DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →Indefinite block proposal for User:LittleBenW: strong support |
→Indefinite block proposal for User:LittleBenW: To NE Ent: please consider yourself ''topic banned'' from ANI for one month. |
||
Line 921: | Line 921: | ||
Note three: BSZ has indef'd LBW for outing, so tobe this discussion seems to be moot.<br> |
Note three: BSZ has indef'd LBW for outing, so tobe this discussion seems to be moot.<br> |
||
The original poster is 3rr on WP:SET and I don't see that repeatedly reverting a contribution made before a topic ban is a legit exception. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 11:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
The original poster is 3rr on WP:SET and I don't see that repeatedly reverting a contribution made before a topic ban is a legit exception. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 11:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
::OMG. '''1,588 posts to ANI'''? Did you hear yourself saying that, NE Ent? That's addict behaviour, and I can see it leading to somewhere round about [[:Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians|here]]. You need help. Please consider yourself ''topic banned'' from ANI for one month. Of course I'm not saying you're not extremely useful here—you will be missed—but we'll have to manage somehow. My best advice: don't read it, either. Take it off your watchlist. Please continue to edit helpfully at other boards! Once the ban has expired, and provided you feel you have got that monkey off your back, you are welcome to make useful contributions at ANI yet again. If you would like to be unbanned, you may appeal this ban by adding the text "Help help, abusive ban" below this notice. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 13:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC). |
|||
*'''Oppose''' Draconian solutions are very seldom useful, and this particular one seems far more intent on "getting at" an editor than at helping Wikipedia in the first place. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' Draconian solutions are very seldom useful, and this particular one seems far more intent on "getting at" an editor than at helping Wikipedia in the first place. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - I am completely uninvolved, as I have never edited anywhere near these editors or topics. After review: the editor LBW has has plenty of chances and now needs to firmly be shown the door via a community ban. There is no need to waste good editor time any further with this. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' - I am completely uninvolved, as I have never edited anywhere near these editors or topics. After review: the editor LBW has has plenty of chances and now needs to firmly be shown the door via a community ban. There is no need to waste good editor time any further with this. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:16, 21 April 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) |
|
RFC to reinsert links to illicit drug website. Silk Road (marketplace)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Silk Road (marketplace) is an online black market which is only reachable by TOR. Editors are currently trying to do an RFC to place back the URL to access it. This website is unquestionably illegal and Wikipedia should not assist in allowing readers to access it. Previously at ANI, the decision to blacklist the url was achieved. [1] Revdel of the links is also done. Another case of it came up here.[2] Here is evidence of the revdel from that thread. [3] I'm bringing this matter here to ANI, it should probably go to the WMF as well because it may be in violation of the TOS, per this section.[4] Also... the link seems to be used as a source on the page with a dead link template, ref 18. I would think the RFC be stopped, the link removed and REVDEL as previously and a warning be made about its insertion since being blacklisted is not enough to stop its insertion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Could you spell out what pare of the TOS you feel this violates? Hobit (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that us knowingly publishing links to websites that exist solely to violate the laws in virtually every country is a bad idea. We do the same for copyright infringing sites, we cover the material but deny links to material we know is illegal. If there was some encyclopedic value in publishing the link, I might be more prone to accept it, but there isn't. Also, the site is accessible via TOR only, making it a burden to verify, so the potential for phishing abuse is much higher than for other types of URLs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not to mention it violates WP:ELNO #1, #3, #4, #5, and #16 (at least). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflicted/edited) And aside from that, the fact that WP:ELNEVER is against insertion of blacklisted sites, that the link is Revdel by an oversighter and concensus is already against in previous discussion? If the fact it is a black market and illegal by its very nature, then how about WP:IAR to allow for common sense? If WMF remains silent about the matter, that is. Though a second argument is that Wikipedia's previous hosting of the material has resulted in known cases of phishing which hit the blogs, reddit and such. By the nature of the garbled url, even if it was somehow valid and of use, it has proven to be a target. By all accounts there is nothing justified about having it for encyclopedic purposes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I know an RFC can't override other policy considerations, but I'm not sure how to explain that at this RFC any more than I already have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've linked back to this discussion at that RFC. Perhaps we would be better to create a proposal somewhere outside of that RFC to settle the issue of our liability and TOS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Once this is dealt with, or if someone could, I think a heavy revdel is required as the url has numerous reinsertion and deletions including links to websites that host the url. Not sure where those are concerned... including [5] and this one containing it in the URL field (being removed by Dragon Booster) [6]. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've RevDel'ed everything that had the *onion address, per the previous ANI discussion. I didn't with the "how to" video, and it wasn't needed. Of course, we aren't a how-to website, so reverting it out was proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have a feeling it won't be the last time it appears, but it is appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've made it clear I will block anyone that adds it, based on the previous ANI discussion, unless a consensus forms that overturns that previous decision. I'm not a big fan of preemptively threatening a block, but this is one of those times when I felt it might be best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have a feeling it won't be the last time it appears, but it is appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've RevDel'ed everything that had the *onion address, per the previous ANI discussion. I didn't with the "how to" video, and it wasn't needed. Of course, we aren't a how-to website, so reverting it out was proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Once this is dealt with, or if someone could, I think a heavy revdel is required as the url has numerous reinsertion and deletions including links to websites that host the url. Not sure where those are concerned... including [5] and this one containing it in the URL field (being removed by Dragon Booster) [6]. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflicted/edited) And aside from that, the fact that WP:ELNEVER is against insertion of blacklisted sites, that the link is Revdel by an oversighter and concensus is already against in previous discussion? If the fact it is a black market and illegal by its very nature, then how about WP:IAR to allow for common sense? If WMF remains silent about the matter, that is. Though a second argument is that Wikipedia's previous hosting of the material has resulted in known cases of phishing which hit the blogs, reddit and such. By the nature of the garbled url, even if it was somehow valid and of use, it has proven to be a target. By all accounts there is nothing justified about having it for encyclopedic purposes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think you opined in the RFC, did you not, Dennis? It would be better if somebody else wielded the big cudgel... I'm sure there are dozens of volunteers, this enforced Revision Deletion seems an easy call, essentially commercial promotion of a black market site which is anyways inaccessible as an ordinary link... Carrite (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not involved with that article as an editor, so WP:INVOLVED isn't at play. My comment in that RFC was the same as here and my participation is one of an outsider. I did see someone added back a link to an unreliable site that explains how to connect to that website, which fails WP:EL and WP:RS, but I will allow someone else to fight that battle. The larger issue isn't the single edit, it is the policy ramifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, NOW I see why that editor seeks adding that gwern link back into the article, he owns that site (per his name and comments on the talk page) so he has a COI and keeps adding back his own domain to the external links. I'm not going to revert it back out since he thinks it was retaliation, but would ask someone else to look at it and determine if it meets WP:EL as a reliable source. Obviously, I would argue that it does not and is spam in this context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not involved with that article as an editor, so WP:INVOLVED isn't at play. My comment in that RFC was the same as here and my participation is one of an outsider. I did see someone added back a link to an unreliable site that explains how to connect to that website, which fails WP:EL and WP:RS, but I will allow someone else to fight that battle. The larger issue isn't the single edit, it is the policy ramifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
As this person who filed the RfC, I wouldn't find it unreasonable if someone closed it, since it seems any consensus there has been deemed irrelevant due to policy considerations. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, there is enough dispute over that, that we need a stronger consensus to firmly establish that fact. To me, it is crystal clear that you don't add in links to websites that we have created filters explicitly to bar, but there is a shortage of participation there, particularly by experienced admin. I've considered raising the issue for formal discussion at WP:AN, but not sure if that is the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- The RFC should not be closed, while I have upped my stakes by responding to the issues with additional information about legality of the site and its inability to be seized, the more it becomes clear that the website poses a risk to Wikipedia. I do not think this matter needs to go to the WMF, and given the nature of it, we seem capable of using existing policy for this and good discussion rather then opt for the 'thermonuclear option'. If it goes there, it goes there, but a response is not even a sure thing. It is best the community decide this as it typically does. And... the link is still visible in many of the pages in its history including the phishing links. Not sure if they should be Revdel out before the RFC closes or after it closes, not sure how the policy cuts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are multiple problems, each of which should exclude the link, in my eyes. I would image that WMF wants to look at it, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alison drops a note. This is fine, I think the legal consideration is valid and by all means, the WMF has an interest (and a gaggle of lawyers) in this, as technically we work for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, technically, we don't work for them, as the WMF insulates itself from the potentially legally culpable contributions of its volunteer editors by defining itself as the provider of infrastructure and the promulgator of basic policies, and not the "employer" of those editors. Our edits are not "work for hire" - we each own the copyright on our own contributions, although we automatically license them for use when we upload them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, though, that the WMF should probably weigh in on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, technically, we don't work for them, as the WMF insulates itself from the potentially legally culpable contributions of its volunteer editors by defining itself as the provider of infrastructure and the promulgator of basic policies, and not the "employer" of those editors. Our edits are not "work for hire" - we each own the copyright on our own contributions, although we automatically license them for use when we upload them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are multiple problems, each of which should exclude the link, in my eyes. I would image that WMF wants to look at it, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alison drops a note. This is fine, I think the legal consideration is valid and by all means, the WMF has an interest (and a gaggle of lawyers) in this, as technically we work for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This is forum-shopping. Discuss it there, not here. Bovlb (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is not forum shopping. There is an ongoing RFC and there are broader policy considerations that merit discussion. An RFC on an article talk page can't override existing policy, for example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- If an RFC or other discussion raises broader policy considerations, then it is appropriate to post a neutrally-worded notice elsewhere encouraging people to participate. The original posting here is definitely not neutrally-worded and, if anything, discourages participation in the RFC. That seems to me like a clear-cut violation of our forum-shopping policy and should therefore be discouraged. If you feel that the RFC seeks to override existing policy, then you should make that argument in the RFC. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Again, Bovlb, you're wrong. This discussion here will need to continue based on the policy issues. Stop insisting otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pointing out a flaw in my argument would be more likely to convince me than bald claims and autocratic commands. Bovlb (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- The flaw is that the link being sought to be included at the RFC points to a site engaged in illegal activities (certainly under Florida law, which is where Wikipedia's servers are located). The fact that it would even be discussed as a potentially includeable link boggles the mind. The only need that I can see for an RfC would be to consider a policy that all links to sites hidden behind proxies should be excluded. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you believe that Wikipedia has a policy against either of those things that a link to this site would violate then you should make that argument in the RFC, citing the specific policy and explaining why you think it applies. If your argument is compelling, it will likely determine the outcome of the RFC. Alternatively, if you feel that these should be policy, then you should propose that change in the appropriate place and, if enacted, it will trump any local RFC. Either way, there is no need for a parallel discussion here. We should be trying to encourage the community to resolve content issues through policy-based discussion, not trying to chill the discussion with supervotes. Bovlb (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm staying out of that page and discussion from now on. You worry about 'supervotes', but that is not chilling. I know chilling and have been subject to it. Lastly, I did not forum shop and if I had notified the editors involved in the previous RFC that would be WP:CANVAS. This topic was raised because of local attempts to override a previous discussion and circumvent the blacklist. I don't need to defend myself further because those attempts are acceptable concerns to be raised at ANI, given ANI dealt with this page twice before. The RFC suffers from bad scope and procedural issues, this issue at ANI is policy related and policy alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- ChrisGualtieri: I wasn't trying to pick on you in particular, and I apologise if my remarks made it seem that way. A lot of people have concerns about a discussion they see in one place, and voice those concerns in another place. Unfortunately, if this is done in the wrong way it can split discussion, cause confusion, and make it harder for the original discussion to proceed to a conclusion. This is why we have a policy against forum shopping. Because you were concerned about this RFC, you did the right thing in raising awareness of it, but this thread should not have been allowed to turn into a rehashing of the very same issues that the RFC was started to resolve. That's why we usually respond to such threads with "Discuss it there, not here." Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've already contacted the Foundation and waiting for their input. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- ChrisGualtieri: I wasn't trying to pick on you in particular, and I apologise if my remarks made it seem that way. A lot of people have concerns about a discussion they see in one place, and voice those concerns in another place. Unfortunately, if this is done in the wrong way it can split discussion, cause confusion, and make it harder for the original discussion to proceed to a conclusion. This is why we have a policy against forum shopping. Because you were concerned about this RFC, you did the right thing in raising awareness of it, but this thread should not have been allowed to turn into a rehashing of the very same issues that the RFC was started to resolve. That's why we usually respond to such threads with "Discuss it there, not here." Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm staying out of that page and discussion from now on. You worry about 'supervotes', but that is not chilling. I know chilling and have been subject to it. Lastly, I did not forum shop and if I had notified the editors involved in the previous RFC that would be WP:CANVAS. This topic was raised because of local attempts to override a previous discussion and circumvent the blacklist. I don't need to defend myself further because those attempts are acceptable concerns to be raised at ANI, given ANI dealt with this page twice before. The RFC suffers from bad scope and procedural issues, this issue at ANI is policy related and policy alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you believe that Wikipedia has a policy against either of those things that a link to this site would violate then you should make that argument in the RFC, citing the specific policy and explaining why you think it applies. If your argument is compelling, it will likely determine the outcome of the RFC. Alternatively, if you feel that these should be policy, then you should propose that change in the appropriate place and, if enacted, it will trump any local RFC. Either way, there is no need for a parallel discussion here. We should be trying to encourage the community to resolve content issues through policy-based discussion, not trying to chill the discussion with supervotes. Bovlb (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- The flaw is that the link being sought to be included at the RFC points to a site engaged in illegal activities (certainly under Florida law, which is where Wikipedia's servers are located). The fact that it would even be discussed as a potentially includeable link boggles the mind. The only need that I can see for an RfC would be to consider a policy that all links to sites hidden behind proxies should be excluded. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pointing out a flaw in my argument would be more likely to convince me than bald claims and autocratic commands. Bovlb (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Again, Bovlb, you're wrong. This discussion here will need to continue based on the policy issues. Stop insisting otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Myself, and several other users, have been having issues with Aichik (talk · contribs) since (around) February. I'm not completely involved in this, but I have overseen many of the instances and I was asked by Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs) to help in filing a case (as he is not familiar), so he would be the one to explain in detail. To reference, a summary of events written by Jivesh last month can be viewed here and here. The latest problem took place on Madonna (entertainer). Aichik has an extreme issue with incivility and personal attacks. It has come to the point where it has become too much; except, for me, that was months and months ago, at him calling Jivesh a misogynist. Another discussion to see would be this GAR page, which he actually removed some of my words such as "Oh my god", "goddamn" and "hell" as personal attacks. I will be notifying all users involved in disputes with Aichik to comment here, as I can not speak for them myself. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help Status. It seems that Aichik always narrowly escapes after directing personal attacks. Committing a mistake is not the problem but repeating the same mistake is. I avoided replying to him for a certain period of time but till how long can we ignore him? How about warning the one who "poisons the atmosphere and disinclines collegiality" and stop "let(ting) the petty insults pass by without acknowledging them?" After all, we are all human beings. How far are we expected to be noble? And he is not among those who can change (in my opinion). How can you not see your own mistakes and instead ask (not once but twice already for me to be blocked? [7] [8] Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment from somewhat involved Binksternet. Note that Aichik has recently been warned by Kww as the result of a February 24 discussion at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Personal attacks from Aichik (talk · contribs). There, The Bushranger said that if there was another instance of something as bad as the "misogynist" attack, then Aichik would be blocked very quickly. I am not seeing a more recent attack which is as bad as that, but I am seeing some attacks that are less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude. A sampling: "Wow, IndianBio continuing in his arrogant tone without actually helping matters"[9]. "You're acting like a cantankerous husband"[10]. Aichik said my reverting of news about a non-notable boyfriend of Madonna's was "a clear example of ageism"[11], which I assumed was a personal attack, though I did not bother to respond in kind. IndianBio threw that ageist comment back at Aichik several times, which I thought was a response based on emotions and frustration.
I have looked at Aichik's recent work on Wikipedia and I think the editor is abrasive in personal style but correct in targeting the poor writing style in pop music articles that we have been promoting to GA. (For instance, the GA version of Beyoncé bio includes this grammar failure: "Knowles is one of the regarded sexually appealing artists in the industry.") Thus, I would caution Aichik to work more smoothly with other editors, to refrain from browbeating them or talking down to them. I would encourage Aichik to continue the cleanup of pop music articles, but to please treat other editors with respect. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)- Wow, I actually completely forgot about the other AN. Thanks for pointing that out. It appears I don't have a very good memory... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Only saying something as bad as "misogynist" should not be the big issue. I would also like to pint out that Aichik frequently write words "less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude" and the frequency should also count. It is not necessary to drink poison at once; you can also consume it little by little but the outcome remains the same - death. That's the best way I can explain my views. Aichik may not use words as bad or worse than "misogynist" but he continuously misbehaves. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm kinda baffled as to what exactly is Aichik's problem that he/she cannot check these back-handed comments about every edit the person makes? As Binksternet pointed out, the editor is good in pointing out the problems occurring in the music related articles, but adds an extra unnecessary personal attack along with it. And seriously this needs to stop because it undermines the discussion to take place, aggravating other editors (including me, Jivesh etc) and leads to a mess. If you cannot edit in good faith and keeping a neutral tone, then no-one would be interested right? I hope he/she sees the err of their ways, else I believe administrative action should be taken. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Only saying something as bad as "misogynist" should not be the big issue. I would also like to pint out that Aichik frequently write words "less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude" and the frequency should also count. It is not necessary to drink poison at once; you can also consume it little by little but the outcome remains the same - death. That's the best way I can explain my views. Aichik may not use words as bad or worse than "misogynist" but he continuously misbehaves. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I actually completely forgot about the other AN. Thanks for pointing that out. It appears I don't have a very good memory... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- My finger constantly hovers over the block button when I review Aichik's edits, but he never quite crosses the threshold in my eyes. I will have no objection to any other admin blocking him.—Kww(talk) 06:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's one more belittling word Aichik used on Jennie--x's talk page: "darling", employed not lovingly but condescendingly. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- From the accused. First off, Binsternet, that word to Jennie is taken out of context. Jennie and I have been posting notes to each other back and forth for some time on various topics around the Beyoncé's article, and she attempted to end the conversation (though not with even close to the tone that Status, Jivesh and IndianBio employ when they try) by deleting my referenced edit, calling it based on a "minority point of view". So I wrote back without touching her edit, "That can be used to take out most of Wikipedia's content, darling. Don't use it as a hammer to drive your own preferences" out of frustration.
Now, for everything else, I've been warned on every one of these instances mentioned above, some several times in ways other editors could venture to call overkill. For Status, Jivesh, and IndianBio to not admit to their own indiscretions, their own building up of the poison, is completely intellectually dishonest but somewhat expected, given the way I've been treated by all three. (Oh, wait, Kwww included here too for not employing his criticality to anyone else involved and showing up randomly threatening to block me, "My finger constantly hovers over the block button" being his go-to expression.) It is a complete lie on Jivesh's part to write has been ignoring me, his commenting "I avoided replying to him for a certain period of time but till how long can we ignore him?" is completely laughable. See this this this and this. He's made it a habit to stalk and goad editors who don't agree with him since I got him warned by [Kwww here], or since perhaps I first touched his fault-ridden Beyoncé contributions.
- I'm not so convinced that "darling" was delivered in any but a condescending tone, intended to insult the target, to diminish her contribution. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read what I just wrote, Binksternet? Not one word is in there about it being NOT condescending. That's not the point. Like you generously did with above with IndianBio's weird, over-the-top retaliation against my "personal insult" "directed at" you, I put what you take out back into its context. It's really digging, Binsternet since here it's from a thread that you didn't participate one iota in: Beyoncé not Madonna. Jivesh himself would [cut you down for mixing the two].--Aichik (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment, completely uninvolved I do not find a diff posted here that would should Aichik breaking WP:NPA. A bit heated language at times, definitely, though that seems to go for those who disagree with him as well. If there are diffs with clear violations, please post them. Otherwise I would agree with Kww that Aichik (and others) would do well to think about WP:CIVIL, but I see nothing that would warrant a block.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- How would you define a personal attack? [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
- And according to him, I I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board. I NEVER asked for recognition for my work but what the hell is this? My work is now being questioned in such an unpleasant way? Telling other users that I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board? There is a limit to all nonsense. Such remarks hurt a lot. According to him, there are far too many Beyonce articles on Wikipedia and he does not like it because Jennifer Lopez and Diana Ross don't have? Pathetic!!! He even masked the information he removes through his edit summaries. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Jivesh calm down as Jeppiz says. Coming to Aichik, reviewing each and every of your edits and summaries and even each and every one of your comments in this as well as the previous ANI, I'm sorry to say, you have no understanding of civility policy and you are borderline making personal attacks to any user you interact with. As Kww said, you kinda are smart to remain within a tolerance level, but well again the question begets, how much is tolerable? I'm not saying he/she should be blocked or anything but this is a serious case of misbehavior that needs to be checked. Respect others and you would get equal respect Aichik. Learn to apologize for your behavior. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Aichik just hounded me on my talk page for filing this report. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, Status, like, I can't write on your wall like anyone else on Wikipedia can, whoa, step back. Maybe if I'd taken your threats and shouting more seriously, I would've been on there sooner, but really I prefer to edit than to argue with people who don't know how to communicate. IndianBio, you should be the first to cite civility policy when you went nutty on me when I mentioned ageism to Binkernet. You never asked for an apology then, and finally, here after a ton of drama, you've finally calm down make yourself look humble in front of a worldwide audience. The process shouldn't take this long. You've obviously worked without an apology from me so you can continue. Life goes on, let's see what other changes need to be made in these articles that the world relies on. I hope we can be civil, but if we can't it's no big deal to me, I don't know you and frankly, the 9th and the 10th times you harp on the same stuff about me you don't sell yourself well to me I'm afraid. --Aichik (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, you can't, as I previously already warned you to stay off my talk page. And even more so with such hostel behavior. I am not searching for an apology from anyone (I wouldn't expect one anyway); I was asked by Jivesh to file this ANI. We don't have a problem (that I'm aware of, at least), so I'm not sure why you are now bringing this on me. Please, show me my "threats"; I'm beyond curious. If you prefer to edit, I'm quite confused as to why every second edit you make is in dispute with somebody, and every fifth is a borderline attack. Again, this is about your behaviour; I, for one, know how to communicate with people, just not people who lack the will to. Why we're here today. Not just with one person now, but several. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- High hilarity, Status. When did you ever "warn me off your page"? That was the first time I deigned to visit it. Do you have some special "status", Status: You can't even distinguish "hostile" from "hostel"! And don't hide behind your "I was asked by Jivesh to do this" crap. He's been on here apparently "for years" but you are the sad one to be siding with someone who however charming in certain ways, however robotically consistent he is at posting cupcakes and barnstars for edits he likes, takes edits he doesn't like to "his" articles personally and can't even post their own ANI. But you do so because you and Jivesh's friendship on Wikipedia is so special, so anyone "whose edits you don't completely understand (read yr own "Keep and speedy close reassessment" section) you are absolutely convinced is in the wrong. Here are your threats (Go to "None of this seems relevant to the GAR" section). Lastly, you exaggerate on my attack-v.-edit ratio, but you wouldn't know that because copyediting outside of articles about ginormous pop stars is not among your interests.--Aichik (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok enough! Stop this tone and stop these personal attacks! You are a borderline insulting a person! Administrators please take a note of this behavior. I would support a block for such atrocious behavior and downright personal attack in a thread where the user's own behavior is being discussed. Aichik, I do not think Wikipedia is a place for you if you cannot be civil at all. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Calm down, IndianBio. This is for Status: I took the time to talk to you, that is done, obviously this person needs to be addressed as well. Like I say, over and over, look in the mirror for controlling borderline-insulting behavior. Like Madonna, says, Papa Don't Preach.--Aichik (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Aichik, why does it "bother" you that I awarded a barnstar to someone? It is the custom to reward Wikipedia contributors for hard work and due diligence by awarding them a barnstar. You even stalk our respective talk-page? Hmmm. And in addition to a rabid fan and a misogynist, I am now a robot? No comments. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- The latest. This is what Aichik wrote referring to this image. How far are his comments tolerable? Is this a way to ask something? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No personal attack there. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I know but this is not a way to communicate. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No personal attack there. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Another example of the tone that Aichik uses while communicating, and it is pretty clear who the "cheap users" are being referred tp, and the following description regarding an image is question is surely to aggravate others. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- And removed a WP:NPA related warning I left for the above attack at User:Status, with an equally condescending tone. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)!
- And this as well. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, the ones I edited out while writing really count, Jivesh. Another point for you, NOT.--Aichik (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- You still don't have any clue as to the tone that you are speaking with users here and no clue about civility at all. And you think that everything you wrote to User:Status falls within that criteria and level right? Very well. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have the time or patience to reply to his attacks directed at me any longer; I'm not gonna even bother reading what he said above because the comments underneath it say enough. I did take a look at the diff, however, and your response to its removal; just because you remove (yet another) personal attack, doesn't mean that you never said it. I think your disruptive behaviour speaks for itself and I am quite excited to see you self destruct. Any day now, I gather. In addition, you may not have seen my first warning to stay off my talk page, but it seems like you acknowledged the second and yet, you left a note on my talk, yet again (to let me know about another personal attack you made, yikes). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Repeated racism and personal attacks.
Reading about the reactions to Margaret Thatcher's death, I happened to come upon some very disturbing comments by Quis separabit?, with whom I don't think I've ever interacted. In several edits, the user calls other "scum" [19], calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" and adds some attacks on the Irish [20], [21]. In another comment, the user expresses his joy over the murder of human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson[22]. The user obviously has many valuable edits, but repeated racism of this kind is disturbing and violates quite a number of policies.Jeppiz (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- The user is actually User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, who has history here. I can understand that various emotions were running high after Thatch's death, but the Rosemary Nelson diff is completely out of order and I would certainly have issued a block to them had I seen that at the time. I'm actually about to revdelete it now. If any other admin wants to block for that I wouldn't object at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any rational way in which those comments represent an acceptable level of discourse. I've blocked the account for 1 week, and would invite feedback about that decision. MastCell Talk 18:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I said above, I agree completely. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably blocked indef until the user had pledged not to do anything that stupid again. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the block but I think it should be noted that the accusations mentioned are against particular members of their respective classes rather than as slurs against the classes as a whole. There is no implication that all members of each class are such offensive things. The terminology is still unnecessary and insulting by implication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't actually that worried about those. It was the comment about the murder of someone (which I've revldeleted, and am not going to repeat here). I cannot imagine what a member of her family would have thought about Wikipedia if they'd read that. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the block but I think it should be noted that the accusations mentioned are against particular members of their respective classes rather than as slurs against the classes as a whole. There is no implication that all members of each class are such offensive things. The terminology is still unnecessary and insulting by implication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- If I'd've got there first I would have indeffed him, but the 1 week block seems fair. If I ever see anything like that again... GiantSnowman 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm, I suppose, a major supporter of Robert and have been involved for many years in blocking his accounts, back in the day. I was a major supporter of his unban, too. He's basically a good guy and means well. Having said that, I have to support the week-long block here, as those comments were utterly inappropriate by any interpretation - Alison ❤ 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This week long block seems utterly pointless and 100% punitive, yes the comments were in poor taste, but why do we suddenly care now when no one did 6 days ago when they were made? Since this outburst the user seems to have returned to constructive editing so I oppose this sanction and support just letting it go (with a warning). - filelakeshoe (t / c) 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I care about it today because I became aware of it today. While I take your point about the time lapse between the comments and the block, I do think there's some value - some preventative value - in making clear that those kinds of comments are unacceptable, even at 6 days' remove. That said, there is not much science to choosing a block length, and I wouldn't defend 1 week as The Right Answer. The fact that Alison is willing to vouch for someone goes a long way for me, and I'd be fine with shortening the block to 24-48 hours as long as there's general agreement that the comments in question were inappropriate. MastCell Talk 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose the block duration, and its much-delayed timing. The OP's linked comments were neither "racism" nor "personal". Stale issues should not trigger blocks. Looking at histories at Talk:Margaret Thatcher and User Talk:You Can Act Like A Man, a lot of edits not by rms125 were revdel'd from the user talk page, but rms125a seems not to have edited Talk:Margaret Thatcher since 9 April. This makes this block less valid due to staleness. The OP duplicated alleged offensive edits. RMS's comments must be read in whole, not in part, to understand them. I see this block as an overreaction by people who don't read for context. rms125a has been civil in all discussions with me. However, as a reminder to be more civil (since I don't think RMS was uncivil), and because a few people were offended (I think too much, really) this block should be for 1 or 2 days maximum, since it's a first incident since 2009. --Lexein (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I originally made the accusation of racism against Rms125, on my TP, but did not report it here as perhaps I should have because, assuming gf, I recognised it as probably being a result of the general heightened emotion of the time. I'm not commenting on the block, but re: the timing, there is no Statute of Limitations here. Basket Feudalist 11:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the 2009 block of RMS' account was done in error. Having said that, I'm not opposed to a reduction in block duration if that's what's agreed. I'm pretty-sure he's not going to repeat the offense now - Alison ❤ 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- As for the timing, I brought it to ANI now because I saw it now. After six days, I might not have brought a "normal" policy violation here, but expressing joy at the murder of another person and referring to "Afro-Caribbean criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" is well beyond what is acceptable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- There were not racist comments...but the horrific comments about the murder were inappropriate and block-worthy...even this far down the road. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- The comments by Mr. Hotmail were strong enough to warrant a block. However, anyone who was celebrating Thatcher's death on-Wiki also deserves a block. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- What policy permits a block for someone "celebrating" her death? No one in the UK has been charged with any offence for publicly celebrating her death - yet. Leaky Caldron 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Who cares about policy? Sometimes we use common sense. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- What policy permits a block for someone "celebrating" her death? No one in the UK has been charged with any offence for publicly celebrating her death - yet. Leaky Caldron 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good block, even a little after the fact. The Nelson comment was beyond the pale. The other comments were block worthy too; it is long established that we avoid expressing personal opinions about individuals, especially if those comments are derogatory (per WP:BLP). This needs to be impressed on him very strongly, and if he does it again I support stronger blocks. --Errant (chat!) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- You say that now. Wait until its an overreaction due to context-free reading that results in you being blocked. For a week. With no prior shorter block. RMS125a was also not given notice that he would be blocked if his comments weren't stricken. I strongly feel that what due process exists here at Wikipedia (warn, stronger warning, warning of about to block, then block short, then block long on repeated offense) was shamefully not followed. --Lexein (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good block, in my view. Outright racism has no place here. Period. Jusdafax 10:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- True. Having been the victim of "outright racism", I agree. However, the comments linked to show no racism whatsoever. I'm having great trouble with how people are parsing grammar today :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- The diffs presented in the first paragraph are quite enough proof to justify the block. One of the diffs had to be stricken completely, it appears. I am not sure what you mean by "parsing." It seems to be clearly racism. Jusdafax 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe we're reading different diffs. For example, in the opening paragraph, Jeppiz claims that rms "calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds"" which is not borne out by the actual link. The phrase used is "it is mostly the "Afro-Caribbean" criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" - that does not call Afro-Caribbean people criminals/thugs or gaolbirds, it refers to a subset of criminals, thugs and gaolbirds who happen to be Afro-Caribbean. There's not a single speck of racism in that phrase, unless one parses it tremendously contrary to English language usage. Maybe it's a different link you're looking at? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- BW, are you really going down that path? I thought better of you. GiantSnowman 11:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- BW that is the diff I am looking at. And technically, you are right. But the intent seems clear, at least to me. Jusdafax 11:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, I usually find your reasoning very clear, even when we disagree, but I'm afraid I don't follow this time. If the user wanted to point out that only "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" celebrated Thatcher's death, he could have written that. Adding "Afro-Caribbean" was not necessary for any other reason than to single out an ethnic group in a negative sense.Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- BW, are you really going down that path? I thought better of you. GiantSnowman 11:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe we're reading different diffs. For example, in the opening paragraph, Jeppiz claims that rms "calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds"" which is not borne out by the actual link. The phrase used is "it is mostly the "Afro-Caribbean" criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" - that does not call Afro-Caribbean people criminals/thugs or gaolbirds, it refers to a subset of criminals, thugs and gaolbirds who happen to be Afro-Caribbean. There's not a single speck of racism in that phrase, unless one parses it tremendously contrary to English language usage. Maybe it's a different link you're looking at? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- The diffs presented in the first paragraph are quite enough proof to justify the block. One of the diffs had to be stricken completely, it appears. I am not sure what you mean by "parsing." It seems to be clearly racism. Jusdafax 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- True. Having been the victim of "outright racism", I agree. However, the comments linked to show no racism whatsoever. I'm having great trouble with how people are parsing grammar today :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, Bwilikins, it seems your parsing is what is too fine. If as you maintain the subject is, criminal/thugs/gaolbirds and they are identified as Afro-Carribean or Irish, they are being held out for ridicule by race, otherwise why mention their race, especially when it's a sourceless opinion that "those" people are the problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- First, I will restate: as someone with an ethnically-diverse background, I loathe any false claim of racism. When one reviews the reign of Thatcher (which is public knowledge) you'll find that two the major themes were a) N.Ireland relationships, and b) a crackdown on crime, which included the arrests of an inordinate number of "Afro-Caribbeans" (yes, including family members of mine, thank you very much). So, with the death of Thatcher, those groups of individuals might indeed be celebrating. RMS at NO time said that either of those groups were a "problem", nor were they ridiculed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Celebrateing a death wasn't a problem? When it caused widespread sturm and drang commentary and even riot? Second, your personal feelings are not the issue. The issue is what one objectively looking at that sees. They see a race identifyer attached to a put-down. Finally there was no "they might" but that would hardly make the analysis different. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- First, I will restate: as someone with an ethnically-diverse background, I loathe any false claim of racism. When one reviews the reign of Thatcher (which is public knowledge) you'll find that two the major themes were a) N.Ireland relationships, and b) a crackdown on crime, which included the arrests of an inordinate number of "Afro-Caribbeans" (yes, including family members of mine, thank you very much). So, with the death of Thatcher, those groups of individuals might indeed be celebrating. RMS at NO time said that either of those groups were a "problem", nor were they ridiculed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, his major issue seems to be with the Irish; they are Slugger o'Toolites, Shinners etc, and his signature is (was) the motto of the UDA, a proscribed organisation. FYI. Basket Feudalist 12:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I get Bwilkins point on how "Afro-Carribean" is used. He may be right, but I think it's actually ambiguous and could mean both a sub-set of Afro-Carribeans or it could mean (given the short-hand/truncated style many of us normally adopt when posting) that the words following Afro-Carribean are used adjectivally for the entire group. I suppose WP:AGF - we should assume the best interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Putting aside the "Afro-Carribean" comment (though I still say it was racist), the anti-Irish/pro-Ulster issues highlighted by YCALAM are extremely alarming. GiantSnowman 12:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ya know, I'm from the Southern US; people call us "Appalacian Americans" all the time (a derogatory regard in ways), but I don't have time nor inclination to care. Is it insulting? If YOU let it be. There's something called "Freedom of Speech" where I live, and your rights to such end only when it approaches yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. So were "comments" made offensive to some? It appears so. Should we defer our common sense and rights EVERY time someone supposes their feelings are disregarded or hurt? Probably not. Should we "ban" someone for their words when done without malicious universal actions or physical threat? Probably not; again, these are mere words. In many ways the knee-jerk reaction of overly sensitive or zealous persons should not dictate how we see and regard information, both good and bad. Closing your eyes and ears to the unpleasantness of the World does not reduce or erase it's problems, it magnifies the ignorance associated with being uninformed and closed-minded. Opinions, good or bad, are just that. Words are similar. You take the good with the bad. Deal with it, because it is not going away in any of our lifetimes. Just an opinion :) Barada wha? 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Psst...there's no such thing as WP:FREESPEECH on a private website such as this. We have behavioural norms that everyone agreed to when they started editing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Let's consider other trump cards like WP:IGNORE & WP:NOTCENSORED, where we dispense with the restrictive ideas between "Freedom" and "Speech". This debate more closely fringes on the idea of "Tolerance", because a certain limited number of individuals are dictating a point that, in cases such as an entire ethos of contemporary persons who denote themselves via expression, is restricted by the lack of acceptance and tolerance for ideas based on limited personal means and interpretations. So let's call this "tolerance", because some have none for ideas they cannot consider, or dare not do so. Before you strike a Red Letter on someone for expressing themselves, you need to look carefully at yourself for intolerance, for bias, and for the inability to accept the candor of others. Don't let intolerance dictate your reach and breadth. Don't be swollen with the ignorance that makes negative opinion so easy to jump to. Could we substitute the word "Religion" here for "Speech"? Sure, but the hangman's noose would loom from every branch of differing ideology when someone first says; "That's just ugly to say. Your religious ideas are insidious, derisive, and I don't like them or believe them, so I'm going to ban you". Challenge me that. For you know that "Tolerance" would not be sufficient, and "Freedom" is the word assigned to religion...i.e. "Freedom of Religious expression and belief". So I do not endorse the idea of a limited "Free Speech" here, as nothing said was universally malicious and/or baneful as ascribed above. Indeed, the knee-jerk reactions of the limited few who jump to condemn ideas are the ones we should be concerned with, for their contributions are always as "nay-sayers" for the ideas of others, and have concern only for the mindset of the similar. Anonymous quote; "Open your mind; your arse will follow." Just an opinion :) Thanks for letting me express it! Barada wha? 05:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- When you edit Wikipedia, you agree to the community's code of conduct. Some of it is legalese in the "terms of service", others are "policies" and "guidelines" established by the community. "Freedom of speech/expression/religion/noseblowing" is not covered anywhere in any of those - there are certain things that, if done, fall outside the code of conduct and will result in sanctions, and waving "freedom flags" in those cases doesn't help - it is, in fact, counterproductive. If there's parts of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines you don't agree with, there's three options: one, accept them even though you don't agree with them; two, initiate a discussion to attempt to change them at the relevant policy's or guideline's talk page or through a RFC; or three, stop editing Wikipedia (with a failed "two" resulting in either "one" or "three" being left as options). "Tolerance" of those who who choose the fourth option - "ignore it" - is, in fact, not an option. And, despite the arguments of some, WP:CIVIL isn't just a policy, it's one of the five pillars - to choose to ignore incivility is to strike at the very heart of what Wikipedia is. And it seems I'm developing some sesquipedalian loquaciousness, which means it's time for me to sleep. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but you are well spoken, and your respect for words and ideas grants you the ability to rationalize despite what must include your personal fortitudes, feelings, and inclinations. I truly appreciate what Wikipedians express here, for there is no greater single group of people willing to put up with the millions and millions of divergent life philosophies than here (granted, some are a tad more in "flex-mode" than others...no biggie). Now in regard to "flag waving", I never chose to highlight a policy, but instead a process that many can relate to and I believe folks should regard when making statement of simple "word choice" disagreement (note the original lack of blue lettering back there and the notation that I could see no universally malicious actions or physical threats to justify a limiting of such word choice), so I must displace the reprisal there for they are not in true appointment of my intentions. However, I did incline a few of the "majors" to read the words, and place well thought commentaries all of us can appreciate when we regard the entirety of this post. Anyone who does not internalize this diverse group of ideas and attempt to gain a greater understanding of these points of view is missing out, I believe, on the good parts of each portion. That I lean one way on expression and others lean another is a matter of consequence, exposure, and upbringing. I, for one, can see the whole in their dimensions. It is my sincere hope that others can as well. Yet I still regard that we shouldn't have banned Quis separabit? so far after the fact...it's like prosecuting outside a respectable statue of limitations. Do you stick your dog's nose in poop 7 days after his accident and expect it to have anything but a negative and confusing impact? I wouldn't! ... Thanks for more great debate :) Barada wha? 04:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- When you edit Wikipedia, you agree to the community's code of conduct. Some of it is legalese in the "terms of service", others are "policies" and "guidelines" established by the community. "Freedom of speech/expression/religion/noseblowing" is not covered anywhere in any of those - there are certain things that, if done, fall outside the code of conduct and will result in sanctions, and waving "freedom flags" in those cases doesn't help - it is, in fact, counterproductive. If there's parts of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines you don't agree with, there's three options: one, accept them even though you don't agree with them; two, initiate a discussion to attempt to change them at the relevant policy's or guideline's talk page or through a RFC; or three, stop editing Wikipedia (with a failed "two" resulting in either "one" or "three" being left as options). "Tolerance" of those who who choose the fourth option - "ignore it" - is, in fact, not an option. And, despite the arguments of some, WP:CIVIL isn't just a policy, it's one of the five pillars - to choose to ignore incivility is to strike at the very heart of what Wikipedia is. And it seems I'm developing some sesquipedalian loquaciousness, which means it's time for me to sleep. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Let's consider other trump cards like WP:IGNORE & WP:NOTCENSORED, where we dispense with the restrictive ideas between "Freedom" and "Speech". This debate more closely fringes on the idea of "Tolerance", because a certain limited number of individuals are dictating a point that, in cases such as an entire ethos of contemporary persons who denote themselves via expression, is restricted by the lack of acceptance and tolerance for ideas based on limited personal means and interpretations. So let's call this "tolerance", because some have none for ideas they cannot consider, or dare not do so. Before you strike a Red Letter on someone for expressing themselves, you need to look carefully at yourself for intolerance, for bias, and for the inability to accept the candor of others. Don't let intolerance dictate your reach and breadth. Don't be swollen with the ignorance that makes negative opinion so easy to jump to. Could we substitute the word "Religion" here for "Speech"? Sure, but the hangman's noose would loom from every branch of differing ideology when someone first says; "That's just ugly to say. Your religious ideas are insidious, derisive, and I don't like them or believe them, so I'm going to ban you". Challenge me that. For you know that "Tolerance" would not be sufficient, and "Freedom" is the word assigned to religion...i.e. "Freedom of Religious expression and belief". So I do not endorse the idea of a limited "Free Speech" here, as nothing said was universally malicious and/or baneful as ascribed above. Indeed, the knee-jerk reactions of the limited few who jump to condemn ideas are the ones we should be concerned with, for their contributions are always as "nay-sayers" for the ideas of others, and have concern only for the mindset of the similar. Anonymous quote; "Open your mind; your arse will follow." Just an opinion :) Thanks for letting me express it! Barada wha? 05:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Psst...there's no such thing as WP:FREESPEECH on a private website such as this. We have behavioural norms that everyone agreed to when they started editing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ya know, I'm from the Southern US; people call us "Appalacian Americans" all the time (a derogatory regard in ways), but I don't have time nor inclination to care. Is it insulting? If YOU let it be. There's something called "Freedom of Speech" where I live, and your rights to such end only when it approaches yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. So were "comments" made offensive to some? It appears so. Should we defer our common sense and rights EVERY time someone supposes their feelings are disregarded or hurt? Probably not. Should we "ban" someone for their words when done without malicious universal actions or physical threat? Probably not; again, these are mere words. In many ways the knee-jerk reaction of overly sensitive or zealous persons should not dictate how we see and regard information, both good and bad. Closing your eyes and ears to the unpleasantness of the World does not reduce or erase it's problems, it magnifies the ignorance associated with being uninformed and closed-minded. Opinions, good or bad, are just that. Words are similar. You take the good with the bad. Deal with it, because it is not going away in any of our lifetimes. Just an opinion :) Barada wha? 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Putting aside the "Afro-Carribean" comment (though I still say it was racist), the anti-Irish/pro-Ulster issues highlighted by YCALAM are extremely alarming. GiantSnowman 12:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the purpose of full disclosure without requiring editors to go through every single link for date checks, these examples have all happened since the start of 2013.
This user, for longer than I can remember, has been unwilling to participate in discussion regarding their incivility and has been offensive towards other editors in edit summaries (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 "Assplug", 18 "Dumbfuck").
The user also frequently removes sections they don't agree with, even if they are sourced (particularly with the PTC: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).
The user is unwilling for discussion and frequently blanks their talk page in response. Additionally, they will often edit endlessly to prove their viewpoint, regardless if it is correct or incorrect. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Since I and other editors have been unsuccessful in getting a message across, maybe it's time for an administrator to become involved. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like obvious personal attacks and POV editing. I'd like to see what he has to say, but I could support administrative action. —Rutebega (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the editor has been blocked seven times before, for up to 1 month, for edit warring, incivility and vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this was a good block. TRCG is a good editor, especially for WP:TVS, but their 'my style or (expletive)' pushing of their views over any collaboration or talk page use, along with removal of good information for not meeting their article style, is very ugly and after a run in with them last year I avoided them when I could. Nate • (chatter) 12:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wish I had seen this thread a few days ago. I got a soft spot for him--but I don't see how this could have ended any other way. Over the years I've tried to work with him, and I've blocked him a few times as well. I checked in once or twice, and I thought that they were going to be OK. Well, not so much. Anyway, there's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy/Archive to keep in mind; no socks were ever found and there was never a convincing case for CU made, but it is likely that Cable Guy will be back as an IP editor. We'll see. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
And now there's more...just checking their talk page and found there were two orphaned image notices involving WJZY and XHDTV-TV logos...which then happened to be taken care of by IP editor 108.94.64.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), along with contribs to The Cleveland Show and G4 by the IP also, where TRCG has been in edit wars in the past. I don't want to say this is a WP:DUCK, but from a past incident where they had a block and used an IP to evade it and got a few more weeks added on to it, my suspicions are high. GSK and Kww have been notified. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Another one, {75.181.133.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) sprung out of the drawer after 108.94 was blocked by Kww to try to keep their images. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Report now listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy, mainly more for record-keeping as Kww and Drmies have issued a 72h on 108.94, and a week on 75.181. Thanks for the help. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk Psychoanalysis
Sorry to bother you with that, but a user hide my contribs an talk page after a so called Arbcom-waring. I'm not agree with that. I think the warnig was a big mistake. But this warnig concerns only the talkpage of the POV-article [23]. Now I don't have the curage to revert the edit of this user. What shall I do now? --WSC ® 06:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- The warning concerns all "pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science." Your comments were hatted because they did not conform to our talk page guidelines. See WP:TPG. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, exactly what paragraph of this guideline? --WSC ® 07:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- READ THE WARNING. Also, read, as the warning tells you, WP:ETIQUETTE and the list of policies and guidelines, WP:LOP and WP:LGL. Especially read WP:TPG,WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:TE, and our core policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. It is your responsibility to know and adhere to these policies and guidelines at all times. As the warning states, "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bombing a user with acronyms isn't very helpful :) it's better to at least try and answer the question! --Errant (chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me, Errant. I forgot to mention WP:IDHT. Several editors, including me, have tried getting through to this editor, and failed. That's why she was slapped with the warning. Should also mention that she has an impressive block log at German WP, for a wide range of issues, including all of the acronyms I listed above, and more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Remember, WP:IDONTCARE !!! Basket Feudalist 10:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me, Errant. I forgot to mention WP:IDHT. Several editors, including me, have tried getting through to this editor, and failed. That's why she was slapped with the warning. Should also mention that she has an impressive block log at German WP, for a wide range of issues, including all of the acronyms I listed above, and more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bombing a user with acronyms isn't very helpful :) it's better to at least try and answer the question! --Errant (chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- READ THE WARNING. Also, read, as the warning tells you, WP:ETIQUETTE and the list of policies and guidelines, WP:LOP and WP:LGL. Especially read WP:TPG,WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:TE, and our core policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. It is your responsibility to know and adhere to these policies and guidelines at all times. As the warning states, "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, exactly what paragraph of this guideline? --WSC ® 07:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Widescreen; the warning applies generally to any topic under the broad umbrella of "pseudoscience". Wikipedia's patience for disputes over those topics was exhausted in 2008, and Arbcom authorised discretionary sanctions. In terms of that hatted thread - I don't see anything too problematic in there and the editor in question probably shouldn't have been so brusque with you. However, if you wish to question Arbcoms stance/decision the place to do so is open a request for ammendment - although its unlikely to work unless you can present a cogent argument for why it is stopping you from improving the article :) --Errant (chat!) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
See the explanation already offered at WP:AE by User:Sandstein at the bottom of the page. Sædontalk 08:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- A good explanation. After failing several times to get Widescreen to be specific about changes or to take an article that she doesn't appear to believe should exist to AfD, I wihdrew from what has been an unproductive discussion. She should take the article to AfD, make some very specific suggestions about changes, or stop posting to the talk page. If she doesn't then some sort of sanction will be needed. The section heading above makes no sense, as this concerns her behavior at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and her adding pov tags to the article without making any specific suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, that means everybody is entitled to revert my contribs on talkpages related to pseudoscience? No matter what I've wrote about? Don't you think that's a bit freaky?
- I cite ErrantX: "Wikipedia's patience for disputes over those topics was exhausted in 2008." Who is Wikipedia? Do you mean some POV-users who loves clear decisions, like there is one definition of pseudoscience, the user knows and is entitled to call everything pseudoscience he found a source for? En.WP don't like to discuss to much! I could be expose Wikipedia is not right. It seems, some users rather live in a own wikipedia dreamworld, than having passionate debates.
- @Dominus Vobisdu: I'm the 2nd or 3rd most blocked user in de.wp and the one with the most procedures of community ban. I'm wikipedian since nearly 10 years... and I'm one of the users impelled the delation of the the de:Kategorie:Pseudowissenschaft. It taks more than 1,5 years of intense controversy. The catagory is delated since 2007. --WSC ® 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Who is Wikipedia? It's the Wikipedia community as a whole, which led to Arbcom imposing discretionary sanctions on psuedoscientific topics. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- It may be the case that de.wp allows editor argumentation to take precedence over a strict reading of sources, I don't know since I don't edit there, but if you're going to edit en.wp you have to adapt to our policies, guidelines, and culture. I don't know if de.wp has an equivalent to discretionary sanctions, but just in case not let me explain how this usually works. Basically, if an editor on a covered topic, such as pseudoscience, repeatedly violates policies or otherwise edits tendentiously, that editor is warned with the template that was placed on your page. If the editor continues the previous behavior the next step is a temporary block and if it happens again then the next step is usually a topic ban (though sometimes topic bans are the second step). It seems, based on what you've said above, that you're familiar with topic bans so I won't explain that, but feel free to ask for clarification. The main difference between discretionary and normal bans is that they can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, do not require community input, and must be appealed to WP:ARBCOM. Incidentally, it is uncommon for Arbcom to remove discretionary sanctions when imposed at WP:AE.
- While you may have had luck at de.wp, it's highly unlikely you would succeed in such a venture here and my advice is to drop the notion of an English Wikipedia without a strong framework for categorizing and labeling pseudoscience. As ErrantX points out, the community's patience in dealing with this topic has been exhausted, the consensus has been formed and for the most part we have little patience when it comes to this topic. Sædontalk 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Bushranger: The Arbcom now imposing not to citizise Artikles in this area? That sounds unserious to me. Let's say, just hypothetically, that I'm right. Wikipedia don't notice a large range of excelent philosophical sources. Than the Arbcom would cement POV at wikipedia articles.
- @Saedon: Thanks for that straight answer. What makes you belief that I don't argue strict by high quality sources? The problem is, I agrue with high quality sources. You would know that if you had read the discussion on [[24]]. But my arguments are now been reverted, thats why no one can read them anymore. My opponants on this debate don't use any source. The article is full of weak and partial sources, but no one seems to care. When I go back to the debate in philosophy of science, my opponants bombing me with secondary wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. I think, anyone is able to proov my objections. He should just take any old textbook of philosophy of science and read it. [25] You ought find in these books a more or less large passage about that issue. To take sources seriously was the way to delate the catagorie against a strong framework of so called sceptics in de.wp. Whats ongoing here with lists and catagories of pseudosciences is highly sceptical organisation POV. If you have nothing better to do, please make a experiment with yourself. search for the most relevant textbooks of philosophy of science, and use the search function for the name of the philosophical goodfather of so called scepticism Paul Kurtz. Than you have an access to estimate what importance he got for the philosophical debat. But if you rather live in a wikipedia dreamworld, leave it. --WSC ® 04:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect you and I could have a fun conversation on the philosophy of science as it's one of my favorite topics but it's of less relevance here than you might imagine. I've read through some of the discussion you had and I think understand your point - that there is no clear definition of pseudoscience, the items on the list are sourced to what some might consider a "capital S" skeptic POV, and because of this the article has a POV slant. I understand your position especially because I have a background in both science and philosophy and thus view the modern skeptic movement...let's say skeptically. So, if I've characterized your position correctly, I believe it has merit. However, for the purposes of en.wp - for better or for worse - it's of little consequence.
- While you may have had luck at de.wp, it's highly unlikely you would succeed in such a venture here and my advice is to drop the notion of an English Wikipedia without a strong framework for categorizing and labeling pseudoscience. As ErrantX points out, the community's patience in dealing with this topic has been exhausted, the consensus has been formed and for the most part we have little patience when it comes to this topic. Sædontalk 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- In some specific circumstances we have stringent requirements (for instance WP:MEDRS for biomedical articles) but as a whole en.wp is fairly lax when it comes to minimum inclusion requirements. Basically, WP:NOTABLE establishes the criteria necessary for an article to exist (widespread coverage in reliable sources) and WP:V states the minimum criteria for inclusion in an article (being published in a reliable source).
- One of the walls you'll run into is that attempting to delete the article on the justification you used would require WP to basically rewrite the consensus on the reliability of skeptic sources (see WP:PARITY) - a topic which was debated for such a long time that most editors are no longer willing to discuss it (hence ErrantX's and my comment). The second wall you'll run into is that en.wp is very procedural due to its size. I bring this up because as was explained on the talk page, deletion discussions take place at WP:AFD, and if you disagree with the idea of discretionary sanctions you would have to appeal to Arbcom. So at the bottom, whether you're right or wrong is irrelevant if you're talking in the wrong place. But most importantly, whether you're right or wrong has no bearing on whether the sources used are considered reliable for the purposes of WP:V. Since they are, the page's existence is justified prima facie. I get the impression that on de.wp the "bigger picture" is more relevant, but en.wp policies and culture are a little more focused on the trees. Lastly, note that articles regarding pseudoscience will likely always have a slant because few people outside of skeptic circles write about pseudoscience, with the exception of philosophers of science who tend not to write about specific pseudoscientific modalities, but pseudoscience as a whole (though I would love to read Popper on something like Crystal healing :)).
- When I say that my advice is to drop it, I really mean that your prospects of being productive in this area are so slim and your chances of getting topic banned large enough that this is not a worthy investment of your time or that of others. Sædontalk 06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Saedon: I'm confused with your answer. At the one hand you say I'm right, implicite, at the other hand you say it would be wrong to be adamant that I'm right. But what you write is a very coherent describtion of the actual state of en.wikipedia. Especially the part about the procedural manner of wikipedia. Those are my sentiments too. But in one point I'm a bit more rigorous. If anyone is not willing to discuss about fundamental and important issues and policys he should leave it. The discussion about the cerntral issues for the development of a importent and, obviously, high frequenced subject area in wikipedia is a fundamental way of quality-control. If anyone is not willing to hear somthing about the basics of this topic, and requires a policy ore lousy sources, that helps him to win a discussion about a lemma like Crystal healing, he doesn't fit to those pricipes of wikipedia. This procedure come across to me like a weakness of this system.
- I had a lot of such discussions about scientific sources and religious, ideological and scientiffic POV. But don't require such policies which doesn't exist in de.wikipedia.
- In this "POV-debate" I'm in right, of course. Because I go back to fundamental scientific sources of that issue. Theres no need to question that. Who question the philosophical debate about that issue, don't have a clue and shoud better be quite. There must be a way of handele this issue without ban or block the one who's right. Otherwise the wikipedia spreads POV. A violation of one of the five pillars. To oppose against that, is like betrayl the basics of our doing. --WSC ® 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia does not "spread POV," but it does document various POV using RS. That is fundamental and backed by all our policies. As far as your discussions of the definition of pseudoscience, there is more than one definition, and we have never denied that, but the List is not the place to deal with that. The Pseudoscience article is the place for that, but you chose to use up far more than your legitimate options in the wrong place, and now any continuation by you would just be disruptive. We don't take kindly to near world record holders in getting blocked (I think you claimed to be the second or third most blocked user at the German Wikipedia?) coming here and repeating their disruptive behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm the critic in this case. Only I know where my criticism is on the right place :o) But seriously: You are not right. You can't spread a ideology by ignoring various other, and much better and relevant, sources. Do you try to tell me, you didn't get this point? You only use the sources you choose to spread your POV. Just like the "pseudoscience" you try to fight against. Or do you wanna tell me that various textbooks and the writings of the famoust philosophers of the 20th century are not as relevant as a sceptics monthly newspaper or a website? You must be joking. --WSC ® 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia does not "spread POV," but it does document various POV using RS. That is fundamental and backed by all our policies. As far as your discussions of the definition of pseudoscience, there is more than one definition, and we have never denied that, but the List is not the place to deal with that. The Pseudoscience article is the place for that, but you chose to use up far more than your legitimate options in the wrong place, and now any continuation by you would just be disruptive. We don't take kindly to near world record holders in getting blocked (I think you claimed to be the second or third most blocked user at the German Wikipedia?) coming here and repeating their disruptive behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- When I say that my advice is to drop it, I really mean that your prospects of being productive in this area are so slim and your chances of getting topic banned large enough that this is not a worthy investment of your time or that of others. Sædontalk 06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You make a lot of talk but are consistently light on sources. The nearest to a source you got was a google search: [26], the rest is based on your personal feelings and experiences. You have discussed this topic to death at NPOVN and List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience, now you appear adamant to discuss it to death here as well, can you please just stop. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh.... You're throwing lots of straw man arguments around, which means you are imputing beliefs to others which they do not hold. This line of thought is only appropriate on the Pseudoscience article, but you've blown your chances. It's time for a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking along the same lines. We have a serious case of WP:NOTHERE here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Widescreen, I believe the best thing you can do at this point is to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, as it's thoroughly dead. We understand your position - however you refuse to understand that Wikipedia does not work that way. It may not be the way you think it should be, but it is how it is, and, speaking frankly, the chances of it changing in the way you seem to believe it should change are about the same as the proverbial snowball. Given this, you need to either agree to edit in the manner that consensus has agreed upon, or not to edit at all, as to continue to edit against consensus because you don't like the consensus will only prove that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia and result in your not being able to edit at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, now you have the insight, that you can't win this debat. Now the phase of personal attacs begin. The cutest argument is from IRWolfie. If you don't belief me, READ THE SOURCES! Or do you wanna tell me, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Hans Albert, Adolf Grünbaum, Hilary Putnam, Rudolf Carnap I referring to, write somthing different thant i suggest in this discussion? And there are much more I can go back to. What about the critics of the Critical Rationalism? Paul Feyerabend, Theodor W. Adorno or Max Horkheimer. And now the typical nonsense, the german skeptics also spread against the most famous philosopers of the 20th century: Straw Man, WP:NOTHERE and so on. I tell you what: [27] --WSC ® 04:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay everybody, listen up. Take a look at this old comment from Widescreen.
- Are we seeing the same attitude? Strong evidence of a negative learning curve? There seems to be no hope. A topic ban isn't going to be enough. This user has been banned from the German Wikipedia, with one of the longest block records, and they've been continuing the same behavior here, and only been blocked a couple times here. That's not right. Here's their own brag from right above:
- @Dominus Vobisdu: I'm the 2nd or 3rd most blocked user in de.wp and the one with the most procedures of community ban. I'm wikipedian since nearly 10 years... and I'm one of the users impelled the delation of the the de:Kategorie:Pseudowissenschaft. It taks more than 1,5 years of intense controversy. The catagory is delated since 2007. --WSC ® 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a psychiatrist, but something's not right, and the community doesn't seem to be able to deal with it. We don't do psychotherapy on other users. That's not our job. We can't cure this type of problem, so in the interest of protecting the community from further waste of time, I suggest a long block. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well User:BullRangifer seems to belief that a discussion about philosophy of science in the area of Pseudoscience has somthing to do with Psychiatry. I think thats uncivil and nonsens as well. Futher, when I was banned from de.wp. Why did I only just make a edit there? If someone neutral follows this debate, he might notice, that my opponents aren't interested in a debate about the sources or the writings of the philosophers I go back to. No, they only have argumentum ad hominem. Is this only my impression or do other authors also see, that my opponants have no arguments anymore? --WSC ® 04:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- The belief that you were banned came from your own comments, so you have only yourself to blame for that misunderstanding. And the reason your opponents have no arguments anymore is because you continue to argue 'I'm right, I'm right, you're all wrong (and horrible people)", so after a certain point they give up arguing because they know you're not listening. The simple facts of the matter are thus: there are ArbCom sanctions applied to 'pseudoscience'. You can either edit within the sanctions ArbCom has imposed on the topic, or you can not edit articles that come under those sanctions, either by choice or through enforcement, be it blocks, topic bans, or overall bans. If you believe the ArbCom sanctions are inappropriate, you need to discuss that with ArbCom, not here, and you need to edit within the bounds set by ArbCom until and unless they are changed. If you cannot, or will not, do that, then you need to accept the fact that en.wiki is not a place you can contribute at. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I start this thread to concern the delation of an edit, not been criticised by the warning. Than YOU try to outline that my conserns about the topic of pseudosciens are only a wast of time. So that I have to explain my point, in that discussion. And now you have the currage to tell me, thats the wrong place? Don't you think, that a bit unfair? --WSC ® 07:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- The belief that you were banned came from your own comments, so you have only yourself to blame for that misunderstanding. And the reason your opponents have no arguments anymore is because you continue to argue 'I'm right, I'm right, you're all wrong (and horrible people)", so after a certain point they give up arguing because they know you're not listening. The simple facts of the matter are thus: there are ArbCom sanctions applied to 'pseudoscience'. You can either edit within the sanctions ArbCom has imposed on the topic, or you can not edit articles that come under those sanctions, either by choice or through enforcement, be it blocks, topic bans, or overall bans. If you believe the ArbCom sanctions are inappropriate, you need to discuss that with ArbCom, not here, and you need to edit within the bounds set by ArbCom until and unless they are changed. If you cannot, or will not, do that, then you need to accept the fact that en.wiki is not a place you can contribute at. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well User:BullRangifer seems to belief that a discussion about philosophy of science in the area of Pseudoscience has somthing to do with Psychiatry. I think thats uncivil and nonsens as well. Futher, when I was banned from de.wp. Why did I only just make a edit there? If someone neutral follows this debate, he might notice, that my opponents aren't interested in a debate about the sources or the writings of the philosophers I go back to. No, they only have argumentum ad hominem. Is this only my impression or do other authors also see, that my opponants have no arguments anymore? --WSC ® 04:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a psychiatrist, but something's not right, and the community doesn't seem to be able to deal with it. We don't do psychotherapy on other users. That's not our job. We can't cure this type of problem, so in the interest of protecting the community from further waste of time, I suggest a long block. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the basis of the material in the above thread, I propose a topic ban for Widescreen (WSC) from fringe science and pseudoscience topics broadly construed until they demonstrate to the community that they will not continue the disruption further, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Befor you start an ban proposal, you should better read a textbook about philosophy of sience. The only thing that I disrupt is your skepitcal POV!
- A interesting development in this case is, that no one really negate my main point, that philosophy of science and the related writings, like textbooks and main work of philosophers (like Adolf Grünbaum, Imre Lakatos and much more famous philosophers related to this topic) are excluded in the topic of pseudoscience. My suspiction is, that this topic It shall be deemed to be domitated by skeptical organisations. But this organisations are, if anything, than marginal in the philosophical debate. Anyone is able to proove this assertion by reading relevant textbooks or even the wikipedia articles. Some of the useres are agree with my criticism. The reproach is, that I adress the criticism at the wrong place. But now it seems like the there is no right place. The List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is the wrong place, the ANI seems to be the wrong place. It seems like, there's no right place to adress my citicism to. So this ban proposal is only a attempt to exclude my comprehensible objecitons, everyone with a minor understandig of the philosophical debate knows. --WSC ® 10:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support, but I fear an indef is going to be the only thing that works in the long run. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 11:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunate support WSC's comments above seem to suggest that they believe that an encyclopedia is the place for philosophical debates - no. As you've been told that many times yet continue to push your views in lieu of following consensus or the rules, I see no other option at this time. However, I see no problem with coming back to ANI for a relaxation of this restriction in at least 6 months once they have proven their ability to work within consensus and the policies of Wikipedia on other sets of articles (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support, but prefer indef: Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and uncivil, tendentious and disruptive. Fundamentally unresolvable problems with WP:COMPETENCE. Like LGR, I would prefer an indef. The blocklog on the German Wiki is spine-chilling. Block after block after block for just about everything in the book, from personal attacks to editwarring to filing false AIV notices to downright TROLLING (that's right, German Wiki has a policy against trolling). Recently narrowly escaped a community ban there by 48 to 52. I say we nip the problem in the bud here. Editor has given abundant evidence that she means to be disruptive and to ignore policies and consensus. The chances of this editor contributing positively to the project is extremely remote, and due to the fact that this she has been one of the most-blocked editors on German WP for NINE YEARS, that is not going to change. Extending some WP:ROPE would be foolish in this case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support, but prefer indef. Will the topic ban include behavioral sciences topics like psychoanalysis and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? On balance WSC's contributions within this topic area (at least) are far more disruptive than productive. The long-term general WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CIVIL snarkiness, disregard for sourcing guidelines, and WP:IDHT problems plus what seems to be bragging about the block log on de.wp make me conclude WP:NOTHERE and possibly WP:CIR issues overall. But we can try it with a topic ban first if people see there's a possibility for productivity in other areas (I'm not convinced).
Zad68
13:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support, but prefer indef. I've seen no evidence, including during these discussions, that this user gets the point at all, or even has the ability to do so. She continually makes false allegations that we don't want to use scientific sources, which is BS. We haven't even gotten into that discussion, even though she continually mentions it in the form of false allegations. The problem is that she has shown that she doesn't understand or intend to follow our sourcing rules because she seeks to disallow any sources but scientific ones. That's not how this Wikipedia works. We allow many types of sources, depending on the context, INCLUDING scientific ones. We have never objected to using them. This user has been given far too much rope at the German Wikipedia, and still managed to hang herself again and again, and we shouldn't allow her to continue that process here, which she has been doing. Let's put a stop to this mess and get back to editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support, but prefer indef After reviewing this case I am amazed at the level of WP:IDHT and I don't see any evidence that it will stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support, but prefer indef' as well, alas - from the comments above this editor utterly refuses to accept that they could at all possibly be in the wrong, instead continually demanding everyone hew to their views. This is someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia, and, as has been pointed out before, this editor's history elsewhere indicates that second chances will only cause the same result. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about imposed community ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Just a quick clarification asked: this is an indefinite block, or a community ban? I'd have guessed the former? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly, there isn't much of a difference between a community ban and an indefinite block which is placed as the result of a community discussion. Either way, the action should not be overturned by a single admin, but only by community consensus or ArbCom. For the record, I recorded it as a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alrighty, thanks. I just thought I'd ask given the recent kerfuffle about unilateral unblocks and all that... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't we usually keep community ban discussions open for 24 hours. This has only been open half of that. AniMate 00:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, shouldn't we have advertised this as a community ban discussion rather than as a topic ban discussion? The reason we keep these open for 24 hours is so we can get a big slice of the community commenting. The same for naming the section appropriately. More people would likely participate if they knew this was a community ban, which is a much bigger deal than a topic ban. Eight people commenting hardly seems like a significant amount requiring an early close, especially since at least three of those only supported a topic ban. AniMate 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, add one for me. I posted and self-reverted when I saw that it had closed.[29][30] Consensus isn't just numbers, although those are important. It is also about the quality of the argument. Nobody even bothered arguing that the behavior would change. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody. Including Widescreen herself. Actually, her "vote" was the most compelling of all. Bragging about being the second or third most blocked editor on German WP pretty much sealed the deal. With that, she indicated that she fully intended to make a career out of being disruptive and tendentious here, as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, add one for me. I posted and self-reverted when I saw that it had closed.[29][30] Consensus isn't just numbers, although those are important. It is also about the quality of the argument. Nobody even bothered arguing that the behavior would change. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alrighty, thanks. I just thought I'd ask given the recent kerfuffle about unilateral unblocks and all that... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly, there isn't much of a difference between a community ban and an indefinite block which is placed as the result of a community discussion. Either way, the action should not be overturned by a single admin, but only by community consensus or ArbCom. For the record, I recorded it as a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- WTF How did we go from a topic ban to a community ban? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ummm... wasn't that your idea? At least, that's how I understood it. When I was composing my !vote, I originally started with "Fully endorse LGR's suggestion that nothing short of a indef will be effective". I later removed it a superflous. If you're quibbling about the names "indefinite block" versus "community ban", in reality it is just that. A quibble. For all practical purposes, there is no difference between a community ban and a community-imposed indefinite block. At least as far as I can see. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- And add one for me for a community ban. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think my statement was tongue in cheek, and on a 2nd read it still doesn't sound that way. I'm ok with the block by King, but I am troubled by their logging this as a CB because a CB wasn't under discussion. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)- I didn't say that your proposal was tongue in cheek. I thought you were completely serious. As for the difference between a block and a ban, there is a section about that in WP:BAN. This seems to fit "ban" better than "block", although, in the end, there is no practical difference. The way I read it "community ban" is synonymous with "community-imposed indefinite block". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ummm... wasn't that your idea? At least, that's how I understood it. When I was composing my !vote, I originally started with "Fully endorse LGR's suggestion that nothing short of a indef will be effective". I later removed it a superflous. If you're quibbling about the names "indefinite block" versus "community ban", in reality it is just that. A quibble. For all practical purposes, there is no difference between a community ban and a community-imposed indefinite block. At least as far as I can see. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of the merits of the case it makes a nonsense of any sense of justice to close it so quickly. You can't call it a community ban when the community is given no change to engage or to discuss other options of which there are several. This should be reversed and discussed properly, at the moment its a straight and peremptory abuse of admin power. ----Snowded TALK 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd argue the snowball clause for the closing given that the editor under discussion basically came right out and said not only would they keep disrupting, but in fact they took pride in their disruptiveness. I would, howver, have suggested it simply be a normal indef instead of a CBAN, as normal indef was what was proposed. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- You don't close a discussion of this nature after 12 hours. What was proposed was a topic ban and the editor's posting above doesn't unambiguously support your interpretation. Even it it did it would not justify closure on a remedy not originally proposed in less than a day. That is plain wrong. ----Snowded TALK 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need for a lengthy trial when the defendant is jumping up and down in the coutroom and screaming "Yep! I done it! And I gonna do it again and again!" As I said above, it was WSC's own posts that were the most damning. It's pretty difficult to argue that the outcome would have been any different had the discussion continued. In fact, since then, there have been two more concurring votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well two were for a topic ban, four for an indef. If I had found it before it was closed I would have suggested a restriction and opposed an indef (there is a complex history). Others might have done the same. The substantive point is that the item was closed after 12 hours so there was no chance for other editors with some knowledge of the context to engage. The "jumping up and down" statement does not summarise the editors posting either. Sorry this smacks of a lynching. Given the tolerance and length of time given to other editors for far worse offences its also hypocritical ----Snowded TALK 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Lynching"? "Hypocritical"? Language like that seems to imply bad faith on the part of the closer and/or praticipants. Surely you don't mean to do that. Have you read the discussion that lead to this proposal (in the section preceeding it)? Sure looks like jumping up and down to me. Not the faintest hint of a trace of admitting that her behavior has been problematic, nor any sign that she intends to desist. Instead, she brags that she is among the most disruptive editors on German WP. It is totally fair to assume that she meant to pursue a similar career here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have read it and I am also familiar with the editor and the issue. English is not her first language and she is passionate about a subject where she does have some actual knowledge. I know of at least one case where she turned out to be right on a content issue after being trapped into a block by a combative editor. So foolish yes, but not the sort of editor or behaviour that should be subject to summary justice without proper examination. An indef might be the right response but it is NOT the right response after 12 hours with minimal engagement. I find it difficult to believe that any editor can defend that - although come to think of it you are ignoring it. ----Snowded TALK 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- What Snowded said ^^^ little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)- You're throwing the words "lynching" and "justice" around as if this were a question of determining "punishment" for a "crime" committed, instead of a purely preventative action. I've read through the entire thread, and see no evidence of anybody requesting or even suggesting that WSC be punished. ALL I see is calls for disruptive and tendentious behavior to be stopped or prevented. This all complies with both WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Nor does the closer intimate or imply in any way that this is a punitive measure. This simply isn't a matter of "justice". While our proceedings may resemble courtroom proceedings to some degree, they are, in essence, fundamentally different in purpose. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not throwing words around, they appear as a part of a complete sentences which provide context. But lets make this simple for you. Given that this is a community action, how is it right to close a discussion before all members of that community have had a chance to even look at the problem? You seem to be arguing the case, rather than dealing with the issue I raised here, namely prematurely closing a discussion after 12 hours. ----Snowded TALK 12:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The same could be said if the discussion had been closed after 24 hours. Or any other time frame. 24 is not a magic number. Also, we do have WP:SNOW, which can be fairly said to apply here. Can you quote any specific policy that the closer violated? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- 24 hours at least covers all time zones which 12 does not. In practice most such cases stand for a day or so at least to allow people to contribute. WP:SNOW does not apply as the eventual sanction was not even that proposed so there were two options even within the 12 hours. Given longer there would have been more. I know of no policy which says such matters have to be closed in short order and all precedent is for longer. ----Snowded TALK 12:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Without a policy quote that explcitly says that says such matters CAN'T be closed in short order, or any evidence that the closer or particpants acted in bad faith or in violation of our policies and guidelines, any argumentation to revert this block is unlikely to succeed. I don't see the point of further discussion without any of these things. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- 24 hours at least covers all time zones which 12 does not. In practice most such cases stand for a day or so at least to allow people to contribute. WP:SNOW does not apply as the eventual sanction was not even that proposed so there were two options even within the 12 hours. Given longer there would have been more. I know of no policy which says such matters have to be closed in short order and all precedent is for longer. ----Snowded TALK 12:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The same could be said if the discussion had been closed after 24 hours. Or any other time frame. 24 is not a magic number. Also, we do have WP:SNOW, which can be fairly said to apply here. Can you quote any specific policy that the closer violated? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not throwing words around, they appear as a part of a complete sentences which provide context. But lets make this simple for you. Given that this is a community action, how is it right to close a discussion before all members of that community have had a chance to even look at the problem? You seem to be arguing the case, rather than dealing with the issue I raised here, namely prematurely closing a discussion after 12 hours. ----Snowded TALK 12:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're throwing the words "lynching" and "justice" around as if this were a question of determining "punishment" for a "crime" committed, instead of a purely preventative action. I've read through the entire thread, and see no evidence of anybody requesting or even suggesting that WSC be punished. ALL I see is calls for disruptive and tendentious behavior to be stopped or prevented. This all complies with both WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Nor does the closer intimate or imply in any way that this is a punitive measure. This simply isn't a matter of "justice". While our proceedings may resemble courtroom proceedings to some degree, they are, in essence, fundamentally different in purpose. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- What Snowded said ^^^ little green rosetta(talk)
- I have read it and I am also familiar with the editor and the issue. English is not her first language and she is passionate about a subject where she does have some actual knowledge. I know of at least one case where she turned out to be right on a content issue after being trapped into a block by a combative editor. So foolish yes, but not the sort of editor or behaviour that should be subject to summary justice without proper examination. An indef might be the right response but it is NOT the right response after 12 hours with minimal engagement. I find it difficult to believe that any editor can defend that - although come to think of it you are ignoring it. ----Snowded TALK 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Lynching"? "Hypocritical"? Language like that seems to imply bad faith on the part of the closer and/or praticipants. Surely you don't mean to do that. Have you read the discussion that lead to this proposal (in the section preceeding it)? Sure looks like jumping up and down to me. Not the faintest hint of a trace of admitting that her behavior has been problematic, nor any sign that she intends to desist. Instead, she brags that she is among the most disruptive editors on German WP. It is totally fair to assume that she meant to pursue a similar career here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well two were for a topic ban, four for an indef. If I had found it before it was closed I would have suggested a restriction and opposed an indef (there is a complex history). Others might have done the same. The substantive point is that the item was closed after 12 hours so there was no chance for other editors with some knowledge of the context to engage. The "jumping up and down" statement does not summarise the editors posting either. Sorry this smacks of a lynching. Given the tolerance and length of time given to other editors for far worse offences its also hypocritical ----Snowded TALK 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need for a lengthy trial when the defendant is jumping up and down in the coutroom and screaming "Yep! I done it! And I gonna do it again and again!" As I said above, it was WSC's own posts that were the most damning. It's pretty difficult to argue that the outcome would have been any different had the discussion continued. In fact, since then, there have been two more concurring votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- You don't close a discussion of this nature after 12 hours. What was proposed was a topic ban and the editor's posting above doesn't unambiguously support your interpretation. Even it it did it would not justify closure on a remedy not originally proposed in less than a day. That is plain wrong. ----Snowded TALK 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd argue the snowball clause for the closing given that the editor under discussion basically came right out and said not only would they keep disrupting, but in fact they took pride in their disruptiveness. I would, howver, have suggested it simply be a normal indef instead of a CBAN, as normal indef was what was proposed. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Note I have reverted King's addition of WSC to the banned list. While WSC may be (rightfully) indeff'ed, they certainly weren't banned by the community and the record shouldn't reflect that. If WSC can convince an admin to unblcok them, bully for them -- but we shouldn't insist upon community approval since the community never approved the ban in the first place. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- And I've reverted it back. You can discuss the matter with King of Hearts and try to persuade him to revert it, or you can take the matter to AN and convince them that the entry is not justified and let them revert it. But you certainly don't have any justification for performing a unilateral action of this sort on your own initiative. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Like hell I don't. Ignoring the fast close for the moment, there wasn't even a proposal to CB WSC in the first place. How anyone can read from the discussion above that WSC was banned by the community is beyond the pale. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)- That is YOUR personal interpretation of the discussion, one which I do not share. Like I said, you are free to take this up with King or AN, but have no authority to make a unilateral decision on your own. If you revert back, I will report you at AN myself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why wait, report me now. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why wait, report me now. little green rosetta(talk)
- That is YOUR personal interpretation of the discussion, one which I do not share. Like I said, you are free to take this up with King or AN, but have no authority to make a unilateral decision on your own. If you revert back, I will report you at AN myself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Like hell I don't. Ignoring the fast close for the moment, there wasn't even a proposal to CB WSC in the first place. How anyone can read from the discussion above that WSC was banned by the community is beyond the pale. little green rosetta(talk)
- Non-admin comment: I'm not seeing what the problem is here - the close says that it was an indef by the community, which is basically a community ban anyway, is it not? That said, I do think that the close was a little too soon. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The are a few problems. While King was certainly entitled to make the call to indef WSC all on his lonesome, according to custom he shouldn't have put the community stamp on this action as a CB and posted that WSC was banned by the community to the list of banned editors. Nor should he have closed the section above after taking admin action. IAR (and custom) I suppose. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)- If anyone really cares that much, then I'm calling it an indefinite block by community consensus. Not that there is any difference in practice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- How can it be community consensus after 12 hours? ----Snowded TALK 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- We aren't a bureaucracy, that's why we have WP:SNOW. Consider that the discussion that widescreen engaged in the above thread was after being officially warned of discretionary sanctions for the same behaviour. Consider also that it's been much more than 12 hours now and there isn't a mass objection from the community (rather another admin, Doug, agreed with the indef afterwards!). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly, it's a good thing for Widescreen that it was closed after 12 hours - every post of theirs simply dug them into a deeper hole, and odds are had it continued it very well could have round up as a full CBAN right now instead of a simple indef. As it is, all they have to do is promise to follow policy and Arbcom whether they agree with it or not to get unblocked, so I believe we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of the merits of the case it is plain wrong to close such a debate after 12 hours, that is nothing to do with being a bureaucracy or not its about basic fairness. In this case there would have been more justification if all editors contributing had supported the original proposition for a topic ban, but with two options on the table (and more possible), more time should have been allowed as WP:SNOW did not apply. Its evident that those engaged in the process feel they did no wrong, I just hope that on a future occasion a little more reflection takes place. ----Snowded TALK 03:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- No. WP:SNOW is directly applicable to the merits of the case. You argue despite Widescreen's continued disruption, and despite that nearly every person expressing interest for an INDEF, 6 supported, LGR indicated support for the indef, and despite no further objections being raised by anyone else here, instead one extra support. It is quite frankly obvious that the indef was going to be the final result. If she wasn't blocked by the community she was on cue for a block by arbitration enforcement. You are arguing that we should have left it open to meet specific requirements in the name of justice. You don't seem to be arguing against the merits of the case, but rather in the name of process; that is an argument for bureaucracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- One of the reasons we use WP:SNOW is to avoid further embarrassment for the editor. We use it in RFA's, and in a situation where the editor is digging themselves deeper, it's the right thing to do. If WSC wants to appeal it, they may, but I wholly support the maintenance of some degree of dignity for WSC, and will argue that the closure by SNOW actually left the door open for a future return. Yeah, 6 people !voted "yes" - we have had community bans with fewer participants, but they're still valid. It's time to close this and let the editor have their dignity and to avail themselves of their options down the road rather than drag their name further through ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- No. WP:SNOW is directly applicable to the merits of the case. You argue despite Widescreen's continued disruption, and despite that nearly every person expressing interest for an INDEF, 6 supported, LGR indicated support for the indef, and despite no further objections being raised by anyone else here, instead one extra support. It is quite frankly obvious that the indef was going to be the final result. If she wasn't blocked by the community she was on cue for a block by arbitration enforcement. You are arguing that we should have left it open to meet specific requirements in the name of justice. You don't seem to be arguing against the merits of the case, but rather in the name of process; that is an argument for bureaucracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of the merits of the case it is plain wrong to close such a debate after 12 hours, that is nothing to do with being a bureaucracy or not its about basic fairness. In this case there would have been more justification if all editors contributing had supported the original proposition for a topic ban, but with two options on the table (and more possible), more time should have been allowed as WP:SNOW did not apply. Its evident that those engaged in the process feel they did no wrong, I just hope that on a future occasion a little more reflection takes place. ----Snowded TALK 03:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- How can it be community consensus after 12 hours? ----Snowded TALK 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone really cares that much, then I'm calling it an indefinite block by community consensus. Not that there is any difference in practice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The are a few problems. While King was certainly entitled to make the call to indef WSC all on his lonesome, according to custom he shouldn't have put the community stamp on this action as a CB and posted that WSC was banned by the community to the list of banned editors. Nor should he have closed the section above after taking admin action. IAR (and custom) I suppose. little green rosetta(talk)
Astynax, War of the Triple Alliance
Dear all,
Astynax (talk · contribs) has recently gone on a mission to redirect all links to War of the Triple Alliance to the term Paraguayan War (please see his recent edit history: [31]). A similar situation was previously discussed in the NPOV noticeboard ([32]) on April 12, 2012 (over a year ago).
The main problem with Astynax's edits are not just the fact that he is trying to subtly remove the number of times the term "War of the Triple Alliance" leads to "Paraguayan War", but that he is using edit summaries to hide his misbehavior as "link disambiguation". In the article Chincha Islands War, he tries to impose the made-up word "inbrolied" as well as the term "Paraguayan War".
- On my edit summary, I noted that my edit was a copy-edit and WP:COMMONNAME (see ([33])
- Astynax then reverted my edit, again restoring the term "inbroiled" ([34])
- Given that his edit was not in Good Faith, I called out its blatant vandalism ([35])
- Astynax again reverts, reprimanding me for calling his edit vandalism, and returning the word "inbroiled" and term "Paraguayan War" back into the article ([36])
It should also be noted that War of the Triple Alliance links directly to Paraguayan War, so the "link disambiguation" claim of Astynax is false.
Please help.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I also would like to point out that the term "Paraguayan War" was imposed at the "War of the Triple Alliance" article in a controversial move discussion in 2012 (see [37]); to this day, "War of the Triple Alliance" has 261,000 Google Books hits (see [38]) by comparison to the miniscule "Paraguayan War" with 43,600 hits (see [39]). The move discussion even continued after the end of "voting" (see [40]). Since then, the term "War of the Triple Alliance" has been continously hounded down by those supporting the term "Paraguayan War".--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Response: MarshalN20 never discussed or explained his reversion of my edit, either on my or the article's talk. Although my version contained a spelling and grammer error (and I was planning on looking at it again today), MarshalN20 decided on a simple revert instead of correcting and improving the sentence. MarshalN20 is undoubtedly aware that links to redirect pages are discouraged in FA-class articles, as he has reviewed at FAC, and it was not vandalism to change the link to the correct page. MarshalN20 could have piped a different title to the correct page, had he chosen and were it really an issue. As it was, I found the sentence confusing (which "alliance"?) and my attempt to improve it was not vandalism, as MarshalN20 alleged here. As for my "campaign", my edits this morning were simply cleaning up a lot of old links to redirects that I never got around to doing back when the article was moved. Another editor's comment reminded me that it hadn't been done, and it seems that MarshalN20 is taking my misspelling as an opportunity to resurrect an argument for Paraguayan War's article title for which he could not garner editor consensus twice before. • Astynax talk 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Astynax already knows about the sensibility over the article title of "Paraguayan War" and "War of the Triple Alliance". Astynax participated in the second move discussion and in subsequent discussions related to the matter (see [41]). I find no reason to "explain" to him something he knows. Furthermore, his long list of continuous recent edits (which he calls a "campaign") show his determined attitude that was not going to change with a comment on his talk page. Coming straight to AN/I still seems to me as the friendliest and easiest way to resolve this matter once and for all.
- I also did not make a "simple revert" of the material. As shown in the diffs, the original material that Astynax changed ([42]) is considerably different from my edit (see [43]). The fact that Astynax, a constant FA reviewer, did not even bother to notice that he was reverting to the term "inbroiled" also demonstrates that he was reverting for no reason other than to engage in an edit war with me.
- The article "Paraguayan War" is neither a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) nor a Featured Article (FA), and War of the Triple Alliance (as shown in the Google Books result of my second statement) is a perfectly acceptable direct link to the article "Paraguayan War".
- Lastly, what is at issue here are Astynax's recent edits that clearly aim to harm the wikilinks that use "War of the Triple Alliance" (for no other reason than to make a WP:POINT).
- Kind regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Reply: Although I am aware of your displeasure at repeatedly failing to garner editor consensus for an article move at Paraguayan War, I'm unsure what accusation you are leveling at me here or what actual harm you think I have done. Is it the 2 reverts I made to Chincha Islands War? Is it being bold in pointing a particular link in the latter article toward an article's name? Is it because I think it is important that articles progress toward higher levels (whether they are yet candidates for advancement or not)? Is it because of some point you imagine I am attempting to make? Is it because I made a mistake in my edit and didn't catch it before reverting the second time? Are you attempting to argue for an article move to another title here, rather than on the article's talk? • Astynax talk 08:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Astynax, before this gets turned into a WP:TLDR, please just read my last few statements if you really do not understand this AN/I report. Reading WP:IDHT might also help. The Point: No need exists to discriminate against "War of the Triple Alliance" and impose over it the term "Paraguayan War", either through direct replacement (such as in Chincha Islands War) or subtle wikilink replacement. Request: Please stop, and please revert your recent actions. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Reply: I have already said that if there was a good reason to point a link to a redirect instead of the article's title, I have no problem with that. So far, your point is lost on me other than I get the vague sense that it has to do with your siezing an opportunity to revisit the debate regarding the move 2 years ago of Paraguayan War in a different venue. If there is a better reason, I am not refusing to get the point. The point, however, isn't clear and you immediately dragged this here instead of making any attempt whatsoever to discuss and clarify your reasoning. • Astynax talk 16:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Repeating the same things over-and-over again won't make them facts, Astynax. At this point, I am simply waiting for comments from an administrator. Have a good day.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I should also note that, since this AN/I case was presented, new developments took place in Chincha Islands War:
- User MarnetteD wrote ([44]): "there is no such word as "inbroiled" and the rest of this looks quite WP:POINTy"
- Next, Astynax again imposed the term Paraguayan War ([45])
This user's recent edit history also show that his intent is not to improve the articles, but rather simply to remove (or hinder) the term "War of the Triple Alliance". At Chincha Islands War, he is edit warring to impose his favored term.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- And, of course, following my message Astynax is now trying to pretend he is actually improving the article. By my count, there are 60+ articles that he edited with the mere purpose of hurting the wikilinks to "War of the Triple Alliance". Please see his edit history from (09:14, 17 April 2013) to (17:43, 17 April 2013). His more recent contributions are trying to confuse the situation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor comment
This is one of those bizarre aspects of wikipedia, where an article uses a fringe name that is rarely used in the English language; the Paraguayan War is more well known as the War of the Triple Alliance. It was moved to a name that reflects how the war is referred to in the Portuguese language a couple of years ago, by editors whose predominant language is, Portuguese. Attempts to do a simple thing like correct the name result in some rather silly behaviour by the editors who originally proposed the change and, really, while its irritating, it isn't worth the hassle of trying to fix it.
So we have the situation that most people find their way to the article via the redirect, which last time I looked was nearly always hit first. We also have a situation where there is further rather silly behaviour by the same editors who go around "correcting" the English language wikipedia to reflect how its referred to in the their native tongue. A rather large WP:TROUT needs to be deployed along with a huge helping of WP:CLUE stick.
My proposed solution: Move Paraguayan War to War of the Triple Alliance and WP:TROUT the lot of them. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support this per WP:UCN, WP:USEENGLISH, and WP:COMMONSENSE. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Reply: Wee Curry Monster was, and still seems to be, involved in the very issue he is raising here. Ignoring the valid objections to a move raised during the last move proposal, then shopping this around to another venue after failing to acheive editor consensus for a move is what is truly bizzare. • Astynax talk 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Although I agree with Wee Curry Monster that the article's name should be changed to "War of the Triple Alliance" (and agree it would be a great result from this discussion), the whole point of this AN/I report is for Astynax to stop hindering the term "War of the Triple Alliance" in other articles.
- Regarding the title move discussions, the situation is quite convoluted. The first move (from "War of the Triple Alliance" to "Paraguayan War") was done under false premises, with claims that the title "Paraguayan War" was more numerous in Google Books than "War of the Triple Alliance".
- The second move request, presented by me, sought to fix the previous mistake by demonstrating that (in fact) Google Books widely supported the term "War of the Triple Alliance". The votes ultimately added in favor of the title "War of the Triple Alliance", but the closing administrator decided to go against the votes.
- A careful analysis of the second move request would also demonstrate that the users in favor of the term "Paraguayan War" are (for the most part) Portuguese or Brazilian.
- I have no idea what can be decided here at AN/I, but this whole "campaign" against the term "War of the Triple Alliance" (the WP:COMMONNAME) is simply silly.
- Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- My sole involvement was to point out what the common English name was and to be the focus of some particularly silly abuse as a result. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
There are some issues here. I don't know if they merit a topic ban or if that is the answer. I will try to summarise them effectively. In adding some reliably sourced verifiable content to the current events portal I was unpleasantly called into check by the above editor. My contribution was deemed "sockpuppet account vandalism".
In a further edit they stated the following: "dude in all fairness to WP:CIVIL - i have to ask are you just flat out "addicted" to maheim." This rather puzzled me considering it was they who seemed to be doing much of the deletion and violation of WP:CIVIL. The editor went on to again accuse me of vandalism and to say "it just wastes all the other editors times."
Many of this person's issues seem to rest on accusing those they disagree with, those who won't let them delete or maintain what they desire, of sockpuppetry. I for one have not engaged in anything for "purposes of deception" or "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." I have not deliberately or, as far I know, even accidentally (if that is possible) gone out of my way to do any of these.
I later noticed the same editor had (yesterday) deleted this, was reverted by User:Capitalistroadster, then ignored that user and deleted it again. When I put it back this morning - I thought it was verifiable, useful, reliably sourced, provided good context to the event in question - the same editor immediately deleted it and stated: "if my removal of your vandalism was wrong other editors would have reinstated changes" - but how could they do this when this editor would simply remove it again as had now been demonstrated several times?
On their talk page I attempted to address the points they made, trying to maintain the civility they said that I lacked. But the editor did not reply, then deleted my response - they can do that I know, but then this tells me they are only interested in the very things they have accused me of doing. They appear to continue to ride roughshod over consensus, delete anything they dislike. There is no attempt to discuss, only wild accusations of vandalism, incivility, sock-puppetry, and so on, thrown round willy-nilly. From looking at their contributions this sockpuppetry/vandalism obsession when dealing with others goes back quite a bit - 15 April restoration of unsourced material 11 April - targeting of IPs as well, which seems a bit much considering the editor is themselves an IP. At risk of violating the 3RR single-page 24-hour period rule, and not wanting to do that (hope I haven't, sorry if I have), I came here. I wondered if the current events portal is only open to contributions from established editors or is it part of the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Or can anyone explain this editor's repeated actions? Or tell if they are justified or in violation of Wikipedia policy? Am I, are others, such as Capitalistroadster, all wrong for getting in their way? --86.40.107.69 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- wow - that was the longest lie i have ever heard.
the account anon IP 86.40.107.69 came into being this very day
each and every day this same guy changes his IP to get around administrator ArthurRubin's ban of him for vandalism
the above is just this day's attempt to sockpuppet around his endless ban
endlessly rotating anon IP, hereafter, the sockpuppet, placed a notice against me on this board without informing me on my IP talk page that he was starting a noticeboard issue - for that failed notification alone the sockpuppet has violated wiki rules.
each day in the dailies this sockpuppet changes his IP - look thru the anon IP's and then go to their contribution histories and you will find one single day's history only - the next day a new single day use IP is created and used to vandalize the dailies.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- A minor point. In one of your edit summaries, you said I blocked a previous incarnation of this floating IP. Could you point to the block, so it can be verified that this is the same editor, and either (1) the block on the original editor is still in effect, or (2) it is the same (type of) edit that the previous editor was blocked for. Most of my blocks in regard "the dailies" were for the "Michigan kid" (see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list), and these don't look like his edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- please dont get mad at me arthur but i just dont want to waste my time with the whole thing - if you look at the contributor history for this guy today he already has stopped using this puppet and no doubt is on to the next one... --68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Again, absolutely outrageous. You are absolutely unbelievable. You just keep digging. What next? What will you accuse me of next? Your imagination, your desire to frustrate, knows no end. You have it so wrong and yet you simply insist on seeing sockpuppets in everyone you disagree with. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- thou i will say this is probably the next one 189.146.50.161 --68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- 99.109.126.72 was the previous one i think--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- "99" is clearly the "Michigan kid". "189" and "86" don't appear to be; the behaviors don't look the same. In other words, unless I blocked one of the 86's, don't claim I have identified them as vandals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- 99.109.126.72 was the previous one i think--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- please dont get mad at me arthur but i just dont want to waste my time with the whole thing - if you look at the contributor history for this guy today he already has stopped using this puppet and no doubt is on to the next one... --68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is absolutely outrageous. I don't even know what you're talking about. I've never been banned by ArthurRubin for vandalism. This is the first time you've even mentioned this. Is that what all this is about? When I tried to discuss this with you you deleted it, as you've done again and again, even when other editors have reverted you. Here again you've now accused me of vandalism. You've accused me of sockpuppetry. You've accused me of lying. You've accused me of "endlessly rotating" - what am I supposed to do, sit in the same place all day every day? You've accused me of lacking civility, well actually I think I'm doing quite fine considering what I have to put up with from you. Is there anything you haven't accused me of? All I can see is that you are the vandal, you are the uncivil editor, and you may well, for all I know, be the sockpuppet you're so relentlessly obsessed with as well. Your vitriol, your bullying, your snide remarks, your disrespect for other editors simply knows no bounds. You're a disgrace because, you know, I actually care, and you're the sort who would send editors away in frustration and despair never to return again, and I think that is a crying shame. This is just despicable. You've laughed right through my attempt to seek a consensus on this issue. It's like some sort of childish game to you. That people like you are given a free ride to this to others is a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia and I surely can't be the only one to think this. The destruction you've caused today is unspeakable. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- quite entertaining - if that was your goal on this account IP that did not exist prior to today and i am quite sure will never be used again--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I didn't use it for anything else. Why would I after that? That I've never used it before today? So what? What does this mean? Why do I have to use the same one every day? What if I can't? What if it changes every time I switch computer, move location? Why do I even have to edit every day? Why would I bother? Why should I even try to convince you? You simply ignore everything that's said and formulate your next batch of accusations. You are also an IP, yet you mock and harass other IPs. You are beyond speaking to. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- ..............
- quite entertaining - if that was your goal on this account IP that did not exist prior to today and i am quite sure will never be used again--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is absolutely outrageous. I don't even know what you're talking about. I've never been banned by ArthurRubin for vandalism. This is the first time you've even mentioned this. Is that what all this is about? When I tried to discuss this with you you deleted it, as you've done again and again, even when other editors have reverted you. Here again you've now accused me of vandalism. You've accused me of sockpuppetry. You've accused me of lying. You've accused me of "endlessly rotating" - what am I supposed to do, sit in the same place all day every day? You've accused me of lacking civility, well actually I think I'm doing quite fine considering what I have to put up with from you. Is there anything you haven't accused me of? All I can see is that you are the vandal, you are the uncivil editor, and you may well, for all I know, be the sockpuppet you're so relentlessly obsessed with as well. Your vitriol, your bullying, your snide remarks, your disrespect for other editors simply knows no bounds. You're a disgrace because, you know, I actually care, and you're the sort who would send editors away in frustration and despair never to return again, and I think that is a crying shame. This is just despicable. You've laughed right through my attempt to seek a consensus on this issue. It's like some sort of childish game to you. That people like you are given a free ride to this to others is a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia and I surely can't be the only one to think this. The destruction you've caused today is unspeakable. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
86.40.111.203
80.116.73.145
86.40.194.82
so you are saying that all these recent puppets are not you? - damn they sure to look similar in every way i can detect--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please try to keep the discussion on the same page. "all these recent puppets are not you" - yes actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. Full stop. They're not even all in the same country for goodness sake. Apart from which, could you point how exactly these are puppets, as defined above? Even if these were all the same editor, were all in the same country, they wouldn't necessarily be puppets. Editing in passing like that is not sockpuppetry. Not every IP who contributes to the current events portal is a sockpuppet. Heck, you yourself are an IP who contributes to the current events portal for goodness sake. By the logic you've used there we could both be the same editor. 68 is 86 backwards... --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Both of you guys need to stop making random, baseless accusations and try to find a way to work this out simply and logically. Accusing each other of socking as belligerently as you are is going to get you nowhere. TCN7JM 20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- But I'm not accusing them of it - have you seen what they've accused me of? - just pointing out how absurd their way of accusing me of well - everything - is. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just stop arguing over this. You're going dead nowhere, and it doesn't seem your attitudes against each other are going to change. Cool off a bit. Take a Wikibreak, maybe. TCN7JM 20:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- All I'm doing is trying to defend my reputation against the most ridiculous, extraordinary and uncalled for accusations. I've also been wondering here what it is I did wrong in the first place, though no one apart from this tiresome IP has responded (with more unfounded accusations incidentally). --86.40.107.69 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just stop arguing over this. You're going dead nowhere, and it doesn't seem your attitudes against each other are going to change. Cool off a bit. Take a Wikibreak, maybe. TCN7JM 20:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- But I'm not accusing them of it - have you seen what they've accused me of? - just pointing out how absurd their way of accusing me of well - everything - is. --86.40.107.69 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Both of you guys need to stop making random, baseless accusations and try to find a way to work this out simply and logically. Accusing each other of socking as belligerently as you are is going to get you nowhere. TCN7JM 20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Non-admin observation: 68.231.15.56, read WP:AGF, and remember that many IPs are dynamic - without reviewing any of the evidence provided here either way, I'm going to follow the principle I listed, and assume that the 86.40.107.69 account is a dynamic IP. Also, I'd suggest, 86.40.107.69, you create an account to stop this sort of thing from occurring. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is simply not on. Am I supposed to ignore this too? I left a note at User talk:Capitalistroadster informing them they were mentioned in passing above. 68.231.15.56 then inserted "puppet" beneath it. I don't see how and why they should be allowed to continue to get away with this. It should be clear by now they are only seeking to provoke, it's what they've been doing all day, all week and, it seems, all year. [46] [47] [48] --86.40.107.69 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- funny how you quote my history because i have a history at wiki - you on the other hand "Puppet" only exist on wiki since yesterday when you created this latest account to vandalize wiki--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Um...IP addresses aren't accounts, and they can't be created. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- 68.231.15.56: Has anyone told you about WP:NPA and WP:AGF? You've also missed my dynamic IP point. Stop your personal attacks, or you risk being blocked by an admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Um...IP addresses aren't accounts, and they can't be created. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- funny how you quote my history because i have a history at wiki - you on the other hand "Puppet" only exist on wiki since yesterday when you created this latest account to vandalize wiki--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
DBrodbeck implies there is a rule against primary sources in medical articles
It's a long story but some years back I wanted to edit either Autism or Causes of Autism articles to include the theory of maternal antibodies to fetal brain being one of the causes of autism. I was told the citation I used were not allowed in Medicine releated articles. I went and looked at the rules at the link I was given and they did not say primary sources were forbidden, in fact they gave rules under which they were to be used. I went back and tried to point out the edits were allowed as long as the rules for primary sources were not violated. I did this by directly quoting the rules. No one tried to dispute the quoted rules, but after a time the quoted rules were removeed and some editors continued to tell new people wanting to do edits that their edits were forbidden for the same reason, ie, not based on secondary sources.. (review papers in peer reviewed journals, mine and others were based on primary papers in peer reviewed journals) It's important I think to understand that the actual CONTENT of the papers, the theory that maternal antibodies to certain fetal brain proteins are highly associated with autism and are strongly suspected of causing it, does not seem to be at all controversial. I have not seen a single paper anywhere disputing either this theory, (the subject of independent supporting research from Oxford, John's Hopkins, Kennedy Krieger and UC Davis). Now there are many more papers supporting this theory than there were when I first asked it be included, and some are secondary reviews. But DBrodbeck seems to have taken offense at my comments and objects to everything, in my opinion on spurious grounds, and someone erases all discussion, even that which has never been refuted or even disputed, even if it involves new support for the suggested edit. I feel this is not done in good faith and frankly is just a power struggle now, because of anger that I challenged the claims that were being made about the rules forbidding primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- You'll need to open an WP:RFC on the article talkpage and make your point - especially as it relates to medical issues. You'll not find the ability to "challenge" any of the policies in this location. (By the way, having studied ASD, the above is highly controvertial, so good luck) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- This issue of use of primary sources in medical pages is an ongoing problem. There are a number of editors who feel particularly strongly against their inclusion. This can be seriously problematic with rare diseases where virtually all the literature concerning the topic is primary sources. They rarely merit inclusion in more prestigous review articles: even if included these rarely do more than mention these diseases. For well known sugjects eg lung cancer it is not unreasonable to insist on secordy sources only. For rare diseases this prohibition is unreasonable. Autism is a well studied subject: unfortunately there is not a lot of usable information concerning its cause(s). For this reason there is a lot of rather speculative material in the literature on the subject. In a case like this I would be relucant to include this material in the main article unless these finding were reported by other investigators independently. On the other hand if it were to be included in a seperate linked page with a tile such as "Theories of causation of autism" (or perhaps something more suscinct) its inclusion there might well be reasonable. DrMicro
- This particular IP has a long history of disruptive involvement at autism-related articles, please see WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP as well as the histories of the autism and causes of autism articles and their Talk pages.
Zad68
17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)- I was supposed to be notified about this wasn't I? Anyway, it seems to me that bringing in primary sources without looking at how a review has, umm, reviewed them makes us have to look at something as experts. Now, there seems to be a review out, which I was discussin gat the Causes of autism page with this IP. It does seem to be early days for it though [49]. I think the IP could do without posting copyright violations [50] and the personal attacks (see my talk page history, and the history at [[causes of autism). Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- As the IP mentioned, there are indeed now a few relevant acceptable secondary sources covering this theory, I found 2 review articles from 2012. There is no need to resort to trying to interpret the WP:RULES to use WP:PRIMARY to cover the desired content. Accordingly I have added mention of this theory to the Causes of autism article here. Hopefully that should cover this content issue.
Zad68
18:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)- I think that mentioning it is fine, as we were coming to that as I noted above. I do wish this IP would learn the most basic rules around here, like signing their posts, for starters. I encourage everyone to, carefully, look at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IPDbrodbeck (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't want more conflict but some things said in response here need to be cleared up. First, as to including this theory in "Causes of Autism" we were not "coming to that as I noted above" as DBrodbeck claims, On the contrary, he was deleting every post I made on the Talk page for that article, even if they included new citations, even after they included new secondary source citations. Without any discussion whatsoever. It was this complete refusal to dialogue which led me to the extreme measure of coming here to complain. As to my not revealing myself, very soon after I discovered the rules on primary sources were being misrepresented, and complained about it, some editors started to discuss how to ban me. Of course I was offended by that. Tell me I am wrong about the rules, tell me there is consensus against the suggested edit, tell em whatever, but if you can't refute that you misrepresented the rules, then apologize, don't try to keep other people from seeing the discussion by banning one side of it. As to copyright violations, I am not sure there are any, I did Cut and Paste part of the web page of INSAR to support the theory, but not I not suree it's copyrighted, and certainly it could be parapharased, so that is being kind of overblown as an issue. Hopefully this is all resolved but I am not sure if DBrodbeck has special revert privileges if he should retain them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here is a quote from the diff I have posted above 'A quote from page 1332 of the article in question "What cannot be demonstrated in the human subjects is whether these antibodies cause autism. To marshal support in favor of this hypothe- sis, it is necessary to move to experimental animal studies". It is early days in this, according to this one review. I would like to see what others think besides our IP. ' As you have been pushing this theory for so long I was waiting for input from others. I then asked some editors who are more experienced than I am in medical articles to take a look [51], [52] [53] and [54]. Please stop misrepresenting what I was doing, learn how to sign your posts (you have been doing this since 2009) and learn how to indent. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- And to close this loop: I happened to have several of those User Talk pages that Dbrodbeck linked to on my Watchlist, so I saw his requests go out. I saw the responses from Colin and Anthonyhcole (two experienced editors I'm familiar with from doing work on articles in WP:MED scope), looked at the referenced articles and agreed the review articles were sufficient for a mention, so the content went in earlier today. I think behavior-wise, Dbrodbeck did everything right here, given the history at the article Talk page and the consensus developed at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP for how to deal with the disruptive IP.
Regarding the IP, I think it's a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf mixed in with what has come across as WP:SPAM suggestions ("University of California is involved in a partnership to develop and market the test and refer to the Pediatric Bioscience web page describing the test"). For a very long time - for years, it appears - per Wikipedia standards, there was clear consensus that there was absolutely insufficient sourcing for the kind of content the IP was proposing, and during that time, the IP kept beating on the drum with insufficient sourcing so hard that nobody had the patience to listen any more, to the point that there was consensus to ignore the IP. Sufficient sourcing worth a brief mention was finally published in 2012, and brought to Talk:Causes of autism by the IP mid-February, it got attention about a week ago, experienced WP:MED editors looked at it, and is in the article now. Does the IP really want to investigate editor behavior further here?
Zad68
21:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- And to close this loop: I happened to have several of those User Talk pages that Dbrodbeck linked to on my Watchlist, so I saw his requests go out. I saw the responses from Colin and Anthonyhcole (two experienced editors I'm familiar with from doing work on articles in WP:MED scope), looked at the referenced articles and agreed the review articles were sufficient for a mention, so the content went in earlier today. I think behavior-wise, Dbrodbeck did everything right here, given the history at the article Talk page and the consensus developed at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP for how to deal with the disruptive IP.
To answer that last question I don't wish to get into a fight with anyone, I never did. But it would be nice if everyone involved would acknowledge the rules don't forbid primary sources. I think part of the problem was, very frankly, a lot of editors know less than i do about the subject because they did not research it very much. Wikipediar allows anyone to edit, that's part of the ground rules but really, just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's a great idea. This is anb inmportant point because people seemed to want to reject research they had not heard of just because they had not heard of it, and that could exclude a lot of recent research that basically no one in the field has any doubt is valid, when the purpose of the more restrictive rules on primary sources is not to keep out the msot recent research, just to protect reliability. It's a lot easier to say "No" than to read up on the subject, but I did not ask anyone to become an expert just leave valid edits alone. I don't care about the past, and in fact I left out a lot of cursing on the part of some, I just hope people will be mindful of this in the future. I had not seen you before at all Zad68, not sure why you are taking up the banner on the other side but let's drop it. Except that the edit could be stronger, there is more than just one group looking into this now, as I say it's got a lot of confirmation, (animal testing in multiple studies, which few possible causes have actually I should explain something else. My son is autistic, and some of the researchers into maternal antibodies have told me it's nearly positive it's related to his Mom's antibodies. Generally if no clear genetic cause is found parents are told by pediatricians that no one knows why anyone or nearly anyone, is autistic and that there is not too much risk of a subsequent child being autistic. But in the case of the mothers who have these antibodies, this is not at all true. All my long struggle to get it included in the aritcle is just so the parents with one autistic child can get some warning. I love my son but I don't think i could handle two autistic kids. We got warning that everyone should have I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.223.184 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- When will you learn to indent your entries and sign them? Anyway, you know, my son has autism as well, and as for my knowledge, I have a PhD in psychology, but, that is neither here nor there. Arguments from authority will get you nowhere here. It is hard for me to acknowledge that I broke some sort of rule when I have followed policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to "spread the word" about something, no matter how important the subject may be. WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- To be sure, it's not like the IP hasn't been shown the proper policy pages. The IP has been shown WP:ADVOCACY before, at least as recently as 22 Dec 2012 here. I didn't offhand find a link to WP:RGW but the IP has seen WP:SOAPBOX at least several times, for example 17 Dec 2009, 19 Feb 2010 for a few older examples and plenty of more recent ones. A quick survey of the last few years of Talk:Autism show the most popularly linked-to policy or guideline page is by far WP:MEDRS, over 100 times (can't be 100% sure they were all directed to the same person behind all the IPs due to the dynamic IP hopping and the way Wikipedia Talk pages are threaded, but it's up there). Second place is WP:UNDUE (about 30), third place is WP:RECENTISM (about 15). And this is just at Talk:Autism, I didn't do Talk:Causes of autism. So making sure the IP is aware of the appropriate policy pages isn't the issue.
Zad68
02:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- To be sure, it's not like the IP hasn't been shown the proper policy pages. The IP has been shown WP:ADVOCACY before, at least as recently as 22 Dec 2012 here. I didn't offhand find a link to WP:RGW but the IP has seen WP:SOAPBOX at least several times, for example 17 Dec 2009, 19 Feb 2010 for a few older examples and plenty of more recent ones. A quick survey of the last few years of Talk:Autism show the most popularly linked-to policy or guideline page is by far WP:MEDRS, over 100 times (can't be 100% sure they were all directed to the same person behind all the IPs due to the dynamic IP hopping and the way Wikipedia Talk pages are threaded, but it's up there). Second place is WP:UNDUE (about 30), third place is WP:RECENTISM (about 15). And this is just at Talk:Autism, I didn't do Talk:Causes of autism. So making sure the IP is aware of the appropriate policy pages isn't the issue.
- IP, I'm genuinely very sorry your family has been touched by autism. From what I understand it's a very difficult thing to deal with, and I get why you'd want to use Wikipedia to get the word out about something that you feel has helped you. Because you asked: the reason I got involved here is because I feel it will help Wikipedia content development (indirectly) by freeing up the editing time of those who have had to argue with you in defending Autism and related articles from your inappropriate content change suggestions. Those editors would have been working on more productive things. I am not going to link to policy pages because I know you've seen them all before, and it has not changed your editing behavior, so I know it's pointless. All I can point to is the fact that your interpretation of Wikipedia content policy has proven over and over to be out of line with consensus.
An ANI discussion like this one can deal with behavior issues and not content issues. Administrators can block users, protect pages, and delete pages. What administrator action are you asking for? You do not appear to be interested in having a page protected or deleted. Do you want a user blocked, or some other action? If so, what, and for what reason? Please provide diffs and the relevant behavior-related policy or guideline pages to support your argument.
Zad68
03:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Everyone sounds conciliatory but they are missing the point. As the title of this section indicates, the rules were being misrepresented. Can I simply ask DBrodbeck, have you stated to some editors that primary sources, that is, peer reviewed papers, are forbidden by Wikipedia rules? Is it now your understanding they are not if used correctly? Will you in the future be careful not to convey the impression primary sources are forbidden, instead stating you PREFER to use only secondary sources? If you can agree to all that this is done as far as I am concerned, but the fact is, I did not do anything forbidden, I complained about misrepresentation of the rules. In fact, the actual value of the content, ie, should the research on maternal antibodies be in the articles, was never really debated, because instead of discussing it, I kept getting "forbidden by Wikipedia rules", when that was not true. I think if edits are not forbidden, and there is an attempt to discuss them in good faith which is not met with good faith, then the editor not acting in good faith should not have special powers. I saw something on DBrodbeck's page indicating he has some kind of special Revert powers. I don't think that is appropriate for him to have if he does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The content rules are not being misrepresented. Dbrodbeck understands the sourcing rules correctly. Your view of the content rules is not the consensus view, and there will be no further attempt to explain that to you here because you've shown your persistent unwillingness to accept it, so there's no point in trying. Dbrodbeck was not given special revert powers. What happened at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP was that it was determined that your continued persistent attempts to edit with your erroneous understanding of the content rules had become so disruptive that everyone, including Dbrodbeck, was given permission to revert your edits without discussion. That decision still stands and you are not generating any support here to overturn it. Your bringing this to ANI certainly isn't helping your case. Is there anything else?
Zad68
19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Do the rules say primary sources are not allowed in medical articles? Or do the rules give the conditions under which primary sources can be used? And if the rules DO give conditions under which primary sources can be used, can consensus act to change the rules without some official action? Are these truly difficult questions? Please answer, I truly don't know what you are trying to say when it's so vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The above poster does have a point. There is an ambiguity in the guidelines for these articles. I suspect this may be deliberate. As I have noted before for a number of rare diseases the majority of the known material is primary sources. Reviews rarely discuss these and if they do do so in a cursory fashion. Textbooks are not much better - and are probably worse. Part of this problem is the issue of space: every page has to be paid for. Rare diseases rarely justify their inclusion on the basis of space. This thankfully is not a problem on WP. On the other hand where there are multiple reviews and other sources of data on a topic these are I would suggest to be preferred. Topics such as lung cancer and myocardial infarct have books devoted to them alone. Autism - the topic that started this thread - is a well reviewed topic and it well covered in many books and articles. For this reason IMHO secondary sources are to be preferred in WP articles concerning this matter. Concerning the causation of autism - there are probably as many theories as there are authors writing about it. In my view a main page devoted to autism would be better if it stuck to secondary sources when discussing theories of causation as this is a huge and controversial topic. If only it were not so. On the other hand if a separate article were to discuss the theories of causation of autism there may be an arguable case for the use of primary material. YMMD. DrMicro (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I think DrMicro is probably right, the rules may be deliberately somewhat vauge. Theyallow secondary sources when it's easy to find them, because the topic has many, but still allow primary sources when the secondary sources are not available. But I think, though autism is a very big topic with lots of secondary sources, disallowing all primary sources lets the article lag years behind the most recent research. I may have exaggerated the niche where primary sources are allowed, but inclusion of them in the "Causes of Autism" article where rainfall is mentioned as a possible cause, does not seem out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Primary sources need to be avoided at all costs at controversial medical articles such as Autism. MEDRS was designed specifically to avoid the kind of material being promoted here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- IP, I removed the section about rainfall being a possible cause from the article as it was based on a single highly speculative primary source. Let me re-emphasize that content issues will not be resolved at ANI.
Zad68
02:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Rangeblock on Fort Irwin National Training Center redux
Sorry to start again, but I may not have made myself clear. The vandalism on Fort Irwin National Training Center isn't the only issue; I can stick a semiprotection on an article as well as the next admin.
The spam from addresses in the 69.224.0.0 - 69.239.255.255 range is not only on Fort Irwin, as I mentioned originally: This is an example, as is this, this and these. The spamming is widespread across a range of articles and appears to have been going on for a long period, with reversions soaking up time better spent in doing other things. This needs more than a simple semipro on one article - if not a rangeblock then I'll try Wikipedia:ABUSE, maybe someone there might be a bit more interested. Tonywalton Talk 22:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's one hell of a big busy range to block, at a quick glance quite unlikely. I would have thought an edit filter (perhaps something like filter 58, or even a new one) would be better suited. It would help to gather the URLs and any IPs you can find. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- <sigh> That was why I initially reported it here, in the hope that someone more knowledgable than me could help on a rangeblock - an edit filter didn't cross my mind as they are as far as I'm concerned witchcraft, though it seems a good idea. Either I'm thick or the edit filter API is impenetrable.
- To be honest though the initial WP response - a semiprotection - is pretty much a pat on the head and "don't bother us any more". A semipro I could do myself and have done.
- To business. There are no URLs (at least none that blocking would help). IPs we have. What's the next move? Tonywalton Talk 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I created Special:AbuseFilter/548. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would use a Filter on part of the url the spammer is including. o.o - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible BLP/suspect photo issues at Boston Marathon bombings
The FBI released photos of the possible suspects from area surveillence cameras but haven't named the two people - only that that they are suspects.
There is a debate at the article if this are BLP violations (I strongly agree its an issue among other issues with the images); while there is an RFC going on to decide that, editors are trying to include the photos, despite the default action for questionable BLP to leave it out. This has been going back and forth and we may need admin eyes on the article. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are so many eyes on this article that I don't think we have to worry about BLP for now. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Masem beat me to it here. Situation is an ongoing happening. One user dead-set on inserting it has reached 3R and has been warned. Masem is at 3R (R for removal, in this case), and I've placed the formal note on their talk page. (IMO, Masem can fall back on the BLP; the other side cannot.) Another admin is at 2R as we speak. The person who uploaded the photo is at 2R--I think, I could be wrong. Anyway, there is no consensus to include which means that by default we should not include. We have some options here. a. Continue to edit war, and block a couple of editors. b. Protect fully, and piss everyone off (well, not me). c. Let common sense prevail, which should dictate "no inclusion unless the RfC's outcome is to include"--but that may be too much to ask for. Please note that there is an RfC going on still. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- As well as at BLP/N. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- A 3RR notice was placed on my talk page by Drmies. 1st, Admin Dennis Brown said yesterday that 3RR does not apply on this page after I asked about multiple violations of the 3RR rule. Second it seems Drmies is upset because I reverted his edits removing the word Suspects as he boldly said the FBI never said Suspect (despite massive evidence to the contrary). Third, I am shocked that an Admin would show such poor judgement as to post some of the things Drmies has posted against me and others on the talk page. I'm just trying to make a better article but a few people prefer to pick and choose which policies they want to enforce and to protect the privacy of terrorists the whole world is searching for. I think I'll go something more productive with my time than watch this BS Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a great idea. More detail and diffs on the "suspect" thing on Legacypac's talk page; the shorthand version is "reference did not contain the word"--simple as that. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- WOW Drmies - still sticking to your position eh? You lost to other editors on the Chinese vics name and lost to other editors on Suspects, and you still want to tear me down? Go read your own talk page to see that others called you out for edit warring. Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that? I'm disgusted Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- We don't yoink mops for being involved in editing disputes - what abuse of the admin tools has Drmies committed? - - The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Legacypac, that you apparently see it in terms of winning and losing saddens me. The issue here was never about what should ultimately be included in the article, but about the sources we needed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid journalism mouthpiece, and we do not include information until it is reliably sourced. It is correct to omit claims before they are reliably sourced, and correct to include them once they are - can you really not understand that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- WOW Drmies - still sticking to your position eh? You lost to other editors on the Chinese vics name and lost to other editors on Suspects, and you still want to tear me down? Go read your own talk page to see that others called you out for edit warring. Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that? I'm disgusted Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a great idea. More detail and diffs on the "suspect" thing on Legacypac's talk page; the shorthand version is "reference did not contain the word"--simple as that. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm quite involved, but I'll throw one comment in here. Drmies and I disagree on this particular content issue, but it was brought here, and to my knowledge Drmies hasn't used admin tools (outside of blocking a troll or two) on the article, which I think is the pinnacle of restraint and good admin judgment. The BLP/consensus issue is the subject of an RfC that's contentious. That can't be solved any better here than it can at RfC. If there is egregious edit warring though someone uninvolved should handle it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I 100% do not see this as winning or losing - but I pointed out that Drmies lost 2 edit wars he participated in yet he continues to absurdly claim well referenced facts are not well documented and attack me across multiple discussion pages. I have not and do accuse him of misusing Admin tools. This is about a better article (and that will come in time, so no need to die on that hill) but more importantly a good productive process for all editors where everyone feels welcome and not attacked. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Once again you're talking "winning and losing" - stop. That WP:BATTLE mentality is not appreciated. I'm also not sure where BLP does not apply to the page. BLP always applies, and edit-warring to remove unsourced and/or inappropriate BLP violations is ALWAYS permitted. Edit-warring to re-insert them is not permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's plenty of battleground blame on all sides... this is one of the ugliest talk pages I've seen in a while; that said, Legacypac.... you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- And now there's a completely undiscussed full page protection based on about 3-4 edits. Can somebody who's not invested in this page please come weigh in, because this is getting absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's plenty of battleground blame on all sides... this is one of the ugliest talk pages I've seen in a while; that said, Legacypac.... you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- So it's not about winning or losing, but the other guy lost? Can you actually hear yourself here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Once again you're talking "winning and losing" - stop. That WP:BATTLE mentality is not appreciated. I'm also not sure where BLP does not apply to the page. BLP always applies, and edit-warring to remove unsourced and/or inappropriate BLP violations is ALWAYS permitted. Edit-warring to re-insert them is not permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I 100% do not see this as winning or losing - but I pointed out that Drmies lost 2 edit wars he participated in yet he continues to absurdly claim well referenced facts are not well documented and attack me across multiple discussion pages. I have not and do accuse him of misusing Admin tools. This is about a better article (and that will come in time, so no need to die on that hill) but more importantly a good productive process for all editors where everyone feels welcome and not attacked. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm quite involved, but I'll throw one comment in here. Drmies and I disagree on this particular content issue, but it was brought here, and to my knowledge Drmies hasn't used admin tools (outside of blocking a troll or two) on the article, which I think is the pinnacle of restraint and good admin judgment. The BLP/consensus issue is the subject of an RfC that's contentious. That can't be solved any better here than it can at RfC. If there is egregious edit warring though someone uninvolved should handle it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Uninvolved non-admin here: Legacypac, you say you don't care about winning or losing, yet everything you said here suggests that you indeed do. Drmies should be commended for acting completely within Wiki guidelines (both in regular editor terms, and as a sysop), and his explanation makes sense, with Legacypac clearly failing WP:IDHT. FPP makes sense due to the massive edit warring that's going on. That talk page has several instances of Legacypac attacking Drmies - a block is needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree with Drmies and Masem on the topic of the inclusion of the photographs (which has been mooted now), however I fully support any edit or admin action, whether IAR needs to be invoked or not, done in the interest of BLP compliance. The problem with the arguments from 'other side' is the usual - they believe that they are discussing the issue by pushing it. Edit warring is not the way to reach consensus. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Update - requesting downgrading to semi protection
AFter the mess last night in Boston, the FBI has officially released names of the suspects including the one they are manhunting for (as they were tied to the MIT/Watertown incidents). I believe that with their names and the incidents last night, any issue about BLP and including the photos of the men are resolved, and thus don't expect edit warring to be occurring over that. There's also a lot of clamor on the talk page to fix other things/add more details to the article as the story develops, so could an admin review and consider downgrading to semi-prot? --MASEM (t) 14:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- This could be a test case for pending changes level 2. --B (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have reduced the protection status to semi-protected, per the discussion that went on when the page was fully protected - since the names have been released, the original reason for the full protection is no longer in effect. Duration of the semi-protect is currently 24 hours from now. Using pending changes sounds reasonable to me. Nandesuka (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I concur, though that might just be maslow's hammer talking. —Rutebega (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't read everything because my wonderful wife just threw two huge steaks on the grill, and I'm admittedly sidetracked, however, I would appreciate that in the future, if someone makes a claim about what I said, that I be notified of the discussion. I didn't say 3RR wasn't in force, I said that on hot topic articles, I tend to be more lenient when someone is obviously trying to enforce clear consensus on the talk page, or otherwise reverting BLP violations. I believe I said that other admin may feel differently, but that is how I operate, and will continue to do so. If you are going to paraphrase me, don't, and link the diff instead, or at least cut and paste the actual statement, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Would somebody get a grip of the policy-violating admins and arbs a the Boston Marthon bombings page?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As Bwilkins pointed out "For those who understand full-protection such as this, you'll already know that admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images" or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS discussions on this talkpage". 80.174.78.102 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess not. We now have 19 infractions, and rising. Three new since I posted this request over an hour ago. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Care to actually provide evidence of bad edits? I've looked at it, as a non-admin, I see almost all edits are copyedits, or minor tweaks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- For reference, Boston Marathon bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (EC) Most of what I see in the article history (at least the last few edits) seems to be coming from the talk page. Do you have a specific edit that concerns you? I'm inclined to revert on general principle, except that A) the edits seem beneficial, b) the edits seem non-controversial (gnoming ref formatting and the like), and c) I'm not gonna edit war on a full-protected high-visibility page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I concur with Ultraexactzz and Lukeno94, the last 50 edits show formatting and copyedits, I can't see where any major changes have taken place since it was fully protected.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's exactly the problem, isn't it? According to the proection policy, Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus; that's not happening in this case, bar one edit that was an edit protection request. I don't have a particular problem with any of the edits, but I am concerned that a number of experienced admins are making copy editing and reference edits that have not been discussed on the talk page. Admins should only be editing through the protection to fix blantant BLP violations. GedUK 14:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The protection policy says fully protected pages "should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". Minor edits, which have been characterized here as "formatting and copyedits", certainly fall within the exception for uncontroversial edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Edgar is quite correct. Also: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" (emphasis changed from the original). Let's not get too caught up in the bureaucracy here. The article was (perhaps overeagerly) fully protected to guard against BLP violations. That doesn't mean we have to leave the article to stagnate while we write every sentence by committee. NW (Talk) 14:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)X2...I can see your point GedUK. I would argue that those type of edits already have a wikipedia community consensus when it comes to formatting articles for readability and correcting references, provided specific objections aren't raised. A general objection to the act without a specific statement on how the edit moves against the community consensus of proper actions by an editor seems a little legalistic to me.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize but I am going to let me contempt for our Admin vs. editor culture to slip out for a moment. We may as well close this discussion. Policies rarely apply to admins here and when they do even baltant violated are swept under the rug or justified in some way that woudl dignify the action being taken. because of course an admin is trusted and would never do anything to violate policy. Nothing can be done about admin violations anyway without goign to Arbcom. The only way to do anything about an admin infraction would be to do a full blown Arbitration process and those are long, time consuming and usually non effectual in any kind of positive way (unless you are trying to ban someone from the project). There is nothing useful that is likley to come out of this discussion and certainly no admin is going to stop another admin from doing anything so its just counter productive. Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- An arbcom case wouldn't get far—one of the chief culprits is an arbitrator. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Kumioko, you might want to give "reviewing the complaint on its merits" a shot. Assuming that a concern about admin conduct is valid just because OMFG ADMINS is precisely the same error in logic as the one you complain about (assuming that admins are not in error because they are ADMINS). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2...again...I agree that this discussion should be closed, but not because of a specific contempt against the powers that be, but because no one can identify a single edit which is objectionable except for a legalistic transcendental application of the rules. I think the entire reason for the community and this rule in particular is to prevent a legalistic transcendental application. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, and every rule is maintained for that purpose. Can you identify an edit made by an administrator that was contra to improving the encyclopedia?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- And naturally enough, the arb plays the golden get out jail card:IAR. Look at the quote from Bwilkins in the first post, above. That was added to the Full Protection section of the talk page shortly after the page was protected. That explains how the policy is always interpreted, unless of course you're an arb or admin, and just don't fancy adhering to the policy today. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Which edit was the problematic one? I'll revert right now if you can show me an edit that violates policy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- And naturally enough, the arb plays the golden get out jail card:IAR. Look at the quote from Bwilkins in the first post, above. That was added to the Full Protection section of the talk page shortly after the page was protected. That explains how the policy is always interpreted, unless of course you're an arb or admin, and just don't fancy adhering to the policy today. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize but I am going to let me contempt for our Admin vs. editor culture to slip out for a moment. We may as well close this discussion. Policies rarely apply to admins here and when they do even baltant violated are swept under the rug or justified in some way that woudl dignify the action being taken. because of course an admin is trusted and would never do anything to violate policy. Nothing can be done about admin violations anyway without goign to Arbcom. The only way to do anything about an admin infraction would be to do a full blown Arbitration process and those are long, time consuming and usually non effectual in any kind of positive way (unless you are trying to ban someone from the project). There is nothing useful that is likley to come out of this discussion and certainly no admin is going to stop another admin from doing anything so its just counter productive. Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's exactly the problem, isn't it? According to the proection policy, Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus; that's not happening in this case, bar one edit that was an edit protection request. I don't have a particular problem with any of the edits, but I am concerned that a number of experienced admins are making copy editing and reference edits that have not been discussed on the talk page. Admins should only be editing through the protection to fix blantant BLP violations. GedUK 14:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I concur with Ultraexactzz and Lukeno94, the last 50 edits show formatting and copyedits, I can't see where any major changes have taken place since it was fully protected.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Administrator-in-dreams comment: All the rules apply to everyone. Where are the examples of rules being broken by administrators?--Launchballer 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) The article has now been put back to semi. One of the admins who made an edit through full protection has previously edit warred on the article including edit summaries like this. The point is not whether admins should be tidying up, but that they should not be editing at all unless it is a serious issue (BLP) or there is consensus. IAR should not apply when an admin can lock an article, and others then edit it like this.Martin451 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Look at Bwilkins (administrator) explanation of the rules in the first post in this section. Then look at all of the edits made while the page was protected. Any edit which doesn't adhere to Bwilkins definition is outside of policy. That is all of them except 2. Of course, you'll get a completely different interpretation of the policy now that it has been so blatantly disregarded by several admins and an arb. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x4 As this is a highly charged article, how about an alternative view of IAR to ignore IAR and request that arbs and admins not do any sort edits? This article has been to ANI twice in less than 2 days. In the interest of reducing drama (reducing drama on ANI? shocking I know), maybe the admin corps could consider this. Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I really, really don't see what the hissyfit is about (and I'm not a sysop!) - 99% of the edits during FP were copyedits, restructuring, minor tweaks, or anything that wasn't controversial. No content was really added or removed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's a lot of wrong with the editing/talk page on this article in the last 72 hours; this full protection (and the subsequent editing through it) is the most recent. To dismiss these concerns as a "hissyfit" is at best naive. Shadowjams (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with blackmane here. The article is obviously controversial and thus every edit apart from ones that fix clear grammatical errors can be considered controversial as even slight unnecessary/nonvital word changes can alter the entire meaning of sentences and lead to disputed idea being suggested in the article, which all leads to the us vs them mentality as suggested somewhere before. It's best to just remove blatant violations and leave as it is. Why poke the tiger? YuMaNuMa Contrib 16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem I have isn't that the admins made the edits. But that they violated policy by doing so and then casualy dismissed the notion of abuse by throwing IAR in our face. Its another example of choosing when to follow policy when it suits them but then enforcing it only when it suits them. Either the policy's apply or they don't. IAR doesn't really apply here because only admins could edit the article. If IAR applied there would be no need for protecting it in the first place. Admin abuse is rampant but the desire to stop it is dismissed by those same admins by trying to portray those of us trying to stop it as a bunch of untrustworthy morons because once an admin is trusted that trust is for life. Its the Fraternity if Wikipedia. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Admin abuse is rampant". [citation needed] - The Bushranger One ping only 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well the reason really, really is obvious. And it really, really wasn't a hissyfit. The definition supplied by Bwilkins is the one always used (unless you're an arb or admin fancying a bit of editing). Everyone believes that their own edits are uncontroversial. If you say that admins can edit protected articles as long as they make only uncontroversial edits, then you are giving all admins the go ahead to edit all protected articles at all times. And even if the edits truly are uncontroversial, the article is still being written and shaped by a tiny minority of editors, and that is not what WP is about. Finally, if you let admins edit through protection there is no incentive for them to remove the protection, quite the reverse. None of this is new. It's all well known to the offending admins and arb. They simply chose to ignore it. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Adding that you'll note how few admins have participated in this thread. It was untouched for an hour. Compare that to kind of pile-on you usually see here when the misdeeds of non-admins are under discussion. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm strongly on the side of not touched fully-protected articles. No typo is so severe that it cannot wait until the full-protection is over. Of all the capabilities being an admin gives me, editing fully-protected articles is the one I use the least, as it is the only one that actually can lead to the "two-tier" system that so many editors complain about. If it's fully protected, it shouldn't be edited without talk page consensus. If a piece of phrasing bugs an admin enough that he wants to fix it, he should start a talk page discussion and get consensus that the wording tweak is necessary, not just go ahead and do it.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the norm for admins editing a locked article is to make non-controversial edits requested by others, not to to just act as a privileged editor who can make non-controversial edits on their own initiative while mere editors can't. So the "were they bad edits?" question is not relevant. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree, but please note that I do respect what others on this thread have said and that I understand that this is just one opinion. The reason I disagree is that threads are locked are not because of formatting changes and reference corrections, they are locked due to edit wars or, in this case, because a recent event has caused such a frenzy of activity that no one can judge one edit from the next because there isn't any real clarity on what actually happened in the reliable sources. I think that the mission of wikipedia is such that we should strive to support edits which correct bad references and improve the readability of articles, and this should occur regardless of an articles protection status. The only reason people are upset is because admins broke the letter of the law, but because no one can point to a controversial edit within that period of time I think we can establish a consensus for those edits due to the silence of the opposition.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that there is consensus through silence. Frankly I find it pretty irritating and annoying (but not at all surprising) that when an admin breaks the rules not one wants to get involved and there's nothing but crickets from teh admins in the discussion but if this wasn't an admin breaking the rules I'll be damned if there weren't ten admins out here with sharpened pitchforks and freshly lit torches ready to ban them from the project. Only more proof of the Us and them mentality between admins and editors. Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The consensus through silence is referencing the fact that no one has any problem with the content of any of the edits that were made. Which edits specifically hurt the encyclopedia? Which edits needed discussion because there was a difference of opinion? If no specifics are brought up then we have consensus on the content of those edits through the silence of the opposition. Now I don't buy the "us vs them" mentality, and personally think that is bordering on a battleground mentality. You jumped in this conversation highlighting your bias, and have used this thread as a soapbox on that point. But I don't think this is indicative of a larger problem that "admins aren't held to the same standards" but rather that there is a difference of opinion on what kind of edits can be done on a fully protected page, and quite frankly not everyone agrees that a violation was made. If it was such a clear violation then the admins would be held responsible, but it isn't clear.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree with you completely that the substance of the edits aren't the problem but the intent is. Admins are supposed to operate with a high degree of trust but when they edit through protection like this it is a breach of the communities trust. Especially when the policy specifically states that these types of edits shouldn't be done without discussion. This thread was started because Admins were abusing the tools they had been given and since then the article has been reduced from full protection to semi protection largely in response to the problem that was identified. That action, at least in part, shows that there is a consensus that the actions performed were not in keeping with the trust the community has granted them. Now as for the comment about "admins aren't held to the same standards". That is absolutely 100% true. Admins are almost never demoted or reprimanded for violating policy and in fact in 99% of cases someone invokes some bullshit reasoning like IAR to protect them knowing that if it would have been done by a non admin they would have been burned at the stake. I'm sorry if my comments seemed like battlground mentality but its still the truth even if they are a bit abrasive and offenive and hurt some feelings. If the admins and arbs want to change the us and them persepctive then the ball is in their court. They are the only ones that have the power to do anything about it. The rest of us are just looked upon as a bunch of ignorant trailor trash that cannot be trusted. Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The consensus through silence is referencing the fact that no one has any problem with the content of any of the edits that were made. Which edits specifically hurt the encyclopedia? Which edits needed discussion because there was a difference of opinion? If no specifics are brought up then we have consensus on the content of those edits through the silence of the opposition. Now I don't buy the "us vs them" mentality, and personally think that is bordering on a battleground mentality. You jumped in this conversation highlighting your bias, and have used this thread as a soapbox on that point. But I don't think this is indicative of a larger problem that "admins aren't held to the same standards" but rather that there is a difference of opinion on what kind of edits can be done on a fully protected page, and quite frankly not everyone agrees that a violation was made. If it was such a clear violation then the admins would be held responsible, but it isn't clear.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that there is consensus through silence. Frankly I find it pretty irritating and annoying (but not at all surprising) that when an admin breaks the rules not one wants to get involved and there's nothing but crickets from teh admins in the discussion but if this wasn't an admin breaking the rules I'll be damned if there weren't ten admins out here with sharpened pitchforks and freshly lit torches ready to ban them from the project. Only more proof of the Us and them mentality between admins and editors. Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that both sides have valid points. On the one hand, on principle, admins shouldn't be editing locked pages at whim. OTOH, does it really matter if the edits are minor or non-contentious? But perhaps the real problem is that it creates a two-class system where some editors are allowed to make edits that others editors can't. For a project whose motto is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is that really what we want? That some editors are more equal than others? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
BLP violations in history
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
▪◦▪On a side note these edits here & here should be deleted from the page history as they are clearly wrong, the missing brown students were incorrectly identified as the Assailants. [55] ≡SiREX≡Talk 14:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I moved this out of the scrum above. Unless someone objects, I've identified the four diffs with these names and will delete them shortly, unless someone beats me to it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Check me to make sure I did not screw something up. I just got the four edits clustered at 08:49 UTC. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just checked - looks good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Check me to make sure I did not screw something up. I just got the four edits clustered at 08:49 UTC. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 15:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Who's kidding who?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The simple facts of the matter here are that almost everyone who has been editing the Boston bombings article with any regularity has probably violated several policies: with WP:3RR being the most obvious. Right from the start, WP:NOTNEWS went out of the window, and WP:OMGLETSPRETENDWEARECNNFOXTHEBBCANDPRAVDA took over. If we are going to carry on covering breaking news stories in this way (and nobody seems to have the means to prevent it), we need to accept that (a) rules need to be broken to ensure that such articles don't degenerate into a heap of trivia, conspiracy theories, and WP:OR based on something misread from Twitter, and (b) those breaking the rules will get it wrong sometime. This is the price we pay for ignoring our own explicit and stated purpose - to provide an encyclopaedia, rather than an outlet for breaking news. Under such circumstances, the only legitimate reason for holding anyone (admin or not) to account for any action would be that it wasn't done with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Unless someone can provide evidence to that effect, I suggest this discussion be closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Andy, Wikipedia shouldn't pretend to be CNN or the NY Post — it needs to insist upon being better than them. Generally, "breaking news" coverage of matters of clearly historical importance is pretty good here. Rather than obsessing about the things that WP does well, time would be better spent on things that it does poorly. My opinion.Carrite (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Striking: I need to read more, blabber less... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The only reason it showed up here is because the Marathon bombing article has had a peculiar tone on the talk page from the very beginning. To put it quickly, I've seen WP:NOTNEWS (traditionally understood as an article notability guideline) elevated to exalted status to exclude what is on the front page of every newspaper on at least three occasions while our reliable source and verifiability policies have taken a back seat. This is not some policy debate; our policies are fine. This is a question of a new unspoken but certainly implied policy that everything needs to be published for 6-12 hours before it can be added to the article, sometimes more. We've even had examples of "wait 24 hours" "consensus" by a small handful of editors inside of 1 hour worth of debate after the "waiting on" information was published on the front page of the NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, etc.
- And don't be mistaken, I'm not new to current event articles, nor am I naive about how the news cycle works. This is not about some borderline question or publishing fringe sources. I've been right there to say no to all of those. This is about not publishing basic facts that are widespread and well known, not with some leading language, but with simple "this is what X reported" language.
- I don't think if this pattern hadn't been so prevalent over the last 3-4 days nobody would have entertained an ANI discussion like this. The full protection, which was to enforce keeping out the names of the suspects despite their widespread publication, which was then violated by a few admins, even if only technically, is part of that pattern. Shadowjams (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is policy, not a guideline. It explicitly states that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" - and given the multiple misreportings we've seen, caution rather than haste seems entirely appropriate. As for the issue of if and when suspects are named in such cases, if we stuck by policy and didn't pretend to be a 'breaking news' media source, the issue wouldn't arise, or at least, we could deal with such issues in a more considered manner. If we are to cover 'breaking news', we should amend policy accordingly to say so - and then make the appropriate revisions to the many other policies this would necessarily entail. Holding a few individuals responsible for what has been a monumental collective decision to pretend policy doesn't exist is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I for one would support abolishment of ITN, were it proposed - that's what WikiNews is for. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- We're through the looking glass people! I think most rational people who have experience with Wikinews and ITN would support the immediate abolishment, disbanding, and shuttering of the joke site known as "Wikinews" and the merging and superseding of all of its failed features into ITN on Wikipedia. We can and do a far better job of everything they tried to do. Time to end the relationship, permanently. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that emotional times, like the present news cycle, are the worst possible to propose and debate big-ticket changes to longstanding Wikipedia news features. In any case, Ani is hardly the correct place to do so. Jusdafax 06:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed; just sayin', though. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that emotional times, like the present news cycle, are the worst possible to propose and debate big-ticket changes to longstanding Wikipedia news features. In any case, Ani is hardly the correct place to do so. Jusdafax 06:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- We're through the looking glass people! I think most rational people who have experience with Wikinews and ITN would support the immediate abolishment, disbanding, and shuttering of the joke site known as "Wikinews" and the merging and superseding of all of its failed features into ITN on Wikipedia. We can and do a far better job of everything they tried to do. Time to end the relationship, permanently. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I for one would support abolishment of ITN, were it proposed - that's what WikiNews is for. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is policy, not a guideline. It explicitly states that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" - and given the multiple misreportings we've seen, caution rather than haste seems entirely appropriate. As for the issue of if and when suspects are named in such cases, if we stuck by policy and didn't pretend to be a 'breaking news' media source, the issue wouldn't arise, or at least, we could deal with such issues in a more considered manner. If we are to cover 'breaking news', we should amend policy accordingly to say so - and then make the appropriate revisions to the many other policies this would necessarily entail. Holding a few individuals responsible for what has been a monumental collective decision to pretend policy doesn't exist is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Update the policy to reflect the accepted definition, as outlined by Bwilkins
I've made a request for the policy to be updated per the accepted and long-standing definition as outlined by Bwilkins 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't recall defining anything - I think I described what would be standard practice, paraphrasing current policy while I did so. However, you're very much permitted to recommend changes (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Do you support the rewording? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Boston Marathon Bombings and 2013
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seems to be a consensus at Talk:2013#2013_Boston_Marathon_bombings to include the Boston Marathon Bombings article on the 2013 article. Certain editors, however, refuse to accept that saying the bombing is only a national event. This ought to be looked at. Hot Stop (Talk) 23:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, the fact that you use "editors" (plural) to describe the opposite point of view should make you realize that you don't have that consensus you are claiming.--McSly (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- For reference, this is #Talk:Margaret Thatcher#POV-section redux.
In the following sequence of edits; [56][57][58][59] Is "Houdini-esque argumentation" a violation of WP:NPA that justifies removal under WP:TPOC? Compared with "What an assholish move", "detrollify", and "troll-be-gon"?[60][61] Are uncivil comments about wikipedia editors who post under a pseudonym really violations of WP:BLP? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't look at the substance of the edits, but by definition WP:BLP applies to both living and recently deceased people. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Neither of the participants in the dispute are dead! Leaky Caldron 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- You most definitely should have looked at the substance of the edits, and their edit summaries. These were statements about a Wikipedia editor, which said editor then redacted on the grounds that xe is a living person. There then follow more namecalling, this time by that editor. The actual topic of the article wasn't touched upon at all in those talk page edits, ironically. M. Macon is asking a sauce-for-the-goose-sauce-for-the-gander question. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought they were contentious edits about Thatcher. WP:NPA it is then. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- My concern is that I am seeing what appears to be an out-of-policy deletion of another editor's comments, and a completely bogus claim that doing so somehow involved a BLP violation, not against Thatcher but against the editor "John". See User talk:John, section "Wikipedia:ANI#Talk:Margaret_Thatcher.23POV-section". As an administrator, "John" should know better. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought they were contentious edits about Thatcher. WP:NPA it is then. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly John's redaction, and subsequent moaning at a well trod talk page [62] along with the edit summary reading in part "detrollify", is rather foolish. As usual, mileage varies on wether something is a personal attack depending on if you are the giver or receiver. I think John needs to reconsider his understanding of WP:NPA. Other ironies are not missed on me. Pedro : Chat 22:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- In John's defence he is one of the few administrators who actually work on content, in this case Margaret Thatcher, and so has suffered the same pressures that we cockroaches are exposed to on a daily basis. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't deny that Malleus. Of course that's irrelevant to the much vaunted WP:CIV. No doubt you'd have found it perfectly acceptable if I had revoked that content with an "NPA" tag even though I don't do content work? Pedro : Chat 22:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)not worth it Pedro : Chat 22:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like the typical heated comments. Not a violation of BLP, but certainly WP:CIVIL concerns. I do not really see them being personal attacks and removing other people's posts when you are involved is generally a sure-fire way to escalate the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I believe you already have a pretty good idea of my opinion on WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which is that they're not worth the electrons to store them. I'm simply saying that John, even though an administrator, has found himself under the same sort of attacks that we cockroaches have to endure every day, and being human has perhaps responded sub-optimally. But these incessant ANI threads would try the patience of a saint. I haven't been keeping count, but I think I've been dragged here or to WP:3RR at least twice in the last week, and John I think about the same. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't "drag anyone here" lightly. You might want to consider the possibility that this time there just might be a legitimate concern about someone deleting talk page comments that are far milder than his own. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to consider the possibility that your declaration that "I certainly don't 'drag anyone here' lightly" is patently false for both you and a very significant number of the complaints raised at this swamp of misery and desolation. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to consider the possibility that that is a personal attack. But you don't care, so you probably won't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to consider the possibility that your declaration that "I certainly don't 'drag anyone here' lightly" is patently false for both you and a very significant number of the complaints raised at this swamp of misery and desolation. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't "drag anyone here" lightly. You might want to consider the possibility that this time there just might be a legitimate concern about someone deleting talk page comments that are far milder than his own. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly John's redaction, and subsequent moaning at a well trod talk page [62] along with the edit summary reading in part "detrollify", is rather foolish. As usual, mileage varies on wether something is a personal attack depending on if you are the giver or receiver. I think John needs to reconsider his understanding of WP:NPA. Other ironies are not missed on me. Pedro : Chat 22:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- John made some talk page edits that were suboptimal, but the actual problem is trying to escalate such an incident to ANI. Presumably there is some backstory where various editors have been arguing over something, but if the backstory is not suitable for ANI attention there should not be an attempt to create a fuss over minor skirmishes. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
We've got a major problem here!
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It appears that Xx12345678907896xx (talk · contribs) has caused utter disruption, first by nominating himself as an administrator (it has since been deleted as a test page), and nominating Salvidrim, ^demon and 2D for bureaucratship. So far ^demon has turned down his offer for bureaucratship. Looking into this issue more, I think this user is causing disruption to the encyclopedia (check his edit history). Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Probably "major" is overstating it, but a major-league strategy for dealing with this sort of thing should take care of it.
Zad68
18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, I'm adding to an archived discussion just to point out my amusement. Bite me. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
BBB76: disruptive editing in articles about TV megafamilies
User:BBB76 has an interest in articles about reality television shows about mega-families. This user's edit-warring to exclude an English word that s/he doesn't understand; the user's apparent imperviousness to concerns of WP:MOS and WP:COPYVIO; and general issues of attitude (causing me to lose patience) lead me to bring their story to this page. I'm tired of engaging with this person over ridiculous trivia. Note: Their talk page is festooned with warnings, not all of which make a lot of sense to me.
Here is the behavior that I've found disruptive:
- At United Bates of America, the user is committed to warring to remove the sourced (and relatively anodyne) statement (which was in the article before they ever edited) that all 19 children in the family were singleton births. The user has objected to the word "singleton" (which was not previously in their vocabulary) and suggests that this point should not be in the article text because it should be "obvious" from studying the table listing the 19(!) birthdates. Diffs: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. (BTW, the fact of singleton births gets remarked upon since large families often include multiple births, and the other 19-kid family on reality TV includes two sets of twins.) Further, the user has attacked me on my talk page for using big words such as "singleton" and "prose": [72], [73], [74], [75].
- At 19 Kids and Counting, there has been a war over verb tense. WP:MOS section on TV shows calls for use of present tense, but this user insists on past tense and has warred to keep past tense. Here are this user's diffs: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]
- At List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, the user has insisted on repeatedly inserting episode descriptions that copy or closely paraphrase this source, meanwhile citing extremely unstable bare URLs as sources and deleting somewhat more stable citations: diff, [81], diff. --Orlady (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
These articles are admittedly pretty trivial (I got involved with United Bates of America only because the family lives in my local area), but they have huge page-view counts. Am I the only one who finds this user's behavior disruptive? --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see plenty of disruption, a lack of manners, and some other things here, though none of them immediately blockable. I've seconded your copyvio note, and I think that further edit-warring should be met with a block--but it takes two to tango, and this constant back-and-forthing on UBA came from both sides. If they revert that "singleton" thing again, they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Editor username choice
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just noticed this new editor: Special:Contributions/Tamerlan_Tsarnaev. Is that name going to be an issue? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like an issue to me. {{usernameblock}}ed. AuburnPilot (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's WP:NOTHERE and then there's WP:HEYIMREALLYNOTHERETODOANYTHINGREMOTELYBENEFICIAL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- It may sound sad, but I had to check the contributions page to realize the connection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's WP:NOTHERE and then there's WP:HEYIMREALLYNOTHERETODOANYTHINGREMOTELYBENEFICIAL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding User:ChrisGualtieri's effort to make things personal.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Honestly, at this point, i dont care if even I get blocked. No one seems to care! I'm getting irritated. I'm close to cursing, and attempting not to lash out. But this is ridiculous. Here in the talk page talk:Ghost in the Shell especially the recent discussions, User:ChrisGualtieri continues I attempt to stay civil but the editor continues to attempt to make it personal and then blames me for these things. This comes with history of previous edits.
I along time ago "merged" Ghost in the Shell (manga) with the main page. This editor spearheaded everything, ignored BRD and practically owned the article.
Now recently editor Ryulong, made the same edit (merging the manga to the main page). And apparently first fought but then welcomes him (to the point of a barnstar) and entrusts the article to him. However, although he tells other editors he can work well with, he also blames me and whatever rendition mine is the one that cant be incorporated.
Ryulong misunderstood and believed me to be against the merge and was hostile at first. But now that i explained he refuted previous statements about me. And even more good news, shared some ideas on how to organize the article.
But ChrisGualtieri continues to mark me as the problem to the article, and him (alongside Ryulong) to be the solution (despite Ryulong sharing strikingly similar ideas). He even reverts Ryulong's edit and attempts to do same thing. And as reasonable i try, this editor continues to make things personal. I mentioned "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST" (knowing full well it is an essay and a precaution to avoid unnecessary comparing to other irrelevant articles.) And constantly brings it up as a point on how I dont know anything about policies. When i make a point he would say "you had your chance, why you filibustering mine?" I dont understand this statement. He makes several similar ones too. Whats worst he tries to make it look like i'm the one spreading ad hominem.
Enough mud has been slung at me. And I'm tired....im trying to stay civil, but this editor continues to sling mud and i suspect to intentionally deviate the discussion. If i get banned for being uncivil, so be it. I'm tired, i tried my hardest to keep it professional, and if that wasnt enough, oh well. I will find the revisions of his edits in particular that were most problematic. Lucia Black (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need for admin intervention or any discussion of folks getting blocked. Although some of a the discussion is a bit snippy it's obvious all editors involved are trying to work for the good of Wikipedia -- there's just some difference of opinion and communication issues / frustration. Ya'll need editor help, not admin. Try WP:DRN or WP:RFC and remember to keep the focus on the content, not other editor's behavior. NE Ent 01:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Missing the point. Chrisgualtieri continues to state how "incompetent", how "out of touch with the policies". And making me out the worst in the discussion....i never bring up ANI about the topic but the actions. This editor chooses to see me as the villain even though his ally share the same views as me. I'm tired of the mud.Lucia Black (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is on-going Dispute Resolution attempts at the notice board which I opened earlier about this content dispute. It is atWikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ghost_in_the_Shell.2C_Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell. I may have been a bit snippy, but not without reason. After being subject to ad hominem attacks (Lucia does not understand the term I think), she makes fun of me by intimating me, "Oh I'm Chris, WP:CFORK says this. I'm in accordance with WP:CFORK, you're not" thats how you sound like." [82] And in response to my explanation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, she replied, "OTHERSTUFFEXIST is an essay but in a nutshell, meaning commonly accepted." [83] I do not know if Lucia Black is a English-As-A-Second-Language contributor or if there is another communication problem. I have been trying for weeks to explain things to Lucia and I brought it to WP:DRN after what transpired with Ryulong. This matter is over a long-running formatting dispute about Ghost in the Shell. The content dispute is very simple. I want that page to be a franchise page which in a concise and simple manner details works of the franchise and splits off. The reason? Multiple entries in the series bare the same exact names, whether it be the original manga, the 1995 film or the video game. Or its alternate universe series Stand Alone Complex which has no less then 4 different media bearing that exact name. The article is important as well, it has been viewed over 230,000 times in the last 90 days. [84] My only fault is being stubborn enough to want to fix it after all of this, while I'm no expert, I am well-versed in the material. Oh, and to add, I don't harbor any ill toward Lucia, this is not 'personal' and I hold no grudges. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
1) you're only using my statement on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST as a way to show how out of touch i am with policies. Which doesnt make sense! I brought it up to avoid unnecessary debating because previously you brought examples of Final Fantasy and Mortal Komb at the moment, is NOT the place to defend our reasoning. But just to show how far you will take one comment and attempt to turn into a sign of incompetence.
2)I know what ad hominem means. Internet is insanely slow for this month. And i cant load more than one window. But the proof is there. Youve tried to turn a nuetral discussion into something personal, several times. when its tagged "in a nutshell" it means a lot of editors find it helpful. WP:CIR does no advisement and is extremely opinionated yet you continue to bring it up. You always do that. "You dont know what that word means"? I got the definition right here!
3)You're a bully. No grudges? Prove it. Ryulong and i are mostly in the same boat when it comes to how the article should be. But when DragonZero mentions there are only two possible renditions, you single mine out to be bad (and somehow Ryulong's good? He has the exact same idea as i do!) You're lying. I cant possibly assume good faith with these circumstances. Lucia Black (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's two personal attacks in your point 3 there - please be cautious lest this report WP:BOOMERANG on you. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with my esteemed colleagues: In a discussion, people get snippy sometimes, it is best to stay focused on the merits and overlook little things. And in this discussion you've managed to make two personal attacks against others, so you are better off calling it even, moving on, and focusing on the merits at the DRN discussion. I don't see anything that needs admin attention here. Yet. Everyone just needs to go have a cup of tea and concentrate on the actual edit rationales, and stop offering commentary on each other's personalities. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Block this IP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
64.136.119.175 is being used for vandalism and has had 3 brief blocks before, max 2 weeks. I'd suggest considerably longer, maybe 3 months? asnac (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- As this is a vandalism only ip, a year would be more appropriate. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A number of related accounts seem to be creating fake articles in userspace, casting themselves as actors in movies. See User:Alfred Cook, User:Aaron Lee Harker, and User:Sherlock Holmes: Returns. They (or more likely, the one person behind them) seem intent purely on using Wikipedia as a game, without any attempt to make useful edits. I'm not sure whether the activity extends beyond just these three accounts, but it's worth keeping an eye on. -- The Anome (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I suspected, there's more: User:The Little Avengers seems to be another one. All this feels somewhat reminiscent of Bambifan101 and other similar editors. -- The Anome (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the userpage for User:The Little Avengers, I get the feeling they're only just getting started, and intend to make many more of these pages. -- The Anome (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- They also seem to be 217.44.202.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and User:The Superman (2013 film). And they now also seem to be injecting nonsense into article space: see this diff, and this. -- The Anome (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- And they're also User:The mighty Spiderman (film). Also User:One-way 2013 band: more of the same, but music, rather than movies. -- The Anome (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, got it. This appears to be User:The Deadly TV series, a known sockmaster. -- The Anome (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Checkuser says Confirmed to all of these - Alison ❤ 07:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any more that need to be tracked down? I get the feeling I've only got the tip of the iceberg here. -- The Anome (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I sent this user page to MFD yesterday as a fake article, any connection? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Duck test says yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Were there any edits to articles or other users' pages from that account, or edits by other users to the user page, or were there links between that and the other user pages? If not, then there's no evidence of a connection; User:The Deadly TV series isn't the only person to use Wikipedia as a hosting service for fake articles. Peter James (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Duck test says yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I sent this user page to MFD yesterday as a fake article, any connection? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any more that need to be tracked down? I get the feeling I've only got the tip of the iceberg here. -- The Anome (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a child, or probably a couple of children, aged 7 (!). The same pair of names crop up repeatedly, and there are full names and birth dates plus the names of hospitals where born (why do child autobiographers always give that?). If the nuisance continues, it should be possible to track down the parents and ask them to stop it. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Heated discussion at WP:COIN
After what I thought was a conflict of interest on an article I created (which was eventually confirmed), I avoided an edit war with another user by starting a thread at WP:COIN to discuss the issue. At first, the user in question disagreed with what I said and pretty much kept on accusing me of trying to own the article. But now, the user is getting really heated about the situation and even threatening to have me blocked (a strange threat to be coming from a new user). I wonder if an admin can help sort things out. (The whole situation is in detail at COIN under the preceding link.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no admin but I'll give it a shot. If anything the user should be blocked per WP:USERNAME for right now being of unconfirmed identity until OTRS has it. Stewiedv as in Stewie DeVille, the husband of the subject. It is a clear COI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I stated in the above-referenced COIN discussion, I welcome admin assistance with this matter. While I have admitted my identity, and am open to any assistance and unbiased feedback on my edits and participation, I believe that Erpert is abusing the COI system, as well as other polices including WP:OWN, to cover inaccuracies in his article, excuse his actions (including but not limited to removal of non-controversial edits allowed under COI) and is attempting to discourage me from contributing. Please note, I have not edited the article in question, nor any other documents, since the issue was first submitted to COIN. Stewiedv (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no admin but I'll give it a shot. If anything the user should be blocked per WP:USERNAME for right now being of unconfirmed identity until OTRS has it. Stewiedv as in Stewie DeVille, the husband of the subject. It is a clear COI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It would seem to me that as long as this is being thrashed out at COIN, it doesn't need to be here, at least not until someone believes that COIN has reached a dead end. As an aside, I don't believe I've ever seen a COI editor who writes like Stewiedv. More like a seasoned Wikipedian. I'm not sure what to make of that but just thought I'd toss it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Less than traditional edit summaries
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wonder if someone would mind considering Special:Contributions/2602:100:4759:4D52:914F:C1F9:F8A3:D538 and offering a suggestion about 'better' use of edit summaries? Since this is an IP only editor I have not dropped the usual notice on the page. I am suspecting I will only get a torrent of epithets if I do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- WP:AGF much? IP's are people too. See WP:IGNORANCE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Have you read the edit summaries? What do they leave to the assumption? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- The edit summaries are marginal to say the least. The only times I can remember swearing in an edit summary is when I've messed up, and I've aimed the summary at myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Have you read the edit summaries? What do they leave to the assumption? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- The swearing it the edit summaries are not directed at anyone, and are inappropriate but not block-worthy. I see that nobody had the cojones to Welcome them - so I have. I have also notified them of this discussion. Come on people - if they direct their words at you we have something to deal with. Until then, communicate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, the swearing isn't directed at anybody and to my mind isn't offensive. Probably just a south London teenager. What's all the fuss about?--Launchballer 12:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- When I read the edit summary I thought something dramatic is going on, but removing a redundant link was actually just that. Not sure why the editor is so fired up about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- It may not be offensive, per se, but it is wildly inappropriate. However, it should have been a case of a note on the talk page saying 'hey, you shouldn't do this, here's why', not an instaANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, the swearing isn't directed at anybody and to my mind isn't offensive. Probably just a south London teenager. What's all the fuss about?--Launchballer 12:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OK, so the user Epeefleche , as part of the sudden American/global interest due to 2 guys in Boston, keeps spamming this article with a completely arbitrarty list of random "Notable Chechens", several out of more than 200 on Wikipedia (and this list is including odious figures (Arbi Barayev) and even at least one non-Chechen (Ibn al-Khattab)), falsily claims it's a "standard on wp" (it's not - I just checked Americans, Russians and Poles), keeps reverting and threatning me [85]. Intervention please. --Niemti (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll also note how the article's avoiding the politics/controversy on purpose even in the infobox collage, where there are only some historical figures plus Milana Terloeva (and how Epeefleche's list of 12 "notable" Chechens is not including neither of them). --Niemti (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, he needs to start an article List of Chechen people as the articles he refers to are lists of Poles and Russians and not the main articles about those people. I shall inform him of this. However, lets all remain civil to each other and assume good faith--File Éireann 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Two issues here.
Socking -- There is a strong suggestion here that Niemti and Mr. IP, who are tag-teaming deletions and blanking from view of the list in question, are one and the same. Note that It has been established that the IP address has been used by blocked user HanzoHattori.. Also, see Niemti contributions and 94.246.154.130 contributions. See also discussions here and here and here. Note that the IP writes ""I'm bringing it the fucking ANI", and then it is Niemti who does so above. And when he does so above, Niemti says I am reverting him -- while in fact he links to me reverting Mr. IP. (I'll address the substance in a moment).--Epeefleche (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Lol, I'm sure "tag-teaming" when unlogged and uh-oh, you found out something about me that no one knew before! Now, as you are, go and add Vasili Blokhin to Russians#Notable achievements, if you think Arbi Barayev was one of the most "notable" Chechens (his claim to fame: killed some people, boasted about killing 160 - while Blokhin killled tens of thousands). What BS. --Niemti (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your edits have gone back-and-forth within minutes as you tag-teamed your deletions and effective blankings of the list so that, as now, it cannot be seen. See your edits between 6:57 and 7:17 here as an IP (now blocked for 24 hours) and at here as Niemti. Editing-warring on the precise same issue. And, I might add that though the IP is blocked, you are still editing as Niemti, so when another IP or editor pops up we can't know for sure who it is if you are editing under different IPs, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP address for severe incivility including anyone operating from it for 24 hours. I shall not block for longer in case it is a public computer system. The underlying accusation of sockpupeteering is more serious, however and will have to be looked at in greater depth. --File Éireann 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Substance. It is perfectly standard to have such lists of notable people. Whether as stand-alone or embedded lists. As to embedded lists, see this MOS section on embedded lists, and especially under "Size": "Some information, such as "Notable people" ... may be formatted with a section lead and a descriptive, bulleted list". Examples of such embedded lists are many -- see, e.g., the notable persons lists in Cree, and Sami people, and Mnong people, and Bubi people. The existence of cats at the same time is not reason to delete such lists. See, e.g., List of Russian people and List of Polish people. I have repeatedly mentioned this to complainant, and invited him to add to the list, as such lists by their nature are never complete, but to not delete appropriate entries from such lists or delete such lists in their entirety. All is reflected in the above diffs As it stands, he has once again hidden it from reader view, as he has now done many times between his IP account and this name account.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, Niemti IS HanzoHattori. As in literally redirects to Niemti's account. It is another account and is not an abusive sock. You might want to take a look at the history before condemning Niemti because it is no secret. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes -- it is one of 14 entries in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori. There are 12 entries in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori. The point is that the two indicated ones were tag-teaming both the same reverts, and the same positions in discussions. Furthermore, curiously, HanzoHattori was blocked indef years ago -- which leaves me puzzled ....--Epeefleche (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, Niemti IS HanzoHattori. As in literally redirects to Niemti's account. It is another account and is not an abusive sock. You might want to take a look at the history before condemning Niemti because it is no secret. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ya know folks .. we're an encyclopedia, not a daily newspaper or some "OMG" tabloid. I know all this is utterly amazing, shocking, depressing, and all ... but still ... let's not lose focus on THIS particular project's goals and all. IJS. — Ched : ? 12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is not so much the content of the dispute as it is the behavior behind it. Niemti (aka HanzoHattori renamed) reverted Epee's addition and when Epeefleche readded it, Niemti stayed logged out for a series of edits (including reverting to the borderline 3 reverts, I do not see a rule violation). After performing a string of edits logged out he goes to take it to ANI as Niemti by logging in. While probably not the best practice, and certainly not advisable, I don't see why the block was for civility issues.. I encountered worse on this page no less. Even the edit summaries were not that bad. Niemti does have a bit of a civility problem, its a long running concern, but if anything Niemti needs to relax. Everything is personal to Niemti in situations like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Now,
it wasn't quite the intervention that I was looking for. But I guess the stupid "accusation of sockpupeteering" is more important than what ammounts to character assassination on the entire little-known (but already demonized in popular conciousness, including by media such as films and video games) ethnic group when the USA/world is all of sudden interested in the issue. Just take a look at it:
- Alu Alkhanov, Russian politician, former president of Russia's Chechen Republic
- Arbi Barayev, nicknamed "The Terminator", founder and first leader of the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment
- Movsar Barayev, militia leader during the Second Chechen War, who led seizure of Moscow theater that led to deaths of 170 people
- Shamil Basayev, militant Islamist and leader of the Chechen rebel movement
- Artur Beterbiyev, amateur boxer
- Dzhokhar Dudaev, Soviet Air Force general and Chechen leader, first President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
- Ruslan Gelayev, commander in the Chechen separatist movement
- Akhmad Kadyrov, Chief Mufti of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
- Ramzan Kadyrov, Head of the Chechen Republic and a former Chechen rebel
- Aslan Maskhadov, leader of the Chechen separatist movement and the third President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
- Abdul-Halim Salamovich Sadulayev, fourth President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
- Dokka Umarov, Islamist militant in Russia
A few controversial people, all of whom are responsible for the violence in the last 2 decades (not even evaluating them otherwise), plus 1 random sportsman (just one of many notable Chechen martial artists) (and previously, even a non-Chechen Arab militant) - an entirety of "notable Chechens". Yeah. What a nation, right?
I think it's extremely important for this very biased list to not be posted to this article, now when there's a sudden global attention.
Ched: This is is worse than just sensationalist, it's actively damaging, portraying an entire ethnic group of more than 1 million people as a having basically only "notable" members as a bunch of warring individuals from the most recent times. I think there's actually bad faith involved on Epeefleche's part, as it's so unusual to do such a thing on Wikipedia (directly contrary to Epeefleche's false claim of it being "standard on wp"). If you want, you can compare it with, let's say, Palestinian people - and even List of Palestinians. --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This list is still in the article (under the religion section), I just hid it before opening this thread (because Epeefleche kept reverting, while threatening me). But it needs to be deleted. --Niemti (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- These are all highly notable people, in almost every case notable vis-a-vis Chechnya. The list doesn't even include the two in the news today. And I'm happy to add to it as I have been doing until IP and doppleganger began deleting it. And I repeatedly urged both of them to add to the list. Niemti's desire to delete, for example, every president of Chechnya is unusual.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- "IP and doppleganger", nice baiting. But yeah, Arbi Barayev, and his nephew Movsar ("led to deaths of 170 people", the description adds helpfully, of course not mentioning those "170 people" were almost all killed by the Russians[86]), two of the 12 most notable ever and so perfect representative of the ethnic group. A bunch of what world calls "Chechen warlords" (and all from just the recent years) + 1 random "amateur boxer", out of hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Did you look at Palestinian people and List of Palestinians? (I'm "assuming good faith" right now, but this is so obvious I shouldn't even discuss it anymore.) --Niemti (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- That list is not NPOV as Niemti claims, especially in light of current events. While the Palestinian people list is absolutely a train wreck as well. Namely the fact it cites religious figures like Jesus as Palestinian despite Palestine not even existing at that time. The editing while logged out was a minor issue and seems to be an attempt to avoid opposition to a clearly non-neutral list which captializes on the American 'awareness' and fear mongering of Chechnya. In all seriousness, various media have been detailing how the country's people have long history of radical Islamist terrorists, rebels and murderers. I do not believe having a milita-centric list of people is balanced. But the content issue is a content issue and ANI is chiefly for behavior and other immediate concerns. Take the content matter to WP:DR processes, Niemti needs to disengage a bit anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- "IP and doppleganger", nice baiting. But yeah, Arbi Barayev, and his nephew Movsar ("led to deaths of 170 people", the description adds helpfully, of course not mentioning those "170 people" were almost all killed by the Russians[86]), two of the 12 most notable ever and so perfect representative of the ethnic group. A bunch of what world calls "Chechen warlords" (and all from just the recent years) + 1 random "amateur boxer", out of hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Did you look at Palestinian people and List of Palestinians? (I'm "assuming good faith" right now, but this is so obvious I shouldn't even discuss it anymore.) --Niemti (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed Jesus, then noticed a long list of "Talmudic rabbi" entries from 2,000 years ago and just bailed out. It should be re-written as for people who identify as Palestnians in the sense of nationality/ethnicity. But that's just a side-note, if someone wants to fix up this article. --Niemti (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Niemti -- You've used at least a dozen puppets and been blocked for it, and now that your IP was blocked today you are still editing from this name, so I did not know I was speaking to the same person when I communicated separately with you in your different forms (and still am confused). As to descriptions of the people in the list, they are simply truncated from the wp first paras (which I did not write). None of this warrants you deleting a list of presidents and other lead movers for chechen independence. Notability lists are completely standard. And as indicated above -- you were invited more than once to add to the list. And you blocked me from continuing to do add to the list by deleting and then hiding the list repeatedly (as you have done most recently), either as an IP or using your Niemti name. Plus -- I see by prior history in at least one of your connected accounts that you've been blocked in the past for removing material. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see you're confused alright. Also the list that you needed is there: President of Ichkeria (in addition to Head of the Chechen Republic). Now, try to insert Vasili Blokhin to Russians#Notable achievements for his all-time world record in shooting people. Arbi was a "lead mover" in kidnapping for profit and assorted mayhem, and even had a krysha from the FSB (Anna Politkovskaya in A Dirty War: a Russian Reporter in Chechnya: "In a extraordinary twist to this tale, it was reported in the autumn of 2000 that the Russian domestic intelligence service, the FSB, was protecting Arbi Barayev, a ruthless Islamist, implicated in numerous kidnappings and the beheading of four Western telecom engineers in Chechnya in 1998."). --Niemti (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think bringing up people's block logs from 2008 is very relevant to the current discussion, Epeefleche, especially when they have already promised to try to reform. Perhaps the IP while it is assigned to Niemti should have a soft redirect on its userpage to the user's current account? Not everyone will immediately recognise that Hanzoi Hatti=Niemti, and if Niemti edits whilst logged out in the future it would make it more obvious who it is. -- Dianna (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have posted a comment at the SPI. While I don't think Niemti's actions warrant a block, either for civility or for socking, I would strongly suggest that they not edit logged out any more, and to use the talk page for discussion of the contested list rather than trying to communicate via edit summary. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Niemti -- You've used at least a dozen puppets and been blocked for it, and now that your IP was blocked today you are still editing from this name, so I did not know I was speaking to the same person when I communicated separately with you in your different forms (and still am confused). As to descriptions of the people in the list, they are simply truncated from the wp first paras (which I did not write). None of this warrants you deleting a list of presidents and other lead movers for chechen independence. Notability lists are completely standard. And as indicated above -- you were invited more than once to add to the list. And you blocked me from continuing to do add to the list by deleting and then hiding the list repeatedly (as you have done most recently), either as an IP or using your Niemti name. Plus -- I see by prior history in at least one of your connected accounts that you've been blocked in the past for removing material. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- We at Wikipedia have to have a long conversation about the difference between ethnicity and national citizenship at some point (see for example: the recurring issues with Germans). This is not the time or place. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Article Probation Modification - Men's rights movement
Greetings ANI - I've been a patrolling admin on this article and unfortunately it is subject to a lot of edit warring. See recent history. I've also several times warned folks not to cross into edit warring for the reverting and blocked others. The article probation log is Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation. I am requesting a strengthening of the probation to a WP:1RR on the article for six months until Sept 20, 2013.--v/r - TP 16:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I left a notification here since there are no specific users I am talking about.--v/r - TP 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea, but suggest that IP edits should be excluded, as is the case of the Israel/Palestine and Troubles IRR restrictions[87]. As we know from past experience, external websites are sometimes used to recruit editors to this topic, and I can see a IRR being easily gamed otherwise.--Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. 1RR excluding IP edits. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. m.o.p 18:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I suggested that original probation 18 months ago and frankly I'd support an indefinite 1RR in line with all the other probations listed by Slp1. This is a long running (pre-2007) issue and it hasn't been solved within 6 years. I don't see it going away in 6 months time. That said I support this measure as reasonable. Also could more uninvolved admins give Tom a hand - this is a controversial area its not really fair to leave it up to 1 or 2 uninvolved sysops, more eyes are needed--Cailil talk 20:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am in favor of indefinite semi-protection to keep IPs at bay, and 1RR for registered users for six months and even longer. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
IP user 198.111.167.130 adding block templates to the user pages of other users
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 198.111.167.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is adding block templates to the user pages of various other users, as if he/she was an administrator, and is also adding those user pages to a category reserved for templates. It looks a bit odd to me so maybe an administrator should take a look at it. Thomas.W (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Renewed sockpuppetry at Neumont University article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please block User:Twine4 as sockpuppet of blocked editor User:Gratans? He or she is back to mangling Neumont University, an article which has previously been the topic of discussion here and at the Village Pump when the university issued subpeonas to WMF seeking information about editors to that article. I bring that up not as a legal threat - I don't work for or with this institution in any way - but only to firmly illustrate that this article has a particularly contentious history. It might be worth semi-protecting the article for a little while, too, as this editor clearly has no problem using sockpuppets to evade blocks. ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Huldra makes personal attacks in Norwegian
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was bold and edited "Labour Party (Norway)" to "Workers' Party (Norway)" on several pages. I was reverted, and User:Huldra posted some incivil comments on both the article's talk page and also on my own talk page. I replied in a civil manner, before Huldra made another comment, this time in Norwegian. The comment can be translated like this: "Oh my god. Don't tell me about how "Arbeiderpartiet" might be translated. You know just as well as me what the official translation is, and we'll stick to that one. This is massive disruption and if you don't stop and clean up your mess I will get you banned. I don't bother wasting more time on this. Learn the rules! Then you can edit! Read WP:OR! Sincerly [...]" LiquidWater 20:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is his/her translation. (Btw, it is about original as his/her translation of "Arbeiderpartiet"). My translation is on the talk-page of LiquidWater.[88]. LiquidWater has unilaterally this evening tried to change the name of the governing "Arbeiderpartiet" of Norway from "Labour Party" to "Workers party". Note that the government of Norway use "Labour Party" (see eg [89]). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Belated comment: I looked at LiquidWater's talk page after seeing this topic, and as a native English and Swedish speaker with a more than passable knowledge of Norwegian I must honestly say that Huldra's comment IMHO can not be classified as a "personal attack". A frustrated/irritated comment, yes, but personal attack, no. Thomas.W (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
User:LittleBenW edit-warring over diacritics again.
LittleBenW has been topic-banned from edits related to diacritics (broadly construed) since December.[90] He has since been blocked twice for violating this ban.[91][92] Unfortunately, he appears not to have learned his lesson, he has been reverting my removal from WP:SET of his links that undermine the use of diacritics in the article Lech Wałęsa over the past 24 hours or so.[93][94] In ictu oculi also noted similar TBAN violations not long ago.[95] Cheers. Konjakupoet (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have already explained repeatedly to User:Konjakupoet that this writeup on how to use Google to research names in reliable sources was written in November before my unjust topic ban, which I intend to appeal soon. As I have already explained to User:BDD here, the template {{Google RS}} researches names in reliable sources: <quote>"The sources for the templates are all listed; they are widely considered to be the most trustworthy and politically neutral sources in English on the web, e.g. Encyclopedias like Britannica, magazines like the Economist, newspapers like the New York Times, broadcast sites like the BBC. If you're aware of any better sites then they can easily be added (Google permits 32 max. to be searched simultaneously)".<unquote> I don't believe that recommending that reliable sources be used and cited to justify names is "warring against diacritics". "Reliable sources" is—or surely should be—a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Surely there are no reliable English sources that spell Franjo Tuđman the Wikipedia way? Attempting to add the majority English spelling even once in an English Wikipedia article (in the name of NPOV—another of the supposed pillars of Wikipedia) should not be grounds for an indefinite ban—or justify insults and threats from the ultra-nationalists on Wikipedia.
- As mentioned in the third paragraph (* SMcCandlish "submissions") of my submission here, several people protested the lack of due process—the imposing of an indefinite topic ban and the scope of the topic ban were ridiculous: "indefinitely prohibited from ... converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics"—because I think I had only once "added an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics" (in the lede of the Walesa article) and probably never "converted any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page". This indefinite topic ban was based on a single attempt (with no edit warring) to add a single instance of the majority English version of the name Walesa to the Walesa article. User:SMcCandlish got a one month topic ban for the same behavior that he used (trashing a civil discussion, wall-of-text threats and insults) to get me blocked and then topic banned.
- No, you are not encouraging the use of "reliable sources". You are sherry-picking sources that don't use diacritics, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALittleBenW&diff=547077181&oldid=547070628 I'm no the only one to notice this odd fact. Also: you have been asked repeatedly to use the "view preview" function rather than tweaking the same post dozens of times. Konjakupoet (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- You have not provided any reliable English sources that are more reliable than Encyclopedias like Britannica, magazines like the Economist, newspapers like the New York Times, broadcast sites like the BBC. And your statement about Britannica is simply wrong, total nonsense. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV and show major alternative viewpoints and major alternative spellings. I am not warring about this; you are warring about this. It is not NPOV to cherry pick only the non-English sources that don't use the English spelling, and refuse to accept or mention even once what all the most reliable English sources say. For Walesa you can even check the Polish government's own web site. LittleBen (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? "Warring"? You are the one who reverted me three times (the other one was a short while ago[96]) You are deliberately picking out sources that don't use diacritics. This is a TBAN violation on par with the ones that have already got you blocked twice. Additionally, the specific article seems to be the one you were edit-warring on back in November that won you your TBAN in the first place. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- <redacted by neutral observer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)>
- Konjakupoet, if you're going to engage in personal argument, you should not collapse the other guy's arguments just because you feel they're personal (I have reverted your collapse now). If anything needs collapsing, please leave it to a neutral observer to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Sorry for that. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Konjakupoet, if you're going to engage in personal argument, you should not collapse the other guy's arguments just because you feel they're personal (I have reverted your collapse now). If anything needs collapsing, please leave it to a neutral observer to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
user:Konjakupoet edited with an account called user:Konjakupoet2 and made 4 edits between 2nd and 9th of April. On the 20th of April user:Konjakupoet made the first edit with user:Konjakupoet. Why did you open this process nearly two weeks after the incident? The edit pattern you have displayed does not seem to me to be that of someone who had not held an account before the 2 April. Are there any other accounts on en.Wikipedia that you have used? -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Check my user page. I'm a fluent Japanese-speaker. Until recently I primarily edited on ja.wikipedia (I'm not telling you my username because your constant personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith have made me somewhat distrustful of you). I have also occasionally edited en.wikipedia anonymously. And I've been monitoring LBW's ridiculous pattern of harassment/POV-pushing. What business is it of yours, anyway? And why does it matter to this thread? Seriously, if you think LBW has NOT been disruptive enough to warrant an indefinite block, please present a valid argument. I'm not going to respond to you if you make another personal attack. I will, however, post another thread below this one. Stop it now. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- So yo have edited under different accounts, you are trying to prevent other editors commenting on this question. I can't help thinking you may also be a part of the problem here? Its all a bit academic anyway, it looks like LittleBenW has been indefed for reasons that cannot be stated but have been reported to Arbcom ----Snowded TALK 12:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Indefinite block proposal for User:LittleBenW
With two blocks for violating the topic ban already, further flagrant violation of the ban and edit-warring, abundant warnings from multiple editors, and a massive case of WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE, user:LittleBenW has amply demonstrated that he holds community consensus in very low regard and intends to continue the disruptive and tendentious WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for which he was banned. More than enough of the community's time has been wasted trying to get through through this editor. I propose that they be indefintely blocked until he can convince the community that he is resolved to abide by community consensus and adhere to the terms of the topic ban imposed by the community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are calling for an indefinite block but describing it like a ban. A block can be modified at the discretion of an administrator; following accepted best practice. When you stipulate that the community must be convinced, this is indicative of a ban; requiring consensus to modify, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there is no practical difference between a community imposed indefinite block and a community ban, with the possible exception that a blocked editor is still considered part of the community, and a banned editor is not. In either case, lifting the ban/block would require the assent of the community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think the issue here is that a block is ultimately the only way we have of enforcing a ban, and that if an editor has repeatedly evaded an already-existing ban, then perhaps we should block. (I have no comment on the proposal myself, as I have not investigated it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there is no practical difference between a community imposed indefinite block and a community ban, with the possible exception that a blocked editor is still considered part of the community, and a banned editor is not. In either case, lifting the ban/block would require the assent of the community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are calling for an indefinite block but describing it like a ban. A block can be modified at the discretion of an administrator; following accepted best practice. When you stipulate that the community must be convinced, this is indicative of a ban; requiring consensus to modify, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support for the reasons outlined in the section above and for somewhat offensively accusing me of sockpuppetry numerous times.[97][98] (Also, note his ironic accusation that Hijiri88 was gravedancing despite his continuing to dance on Hijiri88's grave.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note LittleBen has been canvassing and accusing both me and DV of having some kind of "ultra-nationalist" agenda.[99][100] If either NE Ent or Kiefer.Wolfowitz show up here and defend LittleBen this fact should be taken into account. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Konjakupoet, you should control yourself and think.
- In previous discussions, I have always supported the use of the highest quality most reliable sources, and therefore I have opposed fatwahs against diacritics. I have also noted that diacritics have been frequently used by English writers from Shakespeare to Blake to Henry James, etc. I suspect that I was asked to take a look as a neutral observer. NE Ent is an honest intelligent administrator, also, and probably was invited for the same reason. I have trouble imagining NE Ent as a anti-umlaut zealot. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's a fair analysis. I have never interacted with NE Ent, and I will take your word that he is (and you are) a good-faith user. But the fact is that you were both invited here by a user making a ridiculous accusation of me being an "ultra-nationalist" -- I think LBW if asked could not guess my nationality, though -- and so if he is truly impartial he should probably refrain from participation given that he was canvassed. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- And here. PBS is another user who should now be considered compromised. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Tarc as well.[101] Should 4 consecutive instances of WP:CANVAS over an 8-minute period count towards a potential community-ban/indef-block? Konjakupoet (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- A Quest for Knowledge, too.[102] And Ryulong.[103] (The latter diff also includes more gravedancing.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pot calling...? -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nice personal attack there, PBS. If you mention someone's name in an ANI post you are supposed to inform them. So I did. LBW is the one who went to 6 different users and asked them to oppose his block. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- So do you think if Little Ben had previously listed here on this page the user names he canvassed, then it would not have been conversing if he had then informed them of that after such a posting? I think you could have constructed your initial post without naming Iio, so I think my point is valid. "6 different users and asked them to oppose his block" are you sure? Because Little Ben did not ask me to oppose a block (his posting was "More bullying by the ultra-nationalists here [sig]") -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think IIO has never voted against LBW here or on AN, and I think that the reason I knew LBW was under a topic ban in the first place was because IIO pointed it out. He is the only one who has been calmly reminding LBW on all of these occasions that he is under a TBAN. Please stop making personal attacks against me. I didn't post on the talk-pages of the dozens of users with a history of negative interactions with LBW in order to get them to come here and vote. He did just that. That is why he was blocked for canvassing and I wasn't. If you seriously think I have been canvassing make a new section below this one and ask the administrators to block me for "canvassing". Seriously go on. I dare you. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- So do you think if Little Ben had previously listed here on this page the user names he canvassed, then it would not have been conversing if he had then informed them of that after such a posting? I think you could have constructed your initial post without naming Iio, so I think my point is valid. "6 different users and asked them to oppose his block" are you sure? Because Little Ben did not ask me to oppose a block (his posting was "More bullying by the ultra-nationalists here [sig]") -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I wonder if he canvassed you because you opposed his initial TBAN? You were in a tiny minority there, but you are thus far one of the only participants there to have been directly informed of this current discussion. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nice personal attack there, PBS. If you mention someone's name in an ANI post you are supposed to inform them. So I did. LBW is the one who went to 6 different users and asked them to oppose his block. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pot calling...? -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I blocked him for the canvassing, as a provisional measure. Like Boing! said Zebedee above, I have not yet formed an opinion on the actual proposal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- A Quest for Knowledge, too.[102] And Ryulong.[103] (The latter diff also includes more gravedancing.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Tarc as well.[101] Should 4 consecutive instances of WP:CANVAS over an 8-minute period count towards a potential community-ban/indef-block? Konjakupoet (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
user:Konjakupoet I was not going to comment here, but you have implied that if I did I would be acting in bad faith, and I object to that. Just because LB has informed me of this debate it does not mean I can not make up my own mind on an issue. You wrote above "You are the one who reverted me three times (the other one was a short while ago 102" yet that is a different user account from the one which you signed accusation. As you are using two accounts you need to add a warning on the second account that it is a sock-puppet particularly as you seem to have remembered your Konjakupoet password and to be using your primary account again. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, please see my userpage. There is no sock-puppetry, just being overly paranoid about security to the point where I have at some point forgotten both passwords. I am unable to post on the userpage of my other account (how could anyone be tricked to think "Konjakupoet2" was a different person?), as I do not remember the password. I would not oppose that secondary account getting blocked under these circumstances, though. Please do your homework before making accusations like that, anyway. Also, any look at what LBW posted on your page would indicate that it is not neutrally-worded. He accused me of being an ultra-nationalist despite never having even interacted with me on a talk page. And it was most certainly canvassing, as that is what he has been blocked for. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why can not write a message on User:Konjakupoet2? -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support an indefinite block - this editor has worn the community's patience to a nub, and his continued refusal to listen on this issue means he is a negative to the project. I don't think this rises to ban level yet, but a block of indefinite length is called for until he understands what is required of him to return to editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support and consider him community banned, continued BATTLEGROUND behaviour and repeated incivility. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 09:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support enough is enough; editor has been warned too many times. --Rschen7754 09:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. This discussion has had ridiculous shotgun-blast charges, with too little concern for fairness. Anybody who has behaved hyperactively should go away, and let calm persons discuss this. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you think LBW, who responded to the thread by calling me names in six different places, should refrain from posting here? Please provided a valid argument as to why LBW should not be indeffed, rather than more ad hominem arguments against me. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Both of you should relax. Perhaps you both could strike-through your own incivility or personal-attacks and reflect on ways that this discussion could have gone better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- What personal attacks did I make? Seriously? It seems you don't have a leg to stand on because you know LBW should remain blocked, so you continue to try to change the subject to my behaviour. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Both of you should relax. Perhaps you both could strike-through your own incivility or personal-attacks and reflect on ways that this discussion could have gone better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you think LBW, who responded to the thread by calling me names in six different places, should refrain from posting here? Please provided a valid argument as to why LBW should not be indeffed, rather than more ad hominem arguments against me. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Note one: Contrary to statement above I'm not an admin.
Note two: As I already have 1,588 posts to ANI, asserting my commenting here is only due to the canvass isn't supported by the evidence.
Note three: BSZ has indef'd LBW for outing, so tobe this discussion seems to be moot.
The original poster is 3rr on WP:SET and I don't see that repeatedly reverting a contribution made before a topic ban is a legit exception. NE Ent 11:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- OMG. 1,588 posts to ANI? Did you hear yourself saying that, NE Ent? That's addict behaviour, and I can see it leading to somewhere round about here. You need help. Please consider yourself topic banned from ANI for one month. Of course I'm not saying you're not extremely useful here—you will be missed—but we'll have to manage somehow. My best advice: don't read it, either. Take it off your watchlist. Please continue to edit helpfully at other boards! Once the ban has expired, and provided you feel you have got that monkey off your back, you are welcome to make useful contributions at ANI yet again. If you would like to be unbanned, you may appeal this ban by adding the text "Help help, abusive ban" below this notice. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC).
- Oppose Draconian solutions are very seldom useful, and this particular one seems far more intent on "getting at" an editor than at helping Wikipedia in the first place. Collect (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I am completely uninvolved, as I have never edited anywhere near these editors or topics. After review: the editor LBW has has plenty of chances and now needs to firmly be shown the door via a community ban. There is no need to waste good editor time any further with this. Jusdafax 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This whole incident -- edits made in November violating a topic ban imposed in December?, 3rr was violated, --is sketchy. and LBW is unable to post on Wiki due to alleged doxing, which has been kicked to ArbCom. Let's let the committee do their thing first. If the committee decides not to take action, their will be time later to consider when additional community restrictions on LBW are appropriate. NE Ent 12:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Strong support When an editor stoops to WP:OUTING in order to disparage their "opponents" in a discussion, it's time to pull the plug. LBW does not have the personal self-control to reign themselves in regarding diacritics, period. That means that protecting this project - and the other editors - is paramount (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Superastig
User:Superastig, despite repeated warnings, continues to insert erroneous and non-cited info in articles. Read his talk page at User talk:Superastig to see what I mean. Also check his talk page's history as he has been deleting postings criticising his erroneous postings. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)