with multiple administrators directly violating policy - see the quote above from WP:EDITWAR - doing so would likely serve to embolden the other users involved in this.
- Note that I did not particularly want to discuss this given the community's response to the previous case I brought up here, but I felt it was necessary given that you repeatedly made comments directed against me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- First, AN/I is not for discussing content issues. Secondly, by posting here, your own actions are very much up for scruitiny - and, if I may be very frank, I don't like what I see now, or before, which is best defined by a battleground mentality, a refusal to drop the stick, and a serious case of not listening because you are, after all, right. We don't want to block or ban people, we want productive and collaborative contributors. But that goes both ways - you have to be willing to compromise and follow policy if you're here to help build the encyclopedia. What I'd suggest would be to step back, take a deep breath, and stop editing the article in question - all of them - for, say, a week. Find another subjet that interests you, and work on that for awhile, and see how you feel afterwards - I suspect you'll find that much of what you thought were problems and doubts are, in fact, very small things after all. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm trying to get other users to follow WP:CON. What, exactly, do the links you provided - except the one to WP:CON itself, of course (which is mislabelled - it is not the same thing as "compromise") - have to do with that? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- First, AN/I is not for discussing content issues. Secondly, by posting here, your own actions are very much up for scruitiny - and, if I may be very frank, I don't like what I see now, or before, which is best defined by a battleground mentality, a refusal to drop the stick, and a serious case of not listening because you are, after all, right. We don't want to block or ban people, we want productive and collaborative contributors. But that goes both ways - you have to be willing to compromise and follow policy if you're here to help build the encyclopedia. What I'd suggest would be to step back, take a deep breath, and stop editing the article in question - all of them - for, say, a week. Find another subjet that interests you, and work on that for awhile, and see how you feel afterwards - I suspect you'll find that much of what you thought were problems and doubts are, in fact, very small things after all. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note that I did not particularly want to discuss this given the community's response to the previous case I brought up here, but I felt it was necessary given that you repeatedly made comments directed against me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- We cannot stop discussing behaviour, because ANI is about behaviour. It is not about content. The dispute resolution processes involve not only the noticeboard, but third opinion and request for community comment. Dogmatic, if your behaviour right here is indicative of how you approach conflict, I can understand why you're having trouble. You're new to the project - as much as longtime, respected editors have worked their asses off to show you the ropes, you decline to listen. How about remembering something: this is a private website, and you agreed to a set of rules. If you choose not to listen to those rules, and insist that your personal interpretation is correct, then you will not likely be permitted to remain on this private website. Arguing against the people who know is like peeing yourself in a dark suit: only you notice, and it shortly becomes rather uncomfortable. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Does this "set of rules" you are talking about not include the quote from WP:EDITWAR above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- You keep citing that sentence from WP:EDITWAR, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the admin(s) in question didn't "consider all sides". Has it occurred to you that they may well have given consideration to your position, and, in doing so, decided you were wrong? I count four experienced administrators (make it five; I endorse their advice) suggesting that you back off and consider the possibility that your interpretation of the rules is not in line with the community's, and your responses seem to me to boil down to a repeated and unsupported assertion that you are right - that's not how to reach consensus here. Once more for those at the back; drop the issue for a while, come back when you feel more level headed and less persecuted, and then pursue your changes through the appropriate channels - and be prepared for possibility that the community will decide not to implement your changes. Yunshui 雲水 11:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- If this is the case, then I would ask that an administrator explain why my actions were considered block-worthy while the actions of the other users involved were not. Even a brief explanation would be better than complete silence on this matter.
- You keep citing that sentence from WP:EDITWAR, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the admin(s) in question didn't "consider all sides". Has it occurred to you that they may well have given consideration to your position, and, in doing so, decided you were wrong? I count four experienced administrators (make it five; I endorse their advice) suggesting that you back off and consider the possibility that your interpretation of the rules is not in line with the community's, and your responses seem to me to boil down to a repeated and unsupported assertion that you are right - that's not how to reach consensus here. Once more for those at the back; drop the issue for a while, come back when you feel more level headed and less persecuted, and then pursue your changes through the appropriate channels - and be prepared for possibility that the community will decide not to implement your changes. Yunshui 雲水 11:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Does this "set of rules" you are talking about not include the quote from WP:EDITWAR above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, it is quite likely that knowing this would help me adjust my conduct. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at this. The impression I'm left with is that you were edit waring with at least 3 other people (Viper, Coin, and GB Fan) to get your own preferred version forced through. That is considered disruptive. Does that help? Because quite frankly, I think you're getting dangerously close to a WP:BOOMERANG with much continuation of this line of discussion. — Ched : ? 11:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear it is only two editors, Coin Operation was a declared alternate account of mine and I mistakenly posted from my main account also. I have abandoned the account because I was confusing myself and it will no longer be used. GB fan 11:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that this is the very user who reported me (using the "alternate account") - and it now turns out that this user was using two accounts to edit this article, quite possibly confusing the blocking administrator. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Multiple other users expressed concerns about removing the material from the article at the talk page. These users, however, chose to ignore those concerns. What would a preferable method of addressing this issue have been?
- Just to be clear it is only two editors, Coin Operation was a declared alternate account of mine and I mistakenly posted from my main account also. I have abandoned the account because I was confusing myself and it will no longer be used. GB fan 11:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at this. The impression I'm left with is that you were edit waring with at least 3 other people (Viper, Coin, and GB Fan) to get your own preferred version forced through. That is considered disruptive. Does that help? Because quite frankly, I think you're getting dangerously close to a WP:BOOMERANG with much continuation of this line of discussion. — Ched : ? 11:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, I would like to request a similar explanation for my previous block, which I find more puzzling given the extent of edit warring by other users in that case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the easiest explanation: if YOU want something in, and you're the only CURRENT editor who wants it in, and 2 (or more) editors say "NO", that means your edit does not hold consensus, period. Don't ever re-add it until you have new consensus, if ever. By re-adding and insisting that they tell you why it should not be included is edit-warring to your preferred version. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, the information in question was not added by me - I was simply restoring it - so, if anything, your advice should have been followed by the other users, not me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- So the question is why exactly were you restoring material that was removed because it was completely unsourced and in some cases out of date? Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, the information in question was not added by me - I was simply restoring it - so, if anything, your advice should have been followed by the other users, not me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the easiest explanation: if YOU want something in, and you're the only CURRENT editor who wants it in, and 2 (or more) editors say "NO", that means your edit does not hold consensus, period. Don't ever re-add it until you have new consensus, if ever. By re-adding and insisting that they tell you why it should not be included is edit-warring to your preferred version. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The preferred method of addressing the issue is bold, revert discuss. You have never discussed why you feel the information belongs. You only point to a couple of editors that 5 years ago expressed that they thought the information belonged. One only saying it was "convienent" Why do you believe the information belongs. GB fan 12:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, I would like to request a similar explanation for my previous block, which I find more puzzling given the extent of edit warring by other users in that case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- That article is basically at your preferred version and you still have not explained on the talk page why you believe the lists belong in the article. You just point to a couple of editors from 5 years ago that thought it belonged, one whose reasoning is that it is "convienent". GB fan 12:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
To respond to both of you: as stated above, "AN/I is not for discussing content issues." This kind of question should have been discussed at the talk page instead of simply filing an edit warring report.
In any case, I have still not received a response regarding my question about my previous block, nor very much guidance as to what I should do next to resolve the content disputes. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Raise and RFC, go to WP:DRN, ask for a WP:3O third opinion, the associated Wikiproject which is listed in the talk page. Usual sorts of things for content disputes. You really should just drop the stick. Move on, find something else to do. Nagging people about it is just going to earn you another one for being disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Dogmaticeclectic, you've received a lot of advice from a number of different editors and it's been remarkably consistent in its tone! I think the problem is that the advice you're getting is not what you had been hoping for, so you're reluctant to recognise it for what it is. I don't think for a moment that you are going to get any contradictory advice by keeping this open. I'd strongly suggest that you ask for this thread to be closed, then read it carefully and try (even if you disagree) to follow the advice you've been given. If you need further guidance, then rather than raising an AN/I I suggest picking an editor whose manner and style you respect, and asking them if they'd be willing to mentor you, either officially or unofficially. They don't have to be someone who agrees with you - just someone who you feel you can do business with. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
De jure ban for Paul Bedson
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A while ago, I indefinitely blocked Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of closing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson, where I found that the RfC unanimously concluded that "Paul Bedson has over a long period of time, among other things, added original research, fringe theories, unverifiable or materially false content to articles, and actively continues to do so. The RfC also concludes that Paul Bedson is not capable or willing to collaborate constructively and collegially with others."
After a declined unblock request, another administrator removed Paul Bedson's talk page access because of continued disruption. In response, Paul Bedson engaged in a campaign of sockpuppetry, as documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive, and several checkuser-detected socks were blocked accordingly. He has stated his intent to continue socking.
This kind of situation normally amounts to a de facto site ban. I suggest that we formalize it as a community-imposed site ban in order to facilitate reverting any edits made by socks. I've not notified Paul Bedson of this proposal because he is blocked without talk page access. Sandstein 09:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - his uncivil, uncooperative and unrepentant attitude combined with his declaration to continue socking forever are something we do not need here, full stop. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - No point allowing this user to return, they're blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support When he was first blocked for socking in January 2012 he denied it and was unblocked in March after providing evidence that he wasn't a sock.[73]. What he didn't say is that on Feb 7th he created a sockpuppet Nasorean (talk · contribs). When he was finally blocked indefinitely (for misuse of sources among other things) he promised to return and continue editing, a promise he kept both with Nasorean and other socks. This week he posted to his talk page with an IP, saying "a number of disruptive, hate-mongering, christian-biasd, anti-Lebanese editors maintaining an antiquated, classical viewpoints conducted a WP:Witchunt and were able to vote me off Wikipedia for my progressive views. Also for writing history from genealogies instead of fairy-tales. The same thing has happened to Nicolaus Copernicus, Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei and others. It is a shame the system around here is so corrupt, but has not stopped me editing in the slightest - I just use a wide range of IP addresses and various aliases to get around the ban. It has made collaborations with previous friendly editors harder however, but if you need anything, just e-mail me..." We definitely do not need editors like Paul Bedson. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Disruptive sockpuppeteering. A ban will hopefully reduce the amount of work for users in the future who want to revert his edits (less checking up, they can just see that he's banned). James086Talk 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support ban - though I thought bans were supposed to be discussed at AN, not ANI? Regardless, his threats to sockpuupet (which he has followed through with) show he is not here to edit constructively. This ban should be considered a mere formality i.e. to make it easier for us to deal with him in future. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, wrong forum, I meant to post it at AN. Feel free to move. Sandstein 14:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Whenever I get depressed about the amount of time wasted on trouble cases on the drama boards I'm going to remember this one: an utterly unrepentant fringe warrior who still took months and months of patient work to deal with despite having no cheerleaders, off-site interference or other complications at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support and invite the next admin who sees this to close as an avalanche. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interaction with Bedson has been one time- and soul-sucking drain on the project. The mission here that he's obviously on has to be stopped. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - his disruptive editing and sockpuppetry demonstrates that we cannot waste any more time on him here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)