Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) →Lukeno94's lack of civility: eyeroll |
Sergecross73 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 853: | Line 853: | ||
:Lucia, what about comments from your friends that are also uncivil? Why don't you find issue with them? You are portraying this as if it is a one-sided issue when it is anything but. As I've already said, both parties need to tone it down. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
:Lucia, what about comments from your friends that are also uncivil? Why don't you find issue with them? You are portraying this as if it is a one-sided issue when it is anything but. As I've already said, both parties need to tone it down. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
::<small>well, that'll tone things right down. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)</small> |
::<small>well, that'll tone things right down. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)</small> |
||
::I'm sure she'll make a big stink over me saying it, but quite frankly, Lucia has made some very bad calls in the past in regards to deeming other peoples civility. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 17:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Achievement Hunter]] == |
== [[Achievement Hunter]] == |
Revision as of 17:31, 3 December 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) |
|
GERAC
I'm currently engaged in a big dispute with User:Alexbrn and User:QuackGuru as they try to take the German Acupuncture Trials article apart. The argument mainly centers around whether the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) can be considered a reliable source, and whether the GERAC are notable at all (I think they are, since they were one of the main reasons why the Federal Joint Committee decided that acupuncture is reimbursable by the statutory health insurances, for low back pain and knee pain). But these questions are already being discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard and at AfD (since Alexbrn has already started a case there).
The reason I ask for input here is the way these two users are going at it. Even though discussion is ongoing, QuackGuru has been tagging the article excessively [1] and deleting sources he doesn't like [2], while Alexbrn just nukeandpaved almost the entire article when he came to join the discussion today [3]. After reducing the article to a stub, he nominated it for deletion [4] On my objection, I was simply told I obviously don't understand WP policy regarding secondary sources [5]. When I reverted his nukeandpave, he threatened me to be blocked because of edit warring [6].
As laudable as the works of QG and Alexbrn are in clearing WP of pseudoscience and bogus alt med content, they're overshooting the mark here. Could someone please look into this? Of course I'm willing to discuss anything regarding content and sources, but I feel a little helpless against their rapid actions. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Poorly sourced text does not belong in mainspace. I explained this on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, we don't agree on this being poorly sourced, do we? But your rationale why the (secondary) Fed. Joint Comm. source shouldn't be used is bogus. And as I pointed out before, WP:MEDRS states very clearly, that in some cases primary sources can be used - to give descriptive information about how the GERAC where done is one of these cases. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- A content dispute, other than Mallexikon saying I threatened him/her. My posting an edit-warring notice on their Talk page and warning about 3RR does not constitute a "threat", I think. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well how about your nukeanpave of sourced material, and then presenting the remaining stub at AfD? (Which has so far be rejected, by the way) --Mallexikon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- At the AfD page, a user conduct discussion regarding Alexbrn was recommended [7]... Is this the right place or do I have to take it to a special AN? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think you mean "of poorly-sourced material" - good stuff eh? We're here to improve Wikipedia, after all ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's poorly sourced... We have a very good secondary source here: a review of acupuncture studies, by an independent medical organization (Federal Joint Committee (Germany)). But you won't even listen to me, or wait for consensus. Instead, you revert me, and delete sourced material at will, and then carry the remaining stub to AfD... --Mallexikon (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think you mean "of poorly-sourced material" - good stuff eh? We're here to improve Wikipedia, after all ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just a FYI, the article is German Acupuncture Trials not the currently redlinked German Acupuncture trials. If it survives AFD (including if it's merged or redirected), either create a redirect or move depending on how it's decided to handle the capitalisation. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow. The only administrator's comment. After 12 hours. Focussing on redirect of the article. Thanks a lot, guys... --Mallexikon (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- To allow a proper study of the matter at AfD, I recommend that the article content that was previously removed by User:Alexbrn and User:Quackguru be left in place until the deletion discussion is over. One of their removals was here. I am a bit surprised that WP:MEDRS is being interpreted so broadly as to require immediate removal, even during the period that a time-limited discussion is in progress. We expect to see immediate removal of badly-sourced material in cases of libel or slander, but citations to the Archives of Internal Medicine (whether or not the material published there is ultimately found to be quackish) won't cause immediate harm. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually you've missed my main point (noting I'm not an administrator and there's no need for an administrator to create the redirect). Your original comment previously linked to the redlinked German Acupuncture trials. This was fairly confusing since people may assume (I did at first) that the article has already been deleted. I did not modify your comment, as you or someone else has now done, because there sometimes is a lot of controversy over modifying comments. So even in a clear cut case like this I felt it best not to open that can of worms.
- Instead I thought it best to point out the actual article is German Acupuncture Trials, which isn't currently redlinked, for the benefit of anyone else reading this discussion.
- I also recognised that ideally there should be a German Acupuncture trials redirect presuming German Acupuncture Trials exists, either as a redirect to German Acupuncture Trials or a redirect to wherever German Acupuncture Trials points to. When I see an accidental redlink to something which should be a redirect anyway, I normally simply create a redirectk, perhaps mentioning I have done (to reduce confusion if people saw the redlink). However because of the uncertainty due to the AFD over whether German Acupuncture Trials will exist, I decided creating a redirect at this time would be silly. So instead I simply reminded those involved they should do so in the future and used the opportunity to also explained why I did not just fix the problem myself.
- Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Is there a reason that the article was gutted, stubbed, and then put up for deletion? Why wasn't the article just put up for deletion as is? GregJackP Boomer! 06:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because doing the WP:NUKEANDPAVE (and adding a new piece of secondarily-sourced material), and then seeing the result, crystalized my thought that that subject matter here made this article an AfD candidate. As it happened, the large amount of primary material that I removed has been restored and this has proved a distraction from the pertinent questions at AfD (although other editors have added better-sourced content which is pertinent). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well it wasn't like that, was it? Your nukeandpave edit (removing reliably sourced material) took place at 6:19 [8]. However, at 3:57 you already had this discussion with QG where you stated that "... this article needs to be filleted - in fact probably deleted, with any usable remnant merged into the main acupuncture article". This was premeditated. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- What are you trying to say? Going from a thought that it "probably" should be deleted to actually deciding that it should be deleted is precisely what I meant by saying the stubbing process "crystalized my thought". So after thinking some more about it and searching for sources I nominated it for AfD.
BTW, as has been pointed out at AfD, you set this hare running with a false statement that I nominated the stubbed article for deletion, when in fact it had been reverted by the time I made the nomination. Would be grateful if you could correct this.Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- What are you trying to say? Going from a thought that it "probably" should be deleted to actually deciding that it should be deleted is precisely what I meant by saying the stubbing process "crystalized my thought". So after thinking some more about it and searching for sources I nominated it for AfD.
- Well it wasn't like that, was it? Your nukeandpave edit (removing reliably sourced material) took place at 6:19 [8]. However, at 3:57 you already had this discussion with QG where you stated that "... this article needs to be filleted - in fact probably deleted, with any usable remnant merged into the main acupuncture article". This was premeditated. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because doing the WP:NUKEANDPAVE (and adding a new piece of secondarily-sourced material), and then seeing the result, crystalized my thought that that subject matter here made this article an AfD candidate. As it happened, the large amount of primary material that I removed has been restored and this has proved a distraction from the pertinent questions at AfD (although other editors have added better-sourced content which is pertinent). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
QuackGuru
I'm not a person who likes running to a higher authority whenever something happens, but I do think this requires some attention from an administrator.
Basically, QuackGuru is a long time editor who edits mostly topics related to Quackery, which includes things like energy medicine, homeopathy, and in this case, acupuncture.
That alone should not be problematic, except that Quack is misinterpreting a lot of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in his controversial edits. What's more worrying is how Quack deliberately tries to compromise the integrity of an article that is currently being nominated for deletion along with any person or organization that's somehow related to these trials. The Federal Joint Committee (Germany), as a federal body working on a national level, is obviously a notable health authority so I think Quack's proposal for its re-direction seems to be somewhat unconstructive:
I propose redirect Federal Joint Committee (Germany) to Healthcare in Germany#Regulation]
...especially when it was made on the 20th of November, which happens to be the day that the trials were nominated for deletion.
Quack is still removing a lot of content from the German Acupuncture Trials, but I believe most of the article is reliably sourced. It shouldn't surprise anyone that most sources included in the German Acupuncture Trials are only available in German, yet QuackGuru is tagging all of these sources as "unreliable". I believe any native speaker of German (or even English) would be able confirm that the Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift is a reliable source.
The more important point here is that these trials are obviously notable (nobody seems to be denying that they're not), but before I continue to spend my time working on it, I want to be sure that those people who have issues with my additions at least try to read the references that I've cited before tagging.
I've tried talking to QuackGuru about this on this talk page, but he simply removed all comments, so perhaps there's an uninvolved admin who would like to give a third opinion? -A1candidate (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- A1candidate is one of the editors who wants to keep the article with the disputed text and unimportant low level details. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article to describe the trial itself. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. The primary sources are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources that do not show it is notable. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails WP:MEDRS and WP:SECONDARY. The Joint Fed. Committee study is also being used to discuss the trial itself. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. All the medicine cannot be stripped out of this article because editors at the article think it is a medical article. If the non-notable medical claims are removed from the article there may only be a few sources on how a clinical trial impacted the society and politics. The current state of the article makes it impossible for editors at the AFD to determine if the topic is notable. Again, the primary sources are being used in this article to make statements about the acupuncture trial itself to discuss medical information that is unrelated to how a clinical trial impacted society and politics. Do you see the unrelated medical information and do you think that information must be removed? Discussing the details about the trial itself creates a WP:COATHOOK. There is not a decent paragraph in Healthcare in Germany#Regulation, Regulation of acupuncture#Germany or Acupuncture. The content can be merged into the other articles. Editors at the AFD commented there many problems with the current article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. See here, for example. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion. If it needs to be deleted because of poor sources, nominate it and make your case at AfD that the sources are crap. This article had 23K of material removed by Alexbrn [9], then it was nominated for deletion by him. The material was re-added to the article and then removed by you [10], [11] in what appears to be a tag-team match with Alexbrn. It is also not appropriate to remove reliable sources from an article while it is at AfD, which QuackGuru has done repeatedly, without any apparent consensus to do so. Note, I am uninvolved in the article and personally think that acupuncture is BS, but this isn't the way to go about it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- "It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion" ← well that's your opinion; I disagree. The fate of the article largely depends on its potential (as dictated by the sources available in the real world), not on what's there right now. You seem to be very free with your accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and that certainly is "not appropriate conduct". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, it's not just my opinion. I've heard it several times and places, especially since I'm a deletionist and don't have a problem in getting rid of crap articles. I did not assume bad faith either. I'm sure that both you and QG are doing this with the best of intentions. My statement above was factual and focused on what had happened and what should happen. No where did I state that I believed that either of you were acting in bad faith, nor have I asked for any sanctions for misconduct. I'm merely pointing out a better way to do it in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure it is an opinion others share with you, and I respect it. TBH I didn't see any great link between stubbing the article and the AfD nomination, though I do now regret doing both in succession now because it's given an excuse for others to create a distraction around the article, rather than focussing on the content (which has always been the issue of substance here, so far as I'm concerned). In writing that QuackGuru appears to be in "a tag-team match with Alexbrn" you are at least being uncivil (see WP:TAGTEAM) in that this implies some degree of coordinated action. In fact when it began to look like the reversions and re-reversions were escalating into an edit war I backed off (and warned QuackGuru and another editor who had got to 3RR not to continue). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, it's not just my opinion. I've heard it several times and places, especially since I'm a deletionist and don't have a problem in getting rid of crap articles. I did not assume bad faith either. I'm sure that both you and QG are doing this with the best of intentions. My statement above was factual and focused on what had happened and what should happen. No where did I state that I believed that either of you were acting in bad faith, nor have I asked for any sanctions for misconduct. I'm merely pointing out a better way to do it in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- "It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion" ← well that's your opinion; I disagree. The fate of the article largely depends on its potential (as dictated by the sources available in the real world), not on what's there right now. You seem to be very free with your accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and that certainly is "not appropriate conduct". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion. If it needs to be deleted because of poor sources, nominate it and make your case at AfD that the sources are crap. This article had 23K of material removed by Alexbrn [9], then it was nominated for deletion by him. The material was re-added to the article and then removed by you [10], [11] in what appears to be a tag-team match with Alexbrn. It is also not appropriate to remove reliable sources from an article while it is at AfD, which QuackGuru has done repeatedly, without any apparent consensus to do so. Note, I am uninvolved in the article and personally think that acupuncture is BS, but this isn't the way to go about it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
QuackGuru II
He is doing it again, this time removing a huge chunk of content directly related to the trials . -A1candidate (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- The real question is, why is he allowed to edit at all? It's because everyone knows it is throwaway account used to do the so-called "dirty work", and he's supported by a great number of editors and admins alike for this singular purpose. It's like having an account-for-hire, but one that you know will be blocked for disruption. He's completely supported in this endeavor by the community, which tells you everything you need to know, in other words, the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Don't expect the rule of law, justice, or equal treatment on Wikipedia, because you won't find it here. It's obvious and transparent that this account is solely used to disrupt Wikipedia. QuackGuru isn't interested in arguing with you or compromising, or backing down on anything. He will simply disrupt the encyclopedia like he has always done. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that not a single admin has commented after so many days speaks volumes. -A1candidate (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's because disruption is OK as long as you are on the correct side. Viriditas nailed it with his evaluation. GregJackP Boomer! 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's true. But QuackGuru is actually making science look bad. Science is a tool for developing a provisional knowledge set that works to help us make accurate observations and decisions about the world and the uni/multi-verse. It is not, however, a cudgel used to beat people with, like a hardback book favored by some religious sects. But you wouldn't know it with QuackGuru, who appears to be pushing the religion of scientism, not the provisional knowledge set created by science, which in this context is used as the basis of modern medicine, which in application is essentially an art, not a science. People like QuackGuru are often victims of fundamentalist upbringing, so we probably shouldn't be too hard on him. He's acting out his victimhood in an aggressive and disruptive manner to prove a point to himself, nobody else. It's basically a cry for help. It's likely that someone in his family was harmed by some kind of "quackery" so he's lashing out at everything in an attempt to get back at this person or group. We've all seen this thing many times before. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- and yet on the surface, heshe is doing far more constructive work regarding quackery than somebody like, say, A1candidate, who seems to love the woo ! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's nothing "constructive" about it. Which articles has he improved? He's acting as a proxy for other editors who aren't willing to violate the policies and guidelines that make it possible for people to collaborate in a harmonious manner. I don't a give a damn who loves the "woo", I can find ways to work with them. If they don't have the tool set for skeptical thinking, then you offer them your hammer or spanner, you don't hit them over the head with it. He isn't here to work with or help anyone but himself. This is about as far from "constructive" as you can get. Finally, he makes science look like a religious pursuit, which it is not. As GregJackP has accurately observed, this is Wikipedia realpolitik in action. Fuck everyone and everything if you are right. Most editors are indefinitely blocked for this behavior, but not QuackGuru. This shows the community is essentially corrupt at its core. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- His account seems to be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, if you look at his edits. Other than Larry Sanger, I can't find a single article that QuackGuru has recently edited that is not related to "[[Quackery]". -A1candidate (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- and yet on the surface, heshe is doing far more constructive work regarding quackery than somebody like, say, A1candidate, who seems to love the woo ! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's true. But QuackGuru is actually making science look bad. Science is a tool for developing a provisional knowledge set that works to help us make accurate observations and decisions about the world and the uni/multi-verse. It is not, however, a cudgel used to beat people with, like a hardback book favored by some religious sects. But you wouldn't know it with QuackGuru, who appears to be pushing the religion of scientism, not the provisional knowledge set created by science, which in this context is used as the basis of modern medicine, which in application is essentially an art, not a science. People like QuackGuru are often victims of fundamentalist upbringing, so we probably shouldn't be too hard on him. He's acting out his victimhood in an aggressive and disruptive manner to prove a point to himself, nobody else. It's basically a cry for help. It's likely that someone in his family was harmed by some kind of "quackery" so he's lashing out at everything in an attempt to get back at this person or group. We've all seen this thing many times before. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please have a quiet word with the administrator User:Gryffindor who is currently stalking my edits and trolling by adding info boxes (full of errors) against consensus (even on a well known FA Buckingham palace) and generally being tiresome by making small meaningless edits and comments to other pages which I have heavily edited or begun and am known to be heavily involved with. It would be good if this could be nipped in the bud before it get's out of hand. Thank you. Giano 09:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) - User:Giano, perhaps you should provide some diffs to support your complaint? And have you made any other attempts at dispute resolution before coming to ANI? - theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't the time or inclination to go digging about and copy pasting diffs where trolls are concerned. They are easy enough to see in his contributions. If admins won't monitor their own kind here, then I am more than capable of dealing with the matter myself. I just thought it was procedure to flag up problem editors here first. My mistake obviously - it won't happen again. Giano 17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Motion to close. Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss does not constitute whatever User:Giano is complaining about. Gryffindor (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) - User:Gryffindor, do you think it's appropriate to ask that an ANI against you be immediately closed before it's be discussed and the issues evaluated? - theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I see 2RR apiece from Gryffindor ([12], [13]) and Giano ([14], [15]). Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss is okay, but not if it's accompanied with a blind revert to the right version lacking an edit summary. Trouts all round. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, I am also referring to his stalking of pages which I have edited just to make irritating edits Vorontsov Palace, Buckingham Palace, Talk:Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Halton House and Marble Arch. Al in the space of 12 hours. He does not edit in the historical architectural field at all, so what is he doing there if not trolling. I'm in the middle of writing pages I don't want to have to spare time on his meaningless stalking and trolling. Giano 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- If it makes you feel better Giano, there's an infobox at Rainthorpe Hall that you can remove, and you have my word I will not edit war over its re-addition (although if you'd like to improve it to, say, B class, while you're there, that would be nice....). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- That is very horrible indeed. I'll expand that later when I'm back from the Crimea, unless our new architectural expert transforms it into a GA first. Giano 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've had a look through both Giano's and Gryffindor's contribs for the last few days, and I can't find any smoking gun that points towards stalking or harassment. It does seem unlikely for Gryffindor to have been editing the same articles as Giano by chance, but then checking another user's contributions is not outlawed unless there is other inappropriate behaviour. From WP:HARASS: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't see anything particularly offensive here, and I haven't seen any evidence of repetition of this before this week. And Gryffindor has also been editing a lot of architectural articles, so there is nothing that unusual about seeing him editing in the general topic area. Giano: what makes you think that Gryffindor is "stalking [your] edits and trolling" rather than simply trying to improve the articles in question? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure that he is suddenly editing architectural articles....now. Stalking me and wandering in off the street onto pages where he's never been seen before and adding infoboxes against consensus and then edit warring with them seems, to me, inappropriate behavior for an admin - especially when he has filled those infoboxes with erroneous facts. To me, the adding of erroneous facts is the worst possible behavior - he either does it deliberately to annoy or he just adds boxes without bothering to read the page - either way, it's pretty poor behavior for an admin. Furthermore, at the same time as he's arguing with me about infoboxes elsewhere, he suddenly makes four completely pointless edits here [16]. Anyhow don't bother too much, I always regard this page as a futile, but necessary stepping stone to taking the matter into one's own hands, which is always more effective. Giano 08:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I have a few more questions: first, is there a past history between you and Gryffindor? Some links to past discussions would help a lot in investigating whether this is a one-time thing or not. Second, could you point us to some of the claims that Gryffindor has inserted into articles that you think are erroneous? And third, are there any discussions where you have asked Gryffindor about any of these specific claims? I couldn't find any when I looked around, but it's possible I may have missed them. And finally, what do you mean by "taking matters into one's own hands"? That sounds vaguely threatening and has me worried, so I would appreciate some clarification. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Update: I just tried searching the ANI archives for any past discussions involving both Giano and Gryffindor, but I drew a blank. If there is any past history here, it is not obvious. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Mr. Stradivarius. I suggest you address the questions to Gryffindor and ask him to explain his extraordinary behavior; he cannot be unaware that infoboxes are a controversial subject and that's when added without errors and with talk page consensus. I had previously never heard of him, and looking at his previous edits, there is no reason why I should have heard of him - I expect he was fulfilling some other person's agenda. Anyway, he seems to have learnt the error of his ways. Regarding "taking matters into one's own hands", well that is often the best method. Admins are hardly renowned for sorting each other out - are they? Giano 12:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Comment from uninvolved editor @Mr. Stradivarius:, perhaps you should try wikistalk instead. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- I checked your diff [17], snd I fail to see four pointless edits. I see some reduction in thumbnail sizes. His first entry seems to be an attempt to make the infobox shorter and more concise. The first edit also is removing an opinion (you can't really say for what reason motivated Shah of Persia to say that statement, you should only relay the statement itself). The second entry adds a description of what the picture is, an advert, and doesn't grossly change it. The third entry is slightly incorrect in that it states all those events occured in 1929 when actually they only finished in 1929 and had begun earlier. Sure you can dispute that. But why not limit that to the article's talk page? Seems an awful lot to be escalating and accusing of stalking. LilOwens (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- And where exactly did you spring from? This was your third edit since July... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh that's a well known Canadian sock - we all know who that is! Giano 14:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Tendentious editing
Middayexpress (talk · contribs) seems to have made various Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and other errors on the African Australians page, discussed on Talk:African Australian.
Removal of valid citations: Middayexpress removed various citations which were pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style, e.g. [18], [19]. Furthermore, the user's justification for this is erratic, most recently that the edit would have justified the inclusion of "New World" immigrants on the page in question, despite the source and statement making no mention of New World immigrants whatsoever. Discussing the matter is problematic due to this inconsistent and fluctuating reasoning.
Ignoring good faith questions: I have repeatedly tried to make simple, clarifying questions to determine the user's views or reasoning. The user has repeatedly ignored these questions. Related to this:
Clarity: Repeated attempts to discuss the lack of clarity on the page are completely ignored. For example, I have established I think the page definition is confused and poorly phrased with direct questions, e.g. "have you considered that the current page definition of "African Australians" is simply not clear?" This is completely ignored, and as any edits to the page are reverted, it is impossible to address.
Blatantly illogical use of sources: Various examples, e.g. user ignored the disclaimer on one source stating it is the view of "the individual author only", and argued it is more than the view of the individual author and that the source shows the government's view. However the user consistently deletes sources (from the government or otherwise) that are contrary to his/her opinion when they are added in. The user has further claimed evidence in sources yet ignores my attempts to receive a direct example of this. For example, arguing a report[20] is referring to immigrants when when it says "people of African descent", but ignoring direct queries to clarify exactly where this is stated. Furthermore, user removed this source despite claiming it supports their position.
I notified the user earlier of my concerns on their talk page, which hopefully was the correct thing to do. Appreciate any admin clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisoutofsight (talk • contribs) , this notice added by Jprg1966 (talk)
- (Non-administrator comment) This seems like a content dispute to me. Aren't dispute resolution steps more appropriate for something like this? It appears that both of you are editing in good faith, so I would hate for ANI to be the place where it gets sorted out. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's indeed an ordinary content dispute. The Heisoutofsight account was created only a few months ago, so perhaps he/she isn't familiar with proper dispute resolution procedure. All of the claims above have also already been addressed in detail on the article's talk page [21]. Additionally, a Third Opinion was sought [22], so that should be coming in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I sought a Third Opinion as Middayexpress refers to. However, I felt that the user ignoring the specific Wikipedia:Tendentious editing guidelines I raised with him/her, and persisting in simply protecting one exact version of the page over multiple edits, was more appropriate to raise here. I am indeed unfamiliar with proper dispute resolution procedure, and I apologise if I have made a mistake. I will of course not persist with any discussion here if this is the wrong place for it.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- This board is for reporting urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. It's not for ordinary content disputes, especially when a Third Opinion has already been sought (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Those multiple edits were and are also unsupported by what the government sources actually state, both in words and data figures. This has been repeatedly demonstrated on the talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking me to WP:FORUMSHOPPING (which I was unaware of), however it does state that "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable".
- This board is for reporting urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. It's not for ordinary content disputes, especially when a Third Opinion has already been sought (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Those multiple edits were and are also unsupported by what the government sources actually state, both in words and data figures. This has been repeatedly demonstrated on the talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I sought a Third Opinion as Middayexpress refers to. However, I felt that the user ignoring the specific Wikipedia:Tendentious editing guidelines I raised with him/her, and persisting in simply protecting one exact version of the page over multiple edits, was more appropriate to raise here. I am indeed unfamiliar with proper dispute resolution procedure, and I apologise if I have made a mistake. I will of course not persist with any discussion here if this is the wrong place for it.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's indeed an ordinary content dispute. The Heisoutofsight account was created only a few months ago, so perhaps he/she isn't familiar with proper dispute resolution procedure. All of the claims above have also already been addressed in detail on the article's talk page [21]. Additionally, a Third Opinion was sought [22], so that should be coming in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Middayexpress's dismissal of the rules in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is a different issue to the actual content dispute that I posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I stick by my claims regarding Middayexpress's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which is fairly unambiguous as it involves straightforward things like ignoring the rule under "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors".
- If ignoring Wikipedia's policies outlined in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (after having attention explicitly drawn to them) does not constitute urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies and is not appropriate here, then I have simply made a mistake. If this is the case, I request this discussion be closed as it is simply entirely misplaced.Heisoutofsight (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- With respect, you clearly do not understand what tendentious editing means since all of your claims have already been discussed and successively disproved on the article's talk page [23]. As also already explained, this noticeboard is for urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were unaware of the policy against WP:FORUMSHOPPING as well. Middayexpress (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- With respect, I explicitly raised these specific concerns regarding tendentious editing on your talk page[24], as I have stated. You deleted them without discussion [25]. Therefore, it is incorrect to say they have been 'discussed and successively disproved'. They were deleted and ignored. Likewise, much was ignored on the page you linked to [26].Heisoutofsight (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I indeed deleted that notification from my talk page because it had zero relevance, as is my prerogative per WP:HUSH. The fact remains that all of your various claims have been successively addressed and/or disproved on the article's talk page [27]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I simply did not make all these claims on the article's talk page. These claims here are largely a restatement of what I posted on your talk page. They have not been successively addressed and/or disproved on the article's talk page because they were not raised there.
- I am by no means whatsoever disputing your right to delete what is on your talk page, but that is where I made in particular the second two of the four claims on this page. You did not successively address and/or disprove either of them, because you did not respond to them at all.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid all of your various (and largely invalid) claims were indeed addressed on the article's talk page. That includes the ones above, which are but repetitions of said disproved assertions. But since you keep insisting that they haven't been addressed, I have hatnoted the entire discussion below in its full, actual context. Middayexpress (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have also noticed the behaviour involving user Middayexpress (talk · contribs) regarding several articles on Wikipedia, mainly the country article of Eritrea where this user have been involved in edit wars [28], this page is now page protected.
The user Middayexpress have been reverting and removing several edits and contributions made by several users. But also been engaging Wikipedia:Tendentious editing on several pages.This user is has been involved in 86 reverts in [Eritrea]] article [29] and has also been the user (active) with most edits on this page [30]. The user is active in stopping users from contributing, and revert edits as soon as he/she disagrees with the contributor.
As user Heisoutofsigh (talk · contribs) case points out, Middayexpress has been involved in a numbers of incidents that involves:“Removal of valid citations” “Blatantly illogical use of sources”
Here are some recent examples (there is alot more):
Eritrea Article. Here user Middayexpress reverts edits and removes valid citations in the cuisine section [31], that got three reliable sources, one including a WHO report on alcoholic consumption in Eritrea. These sources states that “Suwa” (beer) and “Mies” are traditional alcoholic beverages in Eritrea. Middayexpress removes these sources made by a user, throws in and refers to own sources and claims that Suwa is just a barley drink and not a beer. Middayexpress claims that “Suwa” and “Mies” are not traditional Eritrean alcoholic beverages, since half of the population in Eritrea is Muslim. User also claims that none of Eritreas Muslims drink these alcoholic beverages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eritrea]. How can you claim that half of a country’s population doesn’t drink alcohol with any sources? These are most definitely traditional beverages in Eritrea.
In the cuisine section on the Eritrea page Middayexpress has also constantly been adding illogical use of sources. Middayexpress claims that Eritrean cuisine “strongly” resemblesthose of neighboring Ethiopia and Somalia [32]. Using a source that not states this!The sources the user is referring to only states that “Eritrean and Somalian Cuisine are similar to those of Ethiopian cuisine ”, the source does not mentions anything about Eritrean and Somalian cuisines being similar to eachother. Still the user Middayexpress claims this and even states that they are “extremely similar”, which contradicts actual facts.
Tigre people Article.The user Middayexpress claims that the Ethnic group of Tigre is related to the Somalian Ethnic group. Which is not correct? There is no sources claiming this, still the user Middayexpress engages once again in edit wars and reverts the article, [33], using no sources at all. The sources on Tigre people article only claims that the Ethnic group of Tigre_people are only related the Beja_people of Eritrea/Sudan and the Tigray-Tigrinya_people of Eritrea.
Eritrean cuisine Article (extended). Once again Middayexpress uses a source that does not claim that Eritrean and Somalian cuisines are “extremely similar”. [34] . But also removes contributions and sorces regarding the beverages "Suwa" and "Mies".
Somali_People Article. Here the user reverts edits and adds that Somalian people are releated to all of these ethics groups Afar | Agaw | Amhara | Beja | Benadiri | Harari | Oromo | Saho | Tigray | Tigre. Without a single source! [[35]]
But, to make it look good this user throws in a reference to a book which does not claim that Somalian ethnic group are related to all of the mentioned ethnic groups above. [[36]] Can an experienced user or admin please go trough and investigate the behavior involving this user. A warning and a possible ban should be considired for this user.
Regards (Canevino16 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC))
- Canevino16 is a sock of User:Hiyob346, who was indefintely blocked only a few days ago. Most of the pages he links to above are actually now page protected because of his disruptive editing there via a series of ad-hoc accounts and dynamic ips. The administrators User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Gyrofrog witnessed this disruption. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Semi-protected Agaw people and Tigre people. Interesting first three edits by Canevino16. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thats a very odd thing too write User:Middayexpress, dont confuse me with a socketpuppet. You are mentioned in alot of pages that involves east africa, my area of interest. Everywhere there is a dispute your name seems to be there. I also noticed this discussion, where another user is accusing you of the exact same things. I don't know if thats a coincident ? User:CambridgeBayWeather, Yes recently I started my account, I did not know if I was obligated to have an account to post in this noticeboard.
Regards Canevino16 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- You have a non-existent editing history other than your posts here, but this is belied by your posting style and content. Your arguments, links, writing style, posting times, gripes and pages of interest are also identical to those of Hiyob346, who coincidentally was indefinitely blocked shortly before you registered this account. That is what CambridgeBayWeather means above by "interesting first three edits". Per WP:DUCK, you are yet again block evading Hiyob346. Middayexpress (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This report here looks too early, discussion is taking place on article talk page. There's lots of accusations against Middayexpress, but with weak evidence to back it up.--Loomspicker (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well if more evidence is needed, here it is.
- Ignoring good faith questions - all unanswered direct questions found here [40]
You are constantly reinstating your preferred sentence, in its exact form. I don't see how this is constructive. Have you considered any alternatives? Please explain if any other options may acceptable to you.
Firstly, does a government source explicitly state that identified African descent does not denote an African Australian? If so, please provide an explicit quote, and a page number.
Secondly, does a government source explicitly state that an Australian who is not an African immigrant cannot be an African Australian? Does a government source explicitly state that an Australian who is not an African immigrant or of "recent" African descent cannot be an African Australian? If so, how is "recent" defined? If so, please provide an explicit quote, and a page number.
Thirdly, have you considered that the current page definition of "African Australians" is simply not clear? It states that "African Australians" are synonymous and interchangeable with "African immigrants to Australia", but that they may also have "recent ancestors from Africa". Are you comfortable with any rephrasing of this statement to make it more precise and less unclear?
- Blatantly illogical use of sources:
- - Reason for edit on talk page where government source I posted is explained not to contradict user's sources [41] - "The parts of the Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link [17] that actually discuss African Australians (beginning on "Question 2") pertain to immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants." [i.e. pertain to Middayexpress's stated definition]
- - Reason for the same edit where source I posted is explained to contradict ("mutually exclusive") user's sources [42] - "fix erroneous mutual exclusivity; more precise govlink"
- - Reason for deleting a source which literally contained no mention of the New World in any way whatsoever - "The gist of your post above is that there is an "unabridged link between an Australian of African descent" [incorrect quotation of what I said] and an "African Australian"", and that "an Australian of African descent" is by extension inclusive of New World immigrants with some ancestors from Africa."[43]Heisoutofsight (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's really quite pointless to attempt to selectively revise the proceedings out of their appropriate chronology and context. Here is what actually transpired, and in its full context:
Hatnoted wikitext |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This page was established to be about Australians with identified African heritage, that is what the first line established. Did I miss an agreement somewhere on Wikipedia that unlike the Asian Australian page or the Arab Australian page it be made about immigrants and not ancestry? Why change it? User:Heisoutofsight
The reason why I reinstated the African Australians Project report is because the first sentence you changed to read "Australian citizens and residents identified as having African descent[...] they may also be Australian citizens and residents born in Africa" misdefined how the Australian government actually uses the term African Australians. By African Australians, the government means immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants, regardless of race, language, culture and religion (please see box below). It does not include immigrants to Australia from the Americas or other non-African areas who trace a part of their ancestry from individuals that migrated from Africa to the Americas/elsewhere centuries ago. Only immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants are aggregated in the government's population statistics on African Australians [58], and included in the National Consultations on African Australians [59]. This is empirical fact, not opinion. The parts of the Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link [60] that actually discuss African Australians (beginning on "Question 2") pertain to immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants. This is obvious since those sections allude to the "national consultation with African communities", and "a Discussion Paper in March 2009 – translated into 10 community languages – which called for submissions from African Australians". The link's only cited statistics on African Australians likewise exclusively pertain to immigrants from actual African countries ("248,699 people born in Africa were living in Australia[...] since then, around 50,000 more migrants born in Africa have arrived in Australia"). Nowhere does the link suggest that the government also includes non-Africans in its definition of African Australians. Here's how the Australian government in its own words actually defines African Australians, from Tom Calma, the Race Discrimination Commissioner and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner [61]: Middayexpress (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
First off, it's not assuming good faith to accuse other users of tendentious editing simply because they don't happen to agree with your edits. I realize you registered this account only a few months ago, but that is still unhelpful. Second, the actual chain of events was me adding a link to the African Australians Project, then you removing that and later replacing it with the Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link. Only then did I restore the original African Australians Project link. Anyway, that was a while ago, so let us examine what the government sources actually state with respect to "African Australians". The gist of your post above is that there is an "unabridged link between an Australian of African descent" and an "African Australian"", and that "an Australian of African descent" is by extension inclusive of New World immigrants with some ancestors from Africa. However, none of the sources makes this connection, including the one quoted above. Every government source cited on African Australians (notably the 2009 African Australians compendium quoteboxed above) makes it clear through its actual statistics and statements that "African Australians" pertains to immigrants from African countries and their descendants, regardless of race, language, culture and religion. This is what Tom Chamla and other government officials mean here by Australians with an "African background" as well as by Australians of "African descent". Here's another contextualized demonstration of this, from the NSW Ministry of Health's STARTTS service and the independent Public Interest Advocacy Centre [63]: Middayexpress (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I am confused by the way you have interpreted my statements. Here is the the crux of your response:
The gist of my post is not at all that "New World immigrants with some ancestors from Africa" are African Australians. Nowhere did I mention such Australians anywhere in my post. The sourced statement you have deleted from the article is this: "African Australians are also Australian citizens and residents identified as having African descent." The statement as it stood, correctly sourced and pertinent to the definition of the article, cannot be problematic for referencing the New World, because it did not do so. That no sources refer to immigrants from the New World as being African Australians is simply not relevant to this statement at all. I cited the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing rule on this page as an explanation of why I reinstated a source which should not be removed. This was not an accusation. Without informing you of the guideline, how else can I explain my reasoning was based on this guideline? You have now removed that source three times. Please explain why this was necessary. Following your second removal of this source, I remain unaware of your precise reasoning that my sourcing was not "pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style". I have now made all my concerns as explicit as I succinctly can, here and on your talk page. Earlier, before using the talk page, I deleted a source you provided before I was aware such action was inappropriate. I apologise for doing so. I have not made this error again. As a new editor on Wikipedia, regrettably I have not familiarised myself with all its rules, however I endeavour not to repeat mistakes. The AHCR source I added did not replace anything, it was an addition only. This is clear in the edit history of this page, please recheck it. I have made beginner mistakes in my genuine attempt for a productive discussion to improve this page. I apologise if you feel my conduct has been inadequate. Here's the wikitext you wrote in full:
From the above, you were clearly referring to citizens and residents of Australia. However, the suggestion that the Australian government means something different when it speaks of "African Australians" and Australian residents of "African descent" is inaccurate. The cited Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link certainly doesn't state this anywhere. Fact is, every government source cited on African Australians makes it clear through its actual statistics and statements that "African Australians" pertains to immigrants from African countries and their descendants, regardless of race, language, culture and religion. This is what government officials actually mean here by Australians with an "African background" as well as by Australians of "African descent", as just shown and quoteboxed. Middayexpress (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
Middayexpress (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Block evasion
User:113.168.106.105 is a currently blocked User:Thainguyencc. He was blocked based on behavioral evidence found here [[64]] and is again using an IP to continue the dispute and making personal attacks [[65]] which mirrors this edit [[66]]. Personally think that the ip should be blocked and registered user's blick extended for ip socking and block evasion.
- Also consider comments at 3rr board "What do you think if a map not show California, Texas... are not an English-speaking areas without source? --Thainguyencc (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)"
- and ":I can't talk? but What do you do with a linguistic map show your state is entirely non-natively English-speaking area, make from non-specific source [Ethnologue (2009, 2013)]. --113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)"
Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- In Vietnam, most of IP address are dynamic IP address--113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Are you stating you plan on continuing your disruption editing? Hell In A Bucket (talk)
- No, I need only page(s) and/or link, and add "as per Ethnologue" in Kwamikagami's fake linguistic map.--113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Blocked for block evasion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Bumping this. 113.168.106.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) still has an indef block on it and AFAICT it is not an open proxy. Could an admin adjust that to 6-12 months or whatever the appropriate time might be. Rgrds. --64.85.216.132 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe have it blocked for how long will the IP may remain with the blocked acc? 98.114.104.129 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Cue Thainguyencc should have their block reinstated and extended for block evasion. I find it unusual that no one has done that already. Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- My understanding was that block evasions should be indeffed. If I've got that (or anything else about this thread) wrong, I'm quite happy for another admin to do whatever is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not on IPs. Only on sockpuppet accounts. The main account definitely needs reblocking though... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sock of just-blocked editor
The just-created editor User:You find the truth painful appears to be a sock of the just-blocked editor User:Cognoscerapo. YTheir contribution list is short enough to peruse for the evidentiary diffs, but see this and this in particular. The block was based on a violation of WP:ARBMAC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Indef blocked by Ponyo per WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- A CU might want to take a look, and if there was block evasion, extend Cognoscerapo's block, although I think WP:DUCK is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- The geolocation between You find the truth painful and Cognoscerapo certainly makes a connection
Possible, however due to the IP range hopping I can't lock down a rangeblock. A liberal dose of reverting, rev-deleting, blocking, and semi-protection will essentially deny them the platform they're looking for. If they continue with the physical threats then it may need to be brought to WMF attention for a more thorough check. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- As Ponyo found out, our friend is now actively IP hopping. De728631 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Cognoscerapo is, in turn, likely a sock of somebody else. He cites a policy in an edit summary via shortcut WP:RS in his tenth edit overall [67], and knows how to use ref tags and cite web template in the twelfth [68]. It's not rocket science, I agree, but it is consistent with someone having significant editing experience.No such user (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Cue In this case, a SPI might need to be opened and then have a checkuser compare the accounts. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Cognoscerapo is, in turn, likely a sock of somebody else. He cites a policy in an edit summary via shortcut WP:RS in his tenth edit overall [67], and knows how to use ref tags and cite web template in the twelfth [68]. It's not rocket science, I agree, but it is consistent with someone having significant editing experience.No such user (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- As Ponyo found out, our friend is now actively IP hopping. De728631 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- The geolocation between You find the truth painful and Cognoscerapo certainly makes a connection
- A CU might want to take a look, and if there was block evasion, extend Cognoscerapo's block, although I think WP:DUCK is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
User:You find the truth painful is an Evlekis-sock. Another AN/I thread on Evlekis has recently been closed, below. I think that Cognoscerapo could be somebody else's sock, but I'm not certain. If a sock, the sockmaster would appear to be somebody on the opposite site of our Balkan disputes, although it wouldn't be the first time that Evlekis has used false-flags... anyway, I think there is still a real possibility that Cognoscerapo is a real editor, it's not an open-and-shut case. bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, Evlekis has returned with 217.36.124.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Any chance of a block? bobrayner (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- If I may speak here. I would like to draw attention to certain things which I believe constitute BOOMERANG. Without submitting too much in the way of examples, I see Bobrayner has embarked on a crusade to cancel EVERYTHING submitted from the accounts these past months which were recently blocked DESPITE the period having passed peacefuly and the contributions evidently being in good faith and there being nothing tendentious about any of them. One example is here[69]. Now naturally if striking out banned users is a real requirement (this coupled with the notion of acting as a proxy for banned users is forbidden) then may the community please have an explanation as to how and why this "banned user edit"[70] is not subjected to the same "rv sock" policy, instead pushed by the claimant. When will the community finally wake up and realise Bobrayner edits in gross violation of all NPOV matters on Balkan-related subjects and that is all this is about. Examine the content and spot the difference between the edits he "strikes out" or "reverts sock" to those that he ignores/restores to "banned user" revision. 217.36.124.203 (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The IP has now been hard-blocked 1 year, in accordance with the filed SPI. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Anti-semitic attacks & legal threats at Talk:Ruggero Santilli
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok, this post by an account with the name of an organisation is the last straw. The report mentioned is at [71] and is titled "Documentation Of Jewish Dishonesty And Corruption On Prof. Santilli's Article At Wikipedia". The editor User:ScientificEthics quotes someone atTalk:Ruggero Santilli saying ""hi luca / we have completed our investigation over wiki's scam on dr santilli / all editors are jews / all non-jews are cut out / all decisions are made privately via emails now monitored / talks are just a smokescreen / the boss is the level six zionist weinberg s / rubin a is just the puppet executioner / the fringe dubbing is their slimy signature prohibited by wiki's rules calling for response in kind / we provide in attachment names and profiles of all these scammers and their nicknames so that your committee can deliver a legal punch in their most tender personal and academic spots / adnan ". See various other comments by SPAs and an IP who is almost certainly Santilli. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support block for outright trolling. The comments aren't even serious, and if one wanted to make a comment that they were, then the editor is suffering from severe delusions. Signed, Level 7 Zionist.
- I wouldn't bet that the comments aren't serious. I've read some of Santilli's work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support indef block for ScientificEthics (talk · contribs) and his little sock too (Zkurko (talk · contribs)) for very obvious trolling and WP:NOTHERE. LouisTheSmall (talk · contribs) is problematic too, but I can't tell if they are a sock of ScientificEthics. - MrX 15:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Indefed. Either its plain racism or racist trolling. Now the conspiracy will spread to include white males, I guess. Or I will have my ethnicity changed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment in cases like these, community should have no tolerance, and defectors engaging in speech of hate, causing racial intolerance alongside with trolling should be blocked without a warning. Regardless of SPI results, Zkurko (talk · contribs) should be blocked as well. Alex discussion ★ 21:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support indef. That is just awful. - theWOLFchild 11:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support indef for malicious and repeated sockpuppetry and legal threats. Zkurko/Santilli can't even spell his sockpuppet's name consistently. His account now is Zkurko, yet he repeatedly manually signs both Zkurcko and Zkurko. How many socks is he using now? This one needs to be blocked as well. He is trying to get us to use content on his website which contains legal threats. Notice the wording of his heading ("Lie-admissible treatments of Irreversible systems"). Compare it to wording on his website, bottom half. This guy is not reliable in any sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Protect article. I request that the article Ruggero Santilli be protected so only reviewers/experienced editors can edit it. That will force socks and meats to use the talk page. We really do need some peace and quiet on that front. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support indef for malicious ad hominem attacks, faulty logic, tendentious editing, tenacious advocacy of fringe theories, bad writing and bad grammar, in that order, roughly. Yeah, I'm a Jew, but welcome productive editors of any religion, or none for that matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
An active SPI is ongoing:
Editors interested in this subject may come here first, so please reopen this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48 at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HiLo48 is engaged in an incivil behavior at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics#The most expensive games in history. They may have a point, but instead of discussing it in a civil manner they resorted to personal attacks, talking about my and other editor's English skills and making up some phantasies about my political views. Whereas I am prepared to discuss the issue, I am not prepared to discuss it in this manner. Note also edit summaries like WTF. I vaguely remember having some problems with the civility of this user in the past, but frankly not a single detail. I posted yesterday morning ate the Editor Assistance requests, this unfortunately did not attract any interest.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have two comments to make. Firstly, I draw everyone's attention to my use of the word "almost" right at the end of this post. I do this because Ymblanter then posted as if I hadn't used the word (after extensively refactoring my comments), and ignored my pointing out that I had used it, and has continued to post attacks on me as if I hadn't used the word, right up to this very time. Secondly, I have been and am still confused by several of the posts made by some editors in that thread. As I politely suggested, this may be at least partly because they are being made by editors who are not expert at using English. I explicitly said "That's not a criticism on its own", but [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter}} described it as a personal attack. I'm sorry, but at this point I give up. Am to be condemned for being ignored and confused? HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I see no personal attacks by Hilo, and Ymblanter brought up Putin first anyway. I also had trouble following some of the conversation due to the broken English. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Really? Did I write that I have "a rampart desire to prove evilness of Putin"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- No. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why did you write it then? Can you prove that I have such desire? Am I may be a POV editor of other articles? Do I regularly express anti-Putin views on other talk pages? Why did it happen right after I requested you to remain civil? Is this your understanding of civility?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to revisit your own definition of civility and compare it to ours ... just sayin'. I mean, if you're complaining about an edit summary of "WTF" ... you just might want to rethink your approach, AND look carefully at your intent ES&L 12:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Look, Wikipedia is my hobby. I am a pretty succesful person in my professional life, and I have no interest to somehow prove anything by my Wikipedia activity. Obviously in my capacity as administrator I have to deal with problematic editors, and I realized that before running an RfA. But in my capacity as an editor I just do not see why I should deal with problematic editors. I avoid editing in problematic topics. But here an editor comes to a talk page of an article which is in my watchlist for a long time and where I have a dozen of edits, and makes a suggestion. I politely disagree, providing my argument, and then they start the next reply with WTF and suggest that we discuss the topic accurately and constructively. Subsequently they attribute me some political opinions, and when another editor disagrees with them as well, complains about our bad English. And now I am recommended to continue the discussion and not to pay attention. WTF, is this the editing atmosphere we are aiming at? I have plenty of topics where I am pretty sure I would be the only non-bot editor for the next ten years.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, you are way out of line here. HiLo has not done or said anything in the discussion on the nominated talk page that warrants any sort of administrative sanction. I very strongly recommend you review your own words on that page, which have been far from flawless. Your post immediately above this is almost entirely non-sequitur to this AN/I thread - it is full of self praise, but says little gremain to the point. With all due respect, if you have difficulty understanding and using everyday English as seems to be the case here, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you really do want to edit the English Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne talk 13:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Look, Wikipedia is my hobby. I am a pretty succesful person in my professional life, and I have no interest to somehow prove anything by my Wikipedia activity. Obviously in my capacity as administrator I have to deal with problematic editors, and I realized that before running an RfA. But in my capacity as an editor I just do not see why I should deal with problematic editors. I avoid editing in problematic topics. But here an editor comes to a talk page of an article which is in my watchlist for a long time and where I have a dozen of edits, and makes a suggestion. I politely disagree, providing my argument, and then they start the next reply with WTF and suggest that we discuss the topic accurately and constructively. Subsequently they attribute me some political opinions, and when another editor disagrees with them as well, complains about our bad English. And now I am recommended to continue the discussion and not to pay attention. WTF, is this the editing atmosphere we are aiming at? I have plenty of topics where I am pretty sure I would be the only non-bot editor for the next ten years.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to revisit your own definition of civility and compare it to ours ... just sayin'. I mean, if you're complaining about an edit summary of "WTF" ... you just might want to rethink your approach, AND look carefully at your intent ES&L 12:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why did you write it then? Can you prove that I have such desire? Am I may be a POV editor of other articles? Do I regularly express anti-Putin views on other talk pages? Why did it happen right after I requested you to remain civil? Is this your understanding of civility?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- No. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Really? Did I write that I have "a rampart desire to prove evilness of Putin"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that HiLo's behaviour in the thread was appropriate and am posting some remarks on his talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, HiLo made some comments that were unnecessary, but nothing blockable. For Ymb, it is unfortunate that what seems to be a minor language barrier led to this. Both these editors could've handled this better, and ANI should not have been needed. But the result is ludicrous... instead finding a resolution, all ESL and Nick Thorne seemed to have accomplished is to chase away a valuable editor - an admin with 0 block history and ≈32,000 edits in 2 years, 85% of which are article. This should've gone thru some of the other WP:DR resources available here. I certainly hope that Ymblanter does not leave the project. - theWOLFchild 20:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Well.... What part of "No further edits should be made to this discussion." do you people not understand. (I apologise for failing to follow that instruction just this once myself, but surely it means something?) HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, did Jimbo die and leave you in charge? I must have missed the memo. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
"I'm sorry, did Jimbo die and leave you in charge? I must have missed the memo." - @Calton:
- - And this comment is helpful... how? - theWOLFchild 11:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The whole notice is "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." It refers to the hatted discussion above. It may (and sometimes does) continue below the hatted block. Nobody has as yet modified the above discussion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree HiLo has been out of order. I'm surprised no one has taken it seriously. His comments have been rude and unconstructive. Malick78 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why would you be surprised that certain people in the community are all too willing to give a pass on certain behaviour to a certain class of user?I'd say it's par for the course here. The comments were entirely out of line, and his reaction to furthering discussion here illustrates that even further.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- This might provide some interesting, but likely to be ignored context:
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#HiLo48_civility
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Personal_Attacks_by_HiLo48_against_Collingwood26 with a great quote 'HiLo acts like this because he pretty much always gets away with it.'
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#User:HiLo48
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#Trayvon_Martin_Poll
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/HiLo48 which has a really detailed list of past issues up to the point of filing that and seems to only have been closed because the user was blocked. Draw the conclusions that you will but it's pretty obvious what's going on here--211.215.156.184 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree HiLo has been out of order. I'm surprised no one has taken it seriously. His comments have been rude and unconstructive. Malick78 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Abuse by Greenclayton
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is unacceptable. Could someone please take action against such an indefensible breach of one of the five pillars? - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well we are a load of idiots. Is there a pattern of this type of behaviour? If not, maybe they're having a really bad day or their account has been compromised. In any case, it looks like they're retired.- MrX 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have bad days but I don't go around calling people cunts. Good riddance to bad rubbish! So has this now been swept under the carpet with no action? Anyone can stick a retirement tag up on their user page and carry on editing. -- CassiantoTalk 18:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to be a tad oversensitive. Just remove it and forget it. You're not going to get someone blocked for posting a single "c*nt" on your talk page. Thomas.W talk to me 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Then that's a damned poor reflection on the state of Wiki that something so blatantly wrong and against one of the five pillars is so blithely ignored by such a casual dismissal. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not much point in blocking someone who's retired. I would have imposed a block if not for the retirement claim. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Thomas.W, I'll bear that in mind when you do something to piss me off and I come to your talk to call you a cunt then? CassiantoTalk 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- ...Thomas.W, who have you just called a cunt? -- CassiantoTalk 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Nyttend, You haven't answered my question: What's stopping this person from editing while they are "retired" then? ANI is only as good as the admins who police it, and judging by the representation on this thread so far, it's piss poor. CassiantoTalk 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Cassianto, something like this would generally get a 24-hour block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so there's no point in blocking someone who's not going to edit in the block time. And who retires and then comes back in less than a day? Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind what I said in the previous comment. Turns out that I was wrong on one basic thing: last month, Greenclayton unretired about an hour and a half after retiring in the first place. Given that fact, we can't trust that he'll be gone even for a short period of time, so I've issued a 24-hour block. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Cassianto, something like this would generally get a 24-hour block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so there's no point in blocking someone who's not going to edit in the block time. And who retires and then comes back in less than a day? Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not much point in blocking someone who's retired. I would have imposed a block if not for the retirement claim. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Then that's a damned poor reflection on the state of Wiki that something so blatantly wrong and against one of the five pillars is so blithely ignored by such a casual dismissal. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to be a tad oversensitive. Just remove it and forget it. You're not going to get someone blocked for posting a single "c*nt" on your talk page. Thomas.W talk to me 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have bad days but I don't go around calling people cunts. Good riddance to bad rubbish! So has this now been swept under the carpet with no action? Anyone can stick a retirement tag up on their user page and carry on editing. -- CassiantoTalk 18:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll remember the next time I overstep all bounds of normal behaviour: I'll slap a retired tag only account and step away for 24 hours in the knowledge that the rules regarding interaction - one of our five core pullers - are so woefully and weakly defended that I'll get away with pretty much anything. Always good to see ANI backing up such behaviour - great work going on here! - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since you didn't answer my question, I will assume that this is a one time transgression by this user, so no, an admin is probably not going to block this user who has stated that they are no longer editing. If they start editing again, and if they continue making personal attacks, then perhaps an admin will decide it's worth incurring the inevitable flood of criticism that comes with almost every admin action. You should let this go, and move on with the incredibly rewarding task of building the world's best encyclopedia. - MrX 22:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- overstep all bounds of normal behaviour
- Seriously, one vulgar, obscene word crosses not one bound or two bounds but all bounds of normal behavior? I know you're a veteran editor so I'm surprised one obscenity is the vilest behavior you've seen. I'm only recently active since the summer and I see worse tirades that this every week. I'm not saying that posting "cunt" is not uncivil, it's just not extraordinary. There are editors in good standing who insult other editors on a regular basis. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Great work all round. I now know exactly what I need to do should I ever want to drop into the gutter and call someone a cunt. Toothless and pointless place this if ANI is too gutless to bother with breaching one of our core pillars. Why do we bother even having it if people can't be bothered with something so blatant and obvious. Shameful. - SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to call me cunt, or whatever else you want, on my talk page if you think it will help. I wish I had a better answer for you. Unfortunately, There is no justice. - MrX 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- The only "stick" I have now is the one which you have handed me. The abuse on my talk page has seemingly been ignored and to some extent endorsed by the lack of action which has been displayed here. What you have done now is open a floodgate for editors to abuse other editors and to avoid a reprimand simply by sticking a retired tag on their page. Also, your sycophantic claim of this being "the world's best encyclopedia" is now rendered questionable; maybe one day many years ago it was, but certainly not now. Not if we have people like yourselves who appear to stick their head in the sand when situations like this arise. CassiantoTalk 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's a rather childish response MrX - and no, I don't see you as trying to be helpful with comments like that. I do not wish to call anyone a cunt, but sadly it seems ANI IS all rather spineless and toothless to those who breach one of the unbreachable rules. As to this being against someone who has stated that they are no longer editing, it's a great way to avoid any censure, and if a block is applied by someone with standards, then the user will have to face up to the fact that they have transgressed before they are allowed to start editing. Sadly I don't hold out any hope for any action in this rather bizarre set I up (seriously, what's the point of having Wp:FivePillars, if even those who are supposed to safeguard it cannot be bothered to do anything. I've always considered ANI to be a rather pointless and disappointing place, but the last shreds of any positive thoughts I had about have evaporated in this rather ridiculous and shameful episode. Why do we bother having five pillars if admins can't be bothered with them. Shouldn't we just fess up and admit that our core principals are an utter waste of time and effort, ditch them as being unnecessary and pointless and go round calling everyone a cunt that we don't like?
- SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Greenclayton was blocked for 24 hours; they did not post an unblock request nor have they edited since the block expired. This seems over with and this thread can be closed. No? Rgrds. --64.85.216.192 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- As the oft repeated mantra goes, "blocks are preventative not punitive". Admins do not have the power to send an editor to the naughty corner beyond blocking them and removing talk page access. The civility pillar has always the most difficult to deal with since one person's grave offence is another's shrug of the shoulders. As such, the only way has been to cater to the middle which is to block for repeated offences and warn for one offs. ANI is toothless, to an extent, because editors have made it so. Blackmane (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO
WP:TPNO violations and responses:
- At this diff [72], User:SPECIFICO posted off-wiki blog links which identify and/or personally attack User:Carolmooredc.
- The links were removed by me here [73] and a warning to SPECIFICO about WP:TPNO (personal details & NPA) was posted here: [74].
- SPECIFICO reverted the removal of the off-wiki blog attack here: [75].
- He received a second warning from another contributor here: [76].
- The off-wiki comments were removed a second time here: [77].
- Specifico has since responded to the warnings on his talk page, but seems utterly unrepentant for this gross violation of WP policy. (He also sought to change the TP remarks that I had personally made after I had removed the NPA material from his post.)
As he suggests, I seek Administrative action. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- This also is a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles which I've mentioned to User:SPECIFICO before. I don't know if editors have to be warned for sanctions to be levied. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how this sanction applies as Specifico's postings were simply directed at CMDC. The NPA & BLP violation in itself is enough for admin action without this added wrinkle. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Incivility regarding the Israel Palestine issue is relevant at all times. Plus, see my necessary reply to SPECIFICO's charges above at this diff. We are not supposed to have to defend ourselves from anonymous smear-monger attacks on Wikipedia. (Thinking about it, I don't even know if these quotes are accurate!!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how this sanction applies as Specifico's postings were simply directed at CMDC. The NPA & BLP violation in itself is enough for admin action without this added wrinkle. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Alas, it looks like another thread is going off-track. While AQFK may be the eventual outcome, it cannot address the issue of Specifico's blog posting (or whether my raising the issue is "specious"). Specifico defends himself only by saying that Carolmooredc's real life identity is known, and posits that he has somehow permission to post disparaging off-wiki blog links about her. How in the world such postings seek to improve her on-wiki behavior is beyond me. Come on, dear patrolling admins, please take a look at what was done by Specifico in this singular instance and comment or take action as appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, Admins, please admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I went straight to the ArbCom discussion below and hadn’t looked into the diff here. I saw it now and we are in severe harassment territory here; the edit must be revdeleted/oversighted and at least a warning to the posting user must be issued. Iselilja (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree. Posting the link was inadvisable because it was uncivil. But user Carol has repeatedly "outed" and identified herself on Wikipedia, so it is highly misleading to insinuate that SPECIFICO was trying to bring Carol's "off-wiki" identity into the fore (she has already, repeatedly done this herself). Use SPECIFICO is of course entitled to his views on Carol's wiki behavior, including her statements regarding jews and transgender persons. (In response to my self-identification as a (trans) woman, Carol blatantly disparaged me by linking to a womyn born womyn, a page devoted to the proposition that trans women aren't women; she has also repeatedly referred to me with the masculine pronoun, despite my clearly stated wishes in this regard.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is it my imagination or did I just notice yet another set of allegations against me, with nary a diff in site, where I have to search around and prove I'm not an evil bigot??? Should someone do an ANI on it?
- Again, if I don't defend myself people will assume that it is true. I know the one on "jews" --as Steeletrap put it-- was nonsense but won't search around for diffs. See Talk:Bill_Clinton#Allegations, a discussion of removal of the section header on the discussion of sexual allegations against Bill Clinton where Steeletrap and SPECIFICO suddenly appeared and declared, yes, the section header should be removed. Steeletrap had not, at that point, clearly declared whether a proud M-t-F or F-t-M, and I was expressing my own pride. Later I looked more carefully at the Womyn-born womyn article and found it is poorly sourced and reflects the bias that feminists (or anyone else evidently?) are not allowed to question or debate any of the related issues and if they try they are bigots and must be shunned, fired, kicked off wikipedia or whatever. This is a problem on a number of related articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're not defending yourself, you're attacking others. This is not the first time you've crossed the line into bigotry against transsexuals. Any chance you could make it the last? MilesMoney (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Note
If there were any attempt at all by Carol to maintain her Wikipedia account as something distinct from her personal and online identity, then perhaps this complaint would have some merit. But she doesn't, so it doesn't. It would also help if she came here with clean hands. Instead, her report is obviously retaliation for Specifico's support for blocking her. This support is due to her ongoing personal attacks against him and others. On the whole, this is the aggressor attacking her victim, and should just WP:BOOMERANG. MilesMoney (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- [Insert] - FYI, I'd love to change my handle to avoid personal attacks, but Wikipedia makes you admit who you were before, and people would go around searching to figure it out anyway, so why bother? Please don't make such false claims. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The two off-wiki threads that Specifico posted are from 2009 and 2011 – well before any recent contentious postings developed regarding Austrian Economics. Posting the links to these off-wiki comments from the get-go was improper. But repeating the posting after it was reverted and after a warning had been issued, takes the cake. And what's going on now? We see an accusation against Carolmooredc of retaliation. Is this supposed to excuse Specifico? – S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- @MilesMoney. The linked site is vile it the extreme and even incluces a death wish for Carol and her family. Users who think it is OK to post links to blogs who wishes death over another user have no place on Wikipedia. That the link to this post has not been at revdeleted and a strict admin warning issued to the poster is the single most upsetting thing I have ever experienced at Wikipedia. I have previously seen CarolMoore get a direct threath on Wikipedia; it's very typically that these haters specifically go after women. As long as no action is taken regarding the post, Wikipedia is not a safe place for its users and in particular not for women. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is anyone here claiming that Specifico is responsible for these posts? If not, then why are we blaming the messenger? Besides, his goal was to show how her off-wiki activity related to her on-wiki activity; anything else was incidental. As there was no reason to remove these links, there's no reason not to restore them.
- I would appreciate it if your comments were a bit less over the top and instead complied with WP:NPA. There's absolutely no basis for trying to associate Specifico with unspecified generic misogyny, and it's quite clear that Carol's behavioral problems have nothing to do with gender. It's just as clear that Specifico isn't threatening anyone. What I see here is a shotgun approach to trying to associate various negative things with Specifco when none of them have any relation. I find this series of personal attacks against Specifico utterly disgusting and demand that you redact them immediately. MilesMoney (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, The links are clear NPA and BLP violations. They should not be linked to and the linker should know that. Yes he is responsible for linking to that crap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since when do NPA and BLP get enforced here? Nobody seems to care about Carol's repeated and ongoing violations of both, which is what led to Sitush's report and therefore Specifico's response, so why do we suddenly care now? Not much point pretending we're following the rules when we ignore them anytime they're inconvenient, is there? This is a pathetic joke and I call bullshit on it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes 'the devil made me do it' defense does not work out well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since when do NPA and BLP get enforced here? Nobody seems to care about Carol's repeated and ongoing violations of both, which is what led to Sitush's report and therefore Specifico's response, so why do we suddenly care now? Not much point pretending we're following the rules when we ignore them anytime they're inconvenient, is there? This is a pathetic joke and I call bullshit on it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, The links are clear NPA and BLP violations. They should not be linked to and the linker should know that. Yes he is responsible for linking to that crap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- @MilesMoney:, if you attempt to assert once more that I claimed personal attacks as my reason for reporting CMDC in the thread currently still visible above then I'll be asking the community to do something about you. I didn't say it, I've explained that I didn't say it and I do not consider CMDC's stuff to be either incivil or attacking - my point was the tendentiousness of it, which was resolved by her producing some diffs and thus moving things on. It is this sort of twisting of facts etc that is doing my head in and I'll quite happily !vote for the lot of you to be topic banned if that is what it takes to calm things down. There are times when the best thing for the project is to limit the involvement of all who are currently involved and let any issues regarding the articles be taken up as and when by a fresh group of people. Please do not use me as a way to achieve your fairly obvious aims. The same goes for Specifico and Steeletrap. I have no horse in this race but you lot are trying to stick me in there as a ringer or something. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC).
Isn't Ms. Moore already outed? Through her edits* to her since-deleted Wikipedia page (and acknowledgement that this was her page), and her sharing of personal remarks she has made on Wikipedia -- not to mention her disclosure of her first and last name, location, website, and personal photo -- hasn't Ms. Moore already "identified" herself on Wikipedia? I think that the situation here is much different than it would be if someone with an anonymous name was "outed." (* I acknowledge these edits were many years ago, but I don't think that's relevant; she made the decision to out/identify herself on WP.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is not a question of whether she has identified herself on WP or elsewhere. The violation occurred when the link to the grossly disparaging blog comment was posted by Specifico. He did not, did not have permission to post that particular personal detail about her. Reposting the personal comment made the infraction even worse. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, he posted an article that very harshly criticized her views. It was certainly uncivil. But it didn't constitute outing, and really wasn't much worse than what we see from Carol on a regular basis. With the 48 hour block having been imposed, and the comment having been withdrawn, pushing for additional punishment seems punitive and gratuitous. Steeletrap (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Austrian Economics - Is it time for ArbCom?
A couple months ago (or so), the community enacted General Sanctions regarding the Austrian Economics topic space. However, the dispute continues to rage unabated as this thread and the thread above (WP:ANI#Tendentious_referencing_of_other_people.27s_motives) prove. The sanctions have failed due to a lack of admins interested in patrolling this topic space. I think it's time to ask whether the community is capable of solving this dispute, and if not, is ArbCom required to step in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly specious ANIs such as this one by Srich don't help. Carol Moore has freely shared her real-life identity, her personal webpage URL, her photograph and other personal information since her first days here. Srich knows that because there was recently some discussion about whether she had a COI due to a failed relationship with the subject of a certain WP article and there was previously discussion about two WP articles about herself and her life and work. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Again, SPECIFICO's insinuations are proved exaggerated or worse when one looks at the diffs. Please don't use noobie mistakes of the first year or two to condemn someone editing for almost 7.5 years. Plus my noobie mistake in first six months or so of working on a silly bio someone wrote of me that I was happy to see later AfD'd. Plus why hide the Conflict of interest noticeboard thread where I discuss knowing the subject of the article 30 years ago and Steeletrap discusses the fact that a faculty advisor suggested looking into these people and that they were a subject of a masters thesis for a while. What's more of a conflict of interest, 30 year old news or this year's masters thesis? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've felt for some time that this is headed for Arbcom. I think we might be able to avoid that with proper use of the general sanctions though. They don't seem to have been used much, and I suppose that's as much my fault as anyone's. This is a hard area in which to act as an admin. In any case, if anyone does want to go ahead with this I would suggest waiting until 2014 to file due to the change in Arbcom's ranks. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've always said more short blocks would wake editors up. I'm happy to take a 24 or 48 hour block for the actual relevant diffs that have been provided, if SPECIFICO and Stelletrap and MilesMoney get proportionate blocks fro their behavior on both these threads. It's much more likely to solve the problem than waiting for Arbcom. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. I suspect this should be one of the first cases for the new ArbCom in 2014. The discretionary sanctions don’t seem to have helped much. The situation reminds me of the entrenched conflict that was at the heart of the matter in the Tea Party Movement case, and which the committee eventually solved by issuing a series of topic bans (not much activity in that article now). In some ways, I believe the situation in the Austrian economics articles is more severe and concerning than the situation in the TPM case because it to a larger degree involves BLP issues. While persistent conflicts always is a problem, it’s particular so when sensitive BLP issues are involved; it’s adamant that BLP issues are discussed in a dignified way that inspires confidence and not plagued by infighting among disputants etc. Iselilja (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking it reminds me of that other battle of the "entrenched experts," Sexology. Too personal. Too long term. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- If Admins are not willing to enforce community sanctions in clear areas like this, why bother to create them at all? Should I bring SPECIFICO's past pattern of accusations, my warnings to him, and current attack here to WP:ARBPIA because Admins do not want to enforce community sanctions with even a little warning? And let's not forget the Editing restrictions and log on those who violate BLP repeatedly. That's also been brought up repeatedly and ignored, despite existing sanctions.
- I'm not blaming it on Admins per se who have to take a lot of grief when they warn and block people. I really think the Wikimedia Foundation has to find a way to pay admins to do the dirtiest jobs. The bad editors (or those who cause "controversy" by resisting the bad ones, dragging them to noticeboards, etc., as I have for a number of years) have driven off scads of good editors. At some point there will be a tipping point and the bad editors will so overwhelm so many articles that Wikipedia... well, leave it to your imagination. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Admins not enforcing community sanctions is why Arbcom is the only thing left. So, the only thing between festering for more months and some kind of working out is Admins stepping up, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't want things to go this way, but I fear it's inevitable that Austrian economics will go to Arbcom. Personally, my greatest concern is not the core Austrian articles but the way it spreads out and infects other content. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think after a topic has been brought to AN/I with an ever-expanding number of editors, 6 or 7 times, with no steps moving forward toward resolution, I think ARBCOM is the logical next step. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I have batted for both "sides" in this without ever really doing much at all on the articles themselves - I know nowt & so my role has mainly been as a neutral and very occasional outsider. almost a pseudo-admin role, in the absence of willing/able/uninvolved admins. The subject area is just becoming more and more toxic. That said, the transitional phase of Arbcom means that nothing will come of the suggestion for a few weeks. A few weeks is better than nothing but in the scale of this ever-expanding mess it really would help if some admin types could try to resolve some issues now using the sanctions system. All this said, if it does end up at ArbCom then please do not name me in the case - I have no intention of getting dragged further into the murk and I'm well aware that ArbCom decisions can be, let's say, surprising. By comparison, caste-related articles look like a walk in the park right now. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Admins not enforcing community sanctions is why Arbcom is the only thing left. So, the only thing between festering for more months and some kind of working out is Admins stepping up, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking it reminds me of that other battle of the "entrenched experts," Sexology. Too personal. Too long term. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I feel moving from ANI to ArbCom so quickly is undesirable and probably unnecessary. We should consider whether sanctions against specific editors are appropriate and can be imposed either through the general sanctions regime or just through a normal community process here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you volunteering to have sanctions imposed on you? Or are you helpfully volunteering everyone you disagree with? MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out to all concerned that most of these disputes are related WP:Biographies of living people policy (including the RSNs, NPOVNs, ORNs, ANIs, etc.) and not merely abstruse economic issues. So it does seem a bit counterproductive to ban people trying to correct BLP problems, as if they are equally destructive to the process, thereby leaving many of the BLPs as defacto attack articles, or articles containing big controvery sections filled with guilt by association/cherry picked/out of context quotes and criticisms whose only goal seems to be to denigrate the BLP subject and all the individuals even loosely association with the BLP subject. Rather like the complaint that is the subject of this original ANI posting. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- There are some subjects where editors can make useful contributions without a deep understanding of the subject. It does not appear that Austrian economics is one such subject. What we've learned the hard way is that well-meaning but ignorant editors just make a mess of these articles, particularly by treating deeply biased sources as unbiased. On the other hand, the knowledgeable but necessarily biased editors can't seem to come to a compromise that overcomes their unavoidable bias.
- There are reasons for this, but it comes down to a content dispute that isn't particularly amenable to threats of blocks and bans. A scorched-earth approach would simply reset the cycle, only with more ignorance, hence more bias. Policy is of little help here due to the nature of the sources, which are sparse, insular and mutually hostile. Worse, there has been ongoing abuse of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOR to censor articles and harm editors. Still, the problem is rooted in the subject matter, not the people: WP policy simply can't handle Austrian economics.
- I don't know if ArbCom is the answer, as I have no experience with them, but it doesn't seem as though regular dispute resolution channels, much less irregular ones such as "community" intervention here, are much good at this. I figure it's worth a try, since nothing else has worked or seems likely to. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out to all concerned that most of these disputes are related WP:Biographies of living people policy (including the RSNs, NPOVNs, ORNs, ANIs, etc.) and not merely abstruse economic issues. So it does seem a bit counterproductive to ban people trying to correct BLP problems, as if they are equally destructive to the process, thereby leaving many of the BLPs as defacto attack articles, or articles containing big controvery sections filled with guilt by association/cherry picked/out of context quotes and criticisms whose only goal seems to be to denigrate the BLP subject and all the individuals even loosely association with the BLP subject. Rather like the complaint that is the subject of this original ANI posting. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you volunteering to have sanctions imposed on you? Or are you helpfully volunteering everyone you disagree with? MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Continued attacks on me in ANIs
I see this ANI is still open, and that the admin who put the block on has not been online to answer my question about these continued attacks on their talk page. So before this ANI gets closed by someone else, I would like to note my objections to the continued attacks on me in this ANI (as well as in this closed one) by Steeletrap and MilesMoney. Such personal attacks and allegations (off topic and/or no evidence/diffs and/or manufactured evidence and/or trumped up allegations) are against both Israel-Palestine arbitration and Sexology arbitration regarding questionable or false accusations of bigotry. I guess I'll have to put such informal warnings on the two editor's talk pages in case these continue on article talk pages and else wheres and I have to open one or more cases at either. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- One of the primary purposes of ANI is to facilitate personal attacks under the thin disguise of criticism. Eric Corbett 14:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ditto ArbCom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, ArbCom's potential involvement seems to be the main reason this section is still open. As for Carol's warning, I believe the response on my talk page says it all. MilesMoney (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- What's an attack, you ask? Your basically repeating "yeah, carol's a bigot just like my friends say" - especially when the alleged evidence lead to a block of an editor and the rest of it non-existent or trumped up - is a personal attack.
- The notice I left on your talk page is a user official notice that these arbitrations exist. (That's the only thing I would post on your page.) I don't think there is a template for one like there is for admins.
- However, such Arbitrations usually are not enforced unless there are a few blocks on ANIs for these kinds of attacks or an attack is really nasty. The sanctions might run from a 24 hour block, to a ban on ever working on articles about any kind of sex issues or Israel-Palestine issue (because the individual was making a false accusations related to bigotry in one topic area of articles and might bring that behavior later to Sex or Israel-Palestine related articles), to a permanent ban from Wikipedia. That would be up to admins, of course.
- Anyway, that's what I can glean. In-the-Know editors, feel free to share a page that explains it all better, since neither of the ones I linked to above did a great job and WP:Sanctions and WP:General Sanctions also a bit vague and seem to have some inconsistencies. Ah, the joys of open sourced wikis... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, ArbCom's potential involvement seems to be the main reason this section is still open. As for Carol's warning, I believe the response on my talk page says it all. MilesMoney (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ditto ArbCom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- By OP (who opened this WP:TPNO ANI). In my opinion, this ANI is closed. A specific complaint was brought about specific editing behavior by a specific editor. Action was taken. As should be clear, the first sub-thread above is actually about another topic – the possibility of Arbcom action (which I do not want to engage in) coming to pass because of editor interaction. (It should be parsed out as a separate thread/section.) This second sub-thread has absolutely nothing to do with the original thread. But the same sort of bickering, unsupported by diffs, is occurring. I recommend that this entire section be closed at once. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
user Zyzzzzzy
This user has been making vast amount of edits without any sort of discussion. He also does not appear to have grasp of Armenian language, which are in any case not common usage. Many of his edits are not align with WP:COMMONNAME, which is also used for foreign languages. He has made so many edits that its going to be hard to revert all of them. I suggest a block. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please notify this user that their name has come up at ANI. Also, for reviewers: Zyzzzzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Jprg1966 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Proudbolsahye: Instead of a block, how about mass rollback? Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Okay, I think that's a better option. It's going to be a real pain doing this. Also, the mentioned user knows about the ANI report due to a message on my talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry; for editors with rollback enabled it would be easy to revert the edits. I have just rollbacked Zyzzzzzy's past 10 article space edits. Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Okay, I think that's a better option. It's going to be a real pain doing this. Also, the mentioned user knows about the ANI report due to a message on my talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh my! Thanks so much! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Do you want any more of Zyzzzzzy's edits to be reverted? Additionally, consider applying for the rollback permission so that you can do this yourself next time it happens. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- As I have explained previously, there are few exeptions in the Armenian language regarding some consonants following the letter Ր (R). Hence:
- Գ after Ր pronounced K and not G. (example: SARKIS/ՍԱՐԳԻՍ and not Sargis, GEVORK and not Gevorg)
- Դ after Ր pronounced T and not D. (example: VARTAN/ՎԱՐԴԱՆ and not Vardan)
- Բ after Ր pronounced P and not B. (example: SURP/ՍՈՒՐԲ and not Surb)
It is a matter of linguistics in the Eastern Armenian language (Հայերեն Լեզվի Հնչյունաբանություն). Please check ou this link Ուղղախոսություն և ուղղագրություն:
- 7.ա) Ր ձայնորդից հետո լսվող ք հնչյունը գրվում է գ տառով հետևյալ բառերում. երգ, թարգման, կարգ, մարգագետին, մարգարե, մարգարիտ, միրգ, պարգև, Մարգար, Սարգիս:
Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
MagicKirin11
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MagicKirin11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can an admin try to get this disruptive Israel supporter under control please as soon as possible ?
BLP violations so far.
Soapboxing
Edit warring at United Nations Human Rights Council Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
...and maybe a sock of
- MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MagicKirin1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not disruptive, I am trying to add balance to pages that have been taken over by anti Israeli posters.MagicKirin11 (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually you are exploiting a charity to attack living people and promote your personal views. This is not allowed here. It's inconsistent with the site's policies and guidelines. It's disruptive and wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I say that all three people Sean roland and Zero have a political anti semitic agenda they are pro Palestinians anti Israel posters who want a person who put evidence that contradicts Wikipedia issues related to Israel. This is just another example of Palestinians supporters censoring Jews. You should be addressing my complaint against Sean.MagicKirin11 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sean Hoyland
Sean Hoyland is reverting my edits and claiming a Jewiush bias. That is anti-semetic which is no surprise.MagicKirin11 (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I better start burning my Ben Katchor and Rutu Modan books and stop watching Natalie Portman films then. Damn. Being anti-Semitic has a lot of drawbacks. You need to stop attacking people. You are not helping Wikipedia or your cause. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- MagicKirin, your editing consists of going to article talk pages—often involving Israel—and arguing there that the page should reflect your point of view more. That's not really consistent with trying to build an encyclopedia. It sounds more like you want a soapbox for your views. Wikipedia operates by consensus, NOT by soapboxing. Personally, I'm an ardent Zionist—but my individual opinion needs to be deferential to the weight of other things, like what reliable sources say, and what other editors at Wikipedia say about something.
- I can assure you that there is no shortage of editors here who try to make sure that pro-Israel viewpoints (where relevant) are represented in articles. The Gaza flotilla raid article, for example (which you said was biased), cites the Israeli government's Turkel Commission in arguing that the IDF's actions were legal. That does not mean that neutrality is guaranteed at these articles, but the overwhelming slant you perceive is unrealistic. --Jprg1966 (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- One struggles to find a single edit of MagicKirin11 that serves to improve the encyclopedia. Zerotalk 11:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of combining the two sections as they obviously relate to the same thing. I have also made the (obviously retaliatory) post about Sean Hoyland a subsection. Blackmane (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposed indefinite block
I propose an indefinite block of MagicKirin11 on the following grounds:
- They are likely to be a sock puppet of the banned user MagicKirin
- Even if they are not a sock puppet, the user's purpose of being here is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's mission. They have no hope for becoming a constructive editor with their current attitude. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was led here by the report at WP:AN3. I've indeffed MagicKirin11 as a probable sock of MagicKirin. Even if I'm wrong, there's no real harm done as MagicKirin11 deserved to be indeffed even without sock puppetry. The evidence of sock puppetry was a bit hard because of the many years intervening between accounts. At a glance, the only thing I saw other than the obvious username intersection, was a pro-Israeli/Jewish bias and suspecting everyone of anti-semitism, all of which resulted in blatantly non-neutral edits and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Greenmaven (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Why go straight to an indefinite block? I don't see enough support here for a block of that length. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Overkill. No significant evidence of a sock. No behavior worthy of permanent punishment. MilesMoney (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Does AGF apply to a situation like this?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
This has the makings of a sockpuppet farm in progress and an extreme promotional agenda..[[89]], [[90]], [[91]], [[92]], [[93]], [[94]]. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. The links just lead to his talk page and he did not make any contributions whatsoever, even deleted ones. Darylgolden(talk) 07:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- the usernames are all promotional and the nature of the multiple accounts indicate that they will be used to sock. I just don't think there is too many reasons to assume good faith in this situation. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
<- Maybe this is clearer than the links.
- Bcparttimeofflianjobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimeoflianjob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimeofflnejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimeoflinejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimeoflinejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimeoflnejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Makes it easier to check contribs. Dlohcierekim 08:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- AGF always applies a priori. We wait for someone to prove us naive. Anyway, none of these have made contribs. WP:UAA isn't my area, but I think they ask us to engage the user first of all. HiaB asked me and I suggested bring 'em here 'cause there's so many & I was otherwise engaged. Still, the shear number . . . . I used to know how to see when a user account was created. Maybe that would illuminate our darkness. What's your pleasure? Dlohcierekim 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- See the 'logs' links. They were all created today. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- D'oh, er, thanks. I needed the reminder.08:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
- Personally in a case like this I think that agf or not they should be blocked but I do understand that the block first think later thing is not a good thing for most..I just realistically don't see much good coming from this.The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- D'oh, er, thanks. I needed the reminder.08:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
- See the 'logs' links. They were all created today. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. It's suspicious at the very least, possibly an attempt to use the user name system to do something with keywords. Like these all seem to be various typos of "BC part time offline jobs". I think this is exactly the sort of place where a preventive block is the appropriate action. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- And I'll note from that we seem to have even more accounts in this farm:
- Bcparttimeofflinejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimeofflinejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Given the time those two accounts were created, it seems possible if not probable that the same person spent quite a bit of time creating a lot of accounts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Cue They were all created in the same day. Normally, unless one is IP-block exempt, one can't create more than six accounts in one day. Something is suspicious here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- And I'll note from that we seem to have even more accounts in this farm:
- I can agree with that. It's suspicious at the very least, possibly an attempt to use the user name system to do something with keywords. Like these all seem to be various typos of "BC part time offline jobs". I think this is exactly the sort of place where a preventive block is the appropriate action. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Here are some more I found going through the user creation log:
- Bcparttimedaetaentrejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimedaetaentrijobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimedataentrejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimedataentrejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimedaetaentrejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcoflianejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcoflianjob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcofflianejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcofflanejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcoflanejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimedataentryjobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimedataentrijobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimedataentrijob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimedataentryjob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimehomaejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimehomaejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bcparttimehmejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
And many more. I'm not going to keep listing them, but they go back to around 0200 UTC on 1 December. They all seem to follow the pattern of ^Bc.+jobs?$
, and not one seems to have any contribs. It looks like the oldest one is Bcfulltimmejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow...has anyone ever seen this? Am I overreacting in my thoughts? The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm keeping an eye on the user creation logs, but it seems like whoever this is stopped before this ANI thread started. The last one was Bcparttimeoflianjob created at 0547 UTC on 2 December. It's been a little more than 15 hours since then. Judging by the gaps between the blocks of account creation sprees, the person doing this is getting throttled by the 6-in-24 hours rule, but is probably circumventing it by hopping to a new IP (though at least once there are 7 accounts in a spree instead of 6). I haven't yet found any new patterns other than
^Bc.+jobs?$
, but it seems likely that if a new pattern emerges it'll still fitjobs?$
(though it should be clear that any filter or rule based on the latter would probably generate an unacceptable number of false positives to apply automatically). One thing I've learned is that there are a phenomenal number of new user accounts created every day. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm keeping an eye on the user creation logs, but it seems like whoever this is stopped before this ANI thread started. The last one was Bcparttimeoflianjob created at 0547 UTC on 2 December. It's been a little more than 15 hours since then. Judging by the gaps between the blocks of account creation sprees, the person doing this is getting throttled by the 6-in-24 hours rule, but is probably circumventing it by hopping to a new IP (though at least once there are 7 accounts in a spree instead of 6). I haven't yet found any new patterns other than
- One last thing: I see that all the Bc...jobs accounts have been blocked now, some with talk page disabled. I know it's unusual to preemptively block e-mail (and WP:BLOCK frowns upon it), but considering these are pretty clearly intended to be used as spambots, shouldn't we disable e-mail on these accounts? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
List of Jewish American fraudsters
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of Jewish American fraudsters has been deleted. We have List of Jewish American mobsters, why not this? I had Madoff, Dina Wein Reis, Marc Rich, and Nevin Shapiro. MelangePasty (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because the intersection of Jewish-Americanness and mobsterness is a relevant one; see Jewish-American organized crime. Jewish-Americanness and fraudsterness: not so much. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- As the deleting administrator, the article named a number of living people as "fraudsters" without evidence and implied a connection between their ethnicity and their supposedly fraudulent acts with no reliable sources supporting the claim. This runs contrary to our policy on biographies of living people (and given the lack of reliable sources establishing a connection, could be perceived as an attack on Jewish-Americans). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The linked articles are all sourced. Lists of links usually don't have sources, if the target has sources. Why would you think there was a 'connection'? Is there a connection for list of UK murderers? MelangePasty (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- List claming that living people have done or are involved with something bad, criminal, contentious, ... should always be sourced at the list, sources at the articles are not sufficient. For most other lists including BLPs, it is best to source them at the list as well. Fram (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you link to the policy? What about List of United Kingdom criminals? MelangePasty (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why is nobody deleting this as a 'G10 attack page'? MelangePasty (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly because it's not one of those. Pay attention to the discussion and associated policies please ES&L 10:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody has linked to a policy. MelangePasty (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Cue WP:ATTACK – Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody has linked to a policy. MelangePasty (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)Thanks for pointing to that page, which I have indeed now deleted as a G10. It even included entries without an article, which is a rather terrible BLP violation (a lot worse than unsourced entries with links to articles that have good sources). As for the policy, the start of WP:V has "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." Inline citations are required, not sources in another article. You can also check the "Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it" section of that page, with "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." (i.e. don't simply point to another article that is supposed to have the necessary source, but use the source directly in the article where a source is needed). Fram (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hats off for consistency. MelangePasty (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work, Fram. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upon reading about this subject, my first instinct is to agree with you. Both lists appear to be attacks on Jews. However List of Jewish American mobsters is also part of Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity, which also includes Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, but surprisingly no Russian-Americans. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- …or of any other races besides Jews, Italians, Irish, or Hispanic. Epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upon reading about this subject, my first instinct is to agree with you. Both lists appear to be attacks on Jews. However List of Jewish American mobsters is also part of Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity, which also includes Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, but surprisingly no Russian-Americans. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work, Fram. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hats off for consistency. MelangePasty (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly because it's not one of those. Pay attention to the discussion and associated policies please ES&L 10:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- List claming that living people have done or are involved with something bad, criminal, contentious, ... should always be sourced at the list, sources at the articles are not sufficient. For most other lists including BLPs, it is best to source them at the list as well. Fram (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The linked articles are all sourced. Lists of links usually don't have sources, if the target has sources. Why would you think there was a 'connection'? Is there a connection for list of UK murderers? MelangePasty (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- As the deleting administrator, the article named a number of living people as "fraudsters" without evidence and implied a connection between their ethnicity and their supposedly fraudulent acts with no reliable sources supporting the claim. This runs contrary to our policy on biographies of living people (and given the lack of reliable sources establishing a connection, could be perceived as an attack on Jewish-Americans). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Criminal gangs are often organized along ethnic lines. There is no reason however to categorize fraudsters along ethnic lines, and doing so is offensive to those ethnic groups. TFD (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just listed the recreated article at AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- And I was right in thinking I've got no good faith in this editor. The editor's rationale for keeping it is " Similar pro-Jewish lists exist. Appears to be unalloyed bias." So this seems to be intended as a anti-Jewish list. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Neutrality involves including pro (which I support) and anti. Bias involves just including pro. MelangePasty (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- And I was right in thinking I've got no good faith in this editor. The editor's rationale for keeping it is " Similar pro-Jewish lists exist. Appears to be unalloyed bias." So this seems to be intended as a anti-Jewish list. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just listed the recreated article at AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if any such list should not be at AfD. Maybe it's 'cause I'm sleep deprived, but I find the very notion repugnant. Ethnicity should not enter in. At any rate, I think the venue to decide this is the AfD. Two different discussions with two possible outomes could be confusing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would disagree, alas; rather than being driven by personal feelings, we should be driven by sources. Do reliable sources produce lists like this? Do reliable sources pigeonhole fraudsters according to ethnicity? bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- And even more evidence that this editor may be here with an agenda. When the AfD was added to " list of Judaism-related deletion discussions" MelangePasty responded "- I'm not sure editors from WP Judaism can be considered neutral. Why not inform WP Islam and WP Shinto? Surely WP Atheism would be the most neutral party? Or even WP Haberdashery? Surely everything except the input of WP Judaism is helpful here." In other words, no Jews wanted. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why are we constantly discussing this and not blocking MelangePasty for violating WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- And even more evidence that this editor may be here with an agenda. When the AfD was added to " list of Judaism-related deletion discussions" MelangePasty responded "- I'm not sure editors from WP Judaism can be considered neutral. Why not inform WP Islam and WP Shinto? Surely WP Atheism would be the most neutral party? Or even WP Haberdashery? Surely everything except the input of WP Judaism is helpful here." In other words, no Jews wanted. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would disagree, alas; rather than being driven by personal feelings, we should be driven by sources. Do reliable sources produce lists like this? Do reliable sources pigeonhole fraudsters according to ethnicity? bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- We don't have even have a list of fraudsters nor a list of American fraudsters. You skipped several steps. Honestly, I do not think a "list of fraudsters" is a good idea generally, never mind breaking it up by ethnicity. We do have a list of con artists, but that is a less inflammatory and more informative term.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a "fraudster" which sounds like a vague term for white collar criminals. I can see the potential usefulness of a list based on nationality (just as an organizing tool) once there is a clear definition of the term but I think an religious-, ethnic- or race-based list is misguided and prejudicial for this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Based on that loose definition, not only should this article be deleted, but also the articles on any lists of fraudsters of any race. Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Clear definition or not, we do have a list of fraudsters, sort of: Fraudster#Notable_fraudsters Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a "fraudster" which sounds like a vague term for white collar criminals. I can see the potential usefulness of a list based on nationality (just as an organizing tool) once there is a clear definition of the term but I think an religious-, ethnic- or race-based list is misguided and prejudicial for this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Fraudster" suggests "character trait", whereas "mobster" suggests an "occupation", albeit a dishonest one. In one instance (fraudster) the character trait comes first, and from it flows the "occupation". In the other case (mobster) the "occupation" comes first. A character trait may or may not clearly be implied by "mobster". Some mobsters may be deceitful, as is implied by characterizations such as "fraudster", "conman", and "con-artist". But other mobsters may not deceive. They may quite "honestly" point a gun and demand money. Or they may pick locks and steal jewels. We are less likely to find inflammatory implications when we combine group identities (religion, nationality, "race") with somewhat objective designations, such as "mobster". We are more likely to find inflammatory implications when we combine such group identities with character traits. This is because character traits can be understood‚ rightly or wrongly, to be applicable to a whole group of people. The implication that a negative character trait is applicable to a group of people is what we should be trying to avoid. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lists of American Jews. Characterising any negative information as an "attack" is simple bias. Is positive information then biased promotion? Bus stop's opinion that any list must imply a group character trait is entirely specious. Does the List of Australian criminals mean Australians are criminals? Is that also an "attack page"? If not why not? And what if it is a group associated trait (I offer no opinion)? We can see West Africans overrepresented in sprinting. So what? What policy does it contravene to have a factual list which could possibly result in that opinion? Surely the solution would be to balance with European American Fraudsters or African American Fraudsters, rather than censoring facts which contravene no policy. The bottom line is that no policy is broken here and we have a mass case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MelangePasty (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Fraudster" suggests "character trait", whereas "mobster" suggests an "occupation", albeit a dishonest one. In one instance (fraudster) the character trait comes first, and from it flows the "occupation". In the other case (mobster) the "occupation" comes first. A character trait may or may not clearly be implied by "mobster". Some mobsters may be deceitful, as is implied by characterizations such as "fraudster", "conman", and "con-artist". But other mobsters may not deceive. They may quite "honestly" point a gun and demand money. Or they may pick locks and steal jewels. We are less likely to find inflammatory implications when we combine group identities (religion, nationality, "race") with somewhat objective designations, such as "mobster". We are more likely to find inflammatory implications when we combine such group identities with character traits. This is because character traits can be understood‚ rightly or wrongly, to be applicable to a whole group of people. The implication that a negative character trait is applicable to a group of people is what we should be trying to avoid. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Aadhar
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is to report about the user Notabede who himself tells on his talk page (new link) that no content should be added back to the article Aadhar without proper discussion and consensus but has himself disregarded the arguments that I wrote to push his own point of view here. I would be highly grateful if administrators take a look & express their views. Links :
I request the admins to please read the entire conversation (even though it might be tiring & especially the newer ones) at both places before taking a stance. In some places RB has been used for the now indefinitely blocked user Ravishyam_Bangalore. I have notified the other user. Regards. - Jayadevp13 14:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is incorrect that User:Jayadevp13 has notified me on my user talk page as is mandatory. Some reasons we could not discuss properly were (a) because he was uncivil and made personal attacks, (b) He was insistent that we must use the entire text contributed by the banned (for POV pushing) user (about 80,000 bytes of hugely controversial text) as the starting point for discussion (c) We work using a collaborative Sandbox -->> which IMHO violates intent of Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and the purpose of Article Talk pages. It may be carefully noted that as this article was stable for over 2 years with a redirect to UIDAI till the banned user began messing with it, my redirect was very much with the established consensus. It was also not "my" redirect, it had been twice redirected by others (including once - uncontested - by an anti-vandalism bot).Notabede (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- He edit warred against consensus and more than one editor, and then requested protection while it was on his version. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 16:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- What happened to blocking after WP:3RR? Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius. I was never under 3RR or even close to it. As suggested by User:Toddst1 on my talk page, I immediately requested and got page protection for this article to prevent edit warring.
- @2Awwsome. The fact that it was "my version" (which in itself is wrong because I haven't contributed even 1 word to the article) is immaterial, as 95% of the article is the precise kind of blatant and weaselly POV pushing for which the User:Ravishyam_Bangalore is presently indefinitely blocked. You may also see that I did not revert the article after Toddst1 warned me but I immediately applied for page protection as soon as I could. It is also inaccurate and weaselly to say I edit warred against consensus with more than 1 editor. The single revert with the blocked user doesn't count since his POV agenda for Aadhar/UID was self admittedly against the spirit of Wikipedia - as more than 1 blocking admin has noted. [95] Notabede (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
If this kind of harassment of editors continues, perhaps Wikipedia:Anyone can edit needs to be amended to require that editing by schoolchildren be closely supervised/monitored by adults.Notabede (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- What happened to blocking after WP:3RR? Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, so much for the
1) It is your version, your version is the redirect.
2) He's blocked for a legal threat. And just because he's blocked for an unrelated issue it doesn't mean his opinion should be discounted.
3) Requesting page protection on your version is worse than edit warring. I'll go to VPP to propose that involved editors are not allowed to request protection during edit wars.
4) 2 v 1. The 2011 things - which you linked to on Aadhar's talk page - are irrelevant per WP:CCC, and that war shows the same consensus as this. Bots can't count for consensus. (Edited 20:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC))
5) Yes it does, and no admins have said that. The only thing he was blocked for was the legal threat.
6) WP:NPA. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I restored to a previous stable version (a redirect) by somebody else which was uncontested for over 2 years.
- His block was confirmed by an admin in the following terms "Wikipedia is not the place for promoting or publicising anything, even an anti-corruption tool. The point of the block seems to be that you are pushing a point of view rather than certain things may or may not be true."
- Yes, please go to the Village Pump on this.
- I have not even violated 1RR for this article. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". For over 2 years there was consensus that this article be redirected to UIDAI. A Bot is as much an editor as anyone else - more so actually.
- Please see the previous text cited for why he was blocked by admin Peridon.Notabede (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- 1) WP:CCC
- 2) He was blocked for a legal threat
- 3) WP:CCC. And ClueBot just used an algorithm to decide, can't count towards consensus.
- 4) He was blocked for the legal threat
- 5) And please don't refactor my comments 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As the admin who blocked RB, the question I have for Jayadevp13 is, what are you requesting be done here? Please answer with a simple request. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
@Notabede:
- Even though I did not notify in your talk page, I had told about it here. Moreover the Wikipedia notification would have alerted you.
- You are in an edit war indeed. Two times with RB (1st one and 2nd one) and one time with me.
- If according to you the redirects are stable and hence they should never be expanded then let me tell you that all the articles in {{F1GP 10-19}} (from 2011 to 2013) were redirects once and were then expanded. There are many more such cases.
- I am sorry but I can't be more civil than I have been. You are actually testing my patience wasting my time by saying the same thing again & again and not paying heed to what others are saying.
@Toddst1: What I wanted to report was that Notabede was completely ignoring other users view to push his own views (you can see this from his conversation with 2Awwsome & me). He in this way is stalling the development of the page Aadhar by giving completely fallacious reasons (like the page has original research which is wrong & had explained him the reason too). He again and again says that RB is blocked so should his work be. But he is completely ignoring the explanation given by other users. This is just one article. If he continues to do so with other would be articles in future then a lot of community time will get wasted. So I want him banned from editing for resorting to cheap & fallacious methods of explanation for what he is doing, going on an edit war to keep the page as he wants to and then asking it to be protected that way. Moreover he is not cooperating properly in a discussion and is trying to push his own point of view (and that too using the same reason again & again). He himself tells that a consensus needs to be achieved but is reluctant to participate properly in the discussion. Seeing his attitude I don't even think that he will change. - Jayadevp13 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- There are absolutely no grounds for banning that editor. It's clear there are problems with POV pushers on several sides including Jayvadevp13, 2Awwsome, Notabede and RB. Please, each of you take this as a caution for civility and NPOV and perhaps COI. Editing different subjects would be advisable - unless that subject is the only reason you are here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: A ban would of course be too much for what he has done it seems. But please tell him not to waste time by giving useless reasons. I and Notebede are of course here just for Aadhar and 2Awwsome is just giving his views. Now you consider both of our views (Notabede's & mine) and tell what I should do with Aadhar which can be edited now. Do not tell us to discuss since he is not cooperating. You tell a final binding decision (maybe in consultation with other admins). - Jayadevp13 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I object to the statement made that I am here just for Aadhaar. My editing at Wikipedia is aligned to policy and includes several articles besides Aadhaar/UIDAI. I am perfectly willing to discuss with 'Jayadevp' as long as he works within the community standards. He should also realise that I am not a POV pusher, but its opposite - a NPOVer.
- @Toddst1, please factor in the comments (with not a hint of regret) of the other editor to evade acknowledging that he failed to place any ANI notice on my user talk page about reporting me here.Notabede (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note- By here I meant W:ANI and not Wikipedia itself. I wanted to tell that we both are here (WP:ANI) just because of the problems we are facing because of Aadhar. We don't face such clashes with other articles and hence it would not be good if we go from here without finding a proper solution. I believe I have discussed with you within the community standards by giving proof and details for every thing I say. But you are giving fallacious reasons like the article is original research (but 161 references were cited) and RB was blocked for POV pushing (I don't care about it and initially he was banned for making legal threats). I really didn't know that not leaving a notice on your talk page would hurt you so much. I swear that I didn't do it because of the reasons I told you (I thought that you would get to know and you did). I am sorry about that. - Jayadevp13 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: A ban would of course be too much for what he has done it seems. But please tell him not to waste time by giving useless reasons. I and Notebede are of course here just for Aadhar and 2Awwsome is just giving his views. Now you consider both of our views (Notabede's & mine) and tell what I should do with Aadhar which can be edited now. Do not tell us to discuss since he is not cooperating. You tell a final binding decision (maybe in consultation with other admins). - Jayadevp13 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion: Get a discussion on the talk page. If numerous editors are in agreement that a change should be made, one outlier will not corrupt consensus. Once that is achieved, the article should be edited - even if it is protected. Toddst1 (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Admin restored BLP and has threatened to block me.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I removed this edit from the BLPN board because (mostly) it suggests about a BLP subject "seems to be an incredibly mentally ill person." The user re-instated it again, and I removed it again. GiantSnowman has threatened to block me stating "The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia". Removing BLP violations are supposed to be done immediately. Can someone here please look at this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Did you redact the part you mention or did you blank the whole thing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is there any reason you have not asked GiantSnowman about this on his talk page? I see that you responded on your own talk page, but it is possible he did not see that. Also, you are supposed to notify GiantSnowman that this issue has surfaced at ANI. Please do so. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman notified. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- No Two kinds of pork ("TKOP") did not try and attempt to discuss the matter with me before bringing it to ANI and no he did not notify me about this thread either. TKOP removed another editor's entire post, as opposed to simply redacting the offending part - not once but twice. I have already asked that user in question, Sceptre (talk · contribs), to re-phrase their comment. GiantSnowman 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- So the BLP violation remains in place till the user who made it gets around to retracting it? Is that how we do things now? Interesting.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not hard to redact it, something I meant to do earlier but got distracted by real life, hence why I have hardly been online this afternoon. What you do not do is to blank the entire post. Twice. GiantSnowman 18:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Blanking its the lesser sin than reinserting a known BLP violation. One is bad etiquette, one is damaging to the project.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not that I particularly want to, but one could quite easily support Sceptre's assertion. The matter seems to be covered in numerous reliable sources. GiantSnowman 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- If it's not a BLP violation then you shouldn't have asked that it be removed and you shouldn't have redacted it yourself. Take a stand, was it a BLP violation or not? You're playing both sides.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. I have attempted to reach a compromise and minimize the drama. That has obviously backfired. GiantSnowman 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cube lurker, quite stirring drama to satisfy some anti-admin axe.--v/r - TP 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- There was no drama stiring intended. The admin reinserted material, and then asked the poster to remove it. That legitamately concerned me. Now he's defending the material in the first place. WTF am I supposed to think now. The first thing that has to be decided, is is the info BLP compliant or not. Decisions being made with that being undecided become a cluster.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of your intentions, you aren't helping this discussion at all. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- There was no drama stiring intended. The admin reinserted material, and then asked the poster to remove it. That legitamately concerned me. Now he's defending the material in the first place. WTF am I supposed to think now. The first thing that has to be decided, is is the info BLP compliant or not. Decisions being made with that being undecided become a cluster.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cube lurker, quite stirring drama to satisfy some anti-admin axe.--v/r - TP 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. I have attempted to reach a compromise and minimize the drama. That has obviously backfired. GiantSnowman 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- If it's not a BLP violation then you shouldn't have asked that it be removed and you shouldn't have redacted it yourself. Take a stand, was it a BLP violation or not? You're playing both sides.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not that I particularly want to, but one could quite easily support Sceptre's assertion. The matter seems to be covered in numerous reliable sources. GiantSnowman 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Blanking its the lesser sin than reinserting a known BLP violation. One is bad etiquette, one is damaging to the project.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not hard to redact it, something I meant to do earlier but got distracted by real life, hence why I have hardly been online this afternoon. What you do not do is to blank the entire post. Twice. GiantSnowman 18:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- So the BLP violation remains in place till the user who made it gets around to retracting it? Is that how we do things now? Interesting.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to answer several items at once. 1) No, I didn't try to talk to GiantSnowman on his talk page. I was stepping out for a bit, and wanted to see if others could resolve this in my absence. 2) No I didn't notify him of this discussion. I wasn't aware that I was supposed too. And upon learning he was an admin, I figured he would see this here anyways. I extend my apologies to GiantSnowman. 3) No I didn't just remove the offending portion. My input device at the time was not conducive to full text editing, and considering the rest of the post in question was an off-topic rant, I took the lazy way out and used the undo button. Again, my apologies. 4) Having performed the unpleasant task of actually reading/watching sources related to this BLP, I wasn't unaware of any reliable source stating the subject was mentally ill. Some sources called him many things, most of them unpleasant, but mentally ill wasn't one of them. Maybe I missed some, but the ones that even broached the subject claimed he had never been diagnosed. 6) The comment in question is part of a thread about an edit-war removing BLP from a discussion page. What's the word for lobbying for a time-out with a fraction of a second left and getting served with a 109 yard runback to lose the game? Iron Bowl-y?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your humility sounds sincere. In the future I would encourage you to avoid bringing something to ANI if it can be resolved directly with the user first. This board is generally for when something is so urgent or flagrant that attempting to resolve it with the user would be pointless. I think we can safely conclude that no administrator intervention is needed for this case. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Stjohn2001 disruption on Penn State football season articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stjohn2001 has made a total of 14 edits to Wikipedia, dating back to November 24 of this year, and all 14 have been to Penn State football articles (e.g. 2012 Penn State Nittany Lions football team, 2011 Penn State Nittany Lions football team, etc.) changing links that are to be Penn State child sex abuse scandal to Sandusky child sex abuse scandal (example evidence here here, here, and here. Upon noticing this (note: I reverted the first 12, but have refrained from reverting the final two as though it would not violate 3RR as it is not occurring within a 24-hour period, it may not be blatant vandalism, as the contributor may be acting in good faith), I placed this message on his talk page, and upon him doing it subsequently, I posted this one, 9 and 11 minutes respectively prior to his final two instances of link changing. There may be a I didn't hear that issue, or it may be that he/she does not know how to use talk pages, but the bottom line is, good faith or not, it is growing disruptive, and at this point, I would request a tentative block to prevent future disruption until the contributor agrees not to further change the links, or the situation in some other way resolves itself. Thank you! (contributor notified here, and I brought it to ANI rather than AIV as I cannot be sure it is vandalism, as s/he may not be acting in bad faith). Go Phightins! 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like this user ever got a welcome message, so I left {{Welcomevandal}} to make sure the user has seen the initial guidance on policies. He's not doing mobile edits, so he should be seeing the notifications of talk page messages. I also didn't see a warning that clearly mentioned the possibility of a block; I've left one. I'd give one more chance to see if the user gets the messages, but whatever the reason, if he does it again, I'd then support a short-term block for disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Lizzzybennett1xx
- Lizzzybennett1xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lizzzybennett1xx has repeatedly created articles with incorrect/misleading/nonsense titles, especially variants on Nicki Minaj's name, and has been repeatedly warned not to do so. She recently did it again (though the page has been deleted after I tagged it as a hoax, unsure exactly which CSD it fell under). The page can be viewed by admins at Niickkki Mirij. I am not sure where to post this, as it is not exactly vandalism, so I am coming here to request something be done. My apologies if I am in the wrong place. Jinkinson talk to me 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- This sure looks to fall under the definition of WP:Vandalism#Page creation, illegitimate to me. The only saving grace is that she requested deletion of the page she created today (it was deleted CSD G7). —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since I'm not an admin I can't see the content of the deleted pages, but for me much turns on whether the alternative titles were Lizzzybennett1xx's attempt to create legitimate articles on the subjects (perhaps because Lizzzybennett1xx didn't understand the concept of redirects), if they were hoax articles about nonexistent persons, or if they were articles about the actual subject that violated WP:BLP in some way. I think the first hypothetical is forgivable and calls for someone to work with Lizzzybennett1xx, at least until it can be determined that he/she is unwilling or unable to work constructively, at which point blocks should be put in place. The latter two hypotheticals call for stern, final warnings (even though I do see a final warning on the page already), followed by preventive blocks should the behavior continue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- 40 of this user's 42 edits are now deleted, usually because they were contributions to articles with nonsense titles. A review of those edits indicates this is a vandalism-only account. The same pattern has been going on since their account was created on March 10. She blanked one of her own nonsense articles today and that was taken as a G7 nomination. Except for that it is hard to perceive any well-intentioned edits. The G7 deletion could as well have been done as a G3 (vandalism) since the article itself was gibberish, being a section of prose cut-and-pasted out of our Britney Spears article and slightly reworded to mention Nicki Minaj. Would an honest mistake lead someone to create an article called Niickkki Mirij if the singer's name is actually Nicki Minaj? As a bonus, check their edit filter log. I recommend an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since I'm not an admin I can't see the content of the deleted pages, but for me much turns on whether the alternative titles were Lizzzybennett1xx's attempt to create legitimate articles on the subjects (perhaps because Lizzzybennett1xx didn't understand the concept of redirects), if they were hoax articles about nonexistent persons, or if they were articles about the actual subject that violated WP:BLP in some way. I think the first hypothetical is forgivable and calls for someone to work with Lizzzybennett1xx, at least until it can be determined that he/she is unwilling or unable to work constructively, at which point blocks should be put in place. The latter two hypotheticals call for stern, final warnings (even though I do see a final warning on the page already), followed by preventive blocks should the behavior continue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Moving page
I would like to move (rename) the page for WWE Wrestler Sin Cara, to a page that reflects his name. Currently, he is listed as Mistico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%ADstico) as that is what his ring name was in an old promotion. However he has been signed with WWE for a number of years now, and is more widely known to the world as Sin Cara. - Zalthazar_666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalthazar 666 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- See Talk:Místico#Requested move. While it was a few months ago that this was last proposed, the universal opposition to it suggests that such a proposal would fail. Before seeking an admin to handle the move (since the redirect already exists) there needs to be consensus that a move is called for. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a polite disagreement with several editors who keep removing content that they perceive as "non-neutral" or "not relevant". Specifically the section regarding the connections of the the initiative U ime obitelji with right-wing political party HRAST [96] as well as some other controversies surrounding it. Two of the editors don't speak Serbo-Croatian language so they can't really evaluate what is sufficiently notable or representative, and the rest are an IP and a single-purpose account User:OpusDbk whose writings are largely incoherent. I'd like to add more content to that section but it keeps being removed under absurd excuses. I keep telling them that 1) It's perfectly OK to present one side of the argument, if that side largely reflects the public discourse 2) even if the article itself is not completely balanced out, there is no reason to censor it by removing the undesirable content - slap a tag until eventually someone adds POV from the other side (if it exist, my position is that in many cases it doesn't so it's basically pointless to ask for it). It would be helpful if someone else would weigh in and advise how to proceed with this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Ivan Štambuk. I believe I am one of the otwo non Serbian-Croation users you are referring to. Just a formal note: I think you are supposed to notify the users you are complaining about on their talk pages. But you don't have to notify me now obviously since I am already here. I don't have so much to say about the underlying issue. There is a disagreement about the neutrality of the article, and I have tagged it for such. I will try to engage a bit more on the talk page again. Otherwise, I think the NPOV noticeboard might have been a better place to address this issue, and I will be happy to participate there. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Lukeno94's lack of civility
Having seen the comments made by Lukeno94 (talk · contribs · block user) at WP:DRN is one of the worst cases of violation of WP:CIVIL I've seen, and the editor refuses to change his ways from attacking editors to attacking the argument the editor(s) are making. While no one is censored from swearing, use of expletives and personal attacks directed at editors isn't something any editor should face, especially female editors.
- Lukeno94's failure to follow WP:CIVIL has been going on for awhile, "HiLo, I will speak exactly as I want, and given the pathetic nature of the majority of your posts ....." "..... just the pathetic way you're going about things", "Should we treat the utter bullshit that you, HiLo and Laura have spouted at times as being one voice as well?"
- His statement at DRN comments on "Laura and her tag-team"
- Fucking hell Laura, there's no consensus either way. Stop pushing your POV for once, and stick to the discussion...
- Trying to prevent LauraHale from responding his statement and PeeJaay's statement
- Makes a comment directed at HiLo, stating that they were "spouting pure rubbish".
- "Laura, when the hell are you going to get it through your skull ....."
- "Are you fucking kidding me? I refer to you as "Laura" because that is the first name ....."
- "Read what I wrote properly, or go away." "..... one editor who is too lazy/arrogant to even attempt to read what people write moaning about things won't change that."
- "If you're not going to bother reading that, then don't fucking bother replying with clear bullshit statements ....." "You're wasting everyone's time by being pretentious and deliberately misrepresenting what people say. Get a bloody life.", though "Get a bloody life" was removed with an edit summary "probably best not to leave that in there, although I think it still seems valid, given the trolling/attention seeking involved here"
- Then he suggested that an editor used drugs (not naming the editor who it was directed at nor quote the comment stated, since they have the right to have it oversight/revdel)
- I've since tried to get Lukeno94 to see what he has said at DRN has been out of line and to cease it but he admits that he has been uncivil and has tried to pass the buck, also stating he will continue.
- and he continues to make uncivil comments directed at editors. "You're as bad as Laura is ....." "Laura and yourself are too lazy or arrogant to actually read people's posts at all, or are just determined to misrepresent them."
- he has admitted that he'll continue to regardless of people's gender, race ect..
His failure to follow etiquette guidelines and the above listed behaviour is clearly such that is blockable, I hope that an Admin can get him to recognise that he needs to change his ways. Bidgee (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your first diffs relate to above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HiLo48_at_Talk:2014_Winter_Olympics and if nothing gets done in that situation, don't expect anything to be done here.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- As usual, Bidgee is misrepresenting pretty much everything. I was not the one who started being uncivil in the first place; that would be User:HiLo48. Yet you're not chastising people for attacking a LOT of people by refering to others as obsessed soccer nuts (the post that the very first diff was in response to), and pretty much every single thing User:Clavdia chauchat has said. People have been flat-out lying about things I have said/done, things such as this, which is very clearly an attempt to make me out as sexist. Equally, the above diffs by Bidgee also ignore the fact that pretty much everything I have said has been in response to clear POV-pushing, WP:IDHT behaviour, and pure misrepresentation of other people's posts. Have I overstepped the mark? Yes, that's fairly obvious. But I am sick to death of having several thousand tonnes of bullshit thrown at me, where everything I say is clearly being manipulated and misrepresented by people with agendas. And the ludicrous comments about things needing oversight or RevDel... again, go and look at what Clavdia wrote on Talk:Australia national association football team (things like [97], [98], [99]), and try telling me with a straight face that I'm the least civil party here. If people had stopped deliberately misrepresenting things I had said, flat out lying about me, and making absurd claims of sexism/chauvinism etc, I would've withdrawn from the conversation a long time ago. The fact I'm still an active party is due to the above things. Again, this doesn't excuse the excesses I've gone to, and a couple of times I've redacted parts of my comments; but I'm not the worst offender. And whether a user is a particular gender, race, colour, sexuality or whatever is irrelevant in a discussion; if you read what I write properly, post reasonable responses, then I will respond in a calm manner. If you post rubbish that is based on a pure misrepresentation of my post - is it any surprise that I get annoyed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- As for the "trying to prevent Laura from responding", that is blatantly rubbish. As far as I am aware, those sections are ONLY for the opening statements by said users; discussion shouldn't be occurring in there. If I'm wrong, well, then I apologize for being unfamiliar with DRN, having only been there on a few occasions. I would note that no one reverted me, however. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think all that's needed here is for both parties to dial things back a bit and calm down. While some of the rhetoric has been unhelpful, I don't think there's need for admin action at this point. Some of the diffs listed above are kind of frivolous as well--there's nothing wrong with referring to a contributor by their first name. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I have to agree with Mark here, there really isn't anything actionable in this situation. It's hard to justify the block of one editor when there is general incivility all-around. I think it's time for everyone to take a break and have a nice cup of tea. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- It may not be action-worthy for the time, but hopefully this doesn't happen again. I do believe Admins (despite being editors just like us) have the responsibility of having a cool-head at all times, after all, their admins. and the same thing occured with another editor that was deemed action worthy. so to me, i dont see the difference between the two.Lucia Black (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lucia, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from; I'm not an admin, and to the extent of my knowledge, HiLo, Laura and Clavdia aren't either. That said, there have been admins involved in the debate; but they've generally avoided the biggest confrontations (sensibly so). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
then all the more reason to remember this event in case it becomes a pattern.Lucia Black (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Both 'sides' need to calm down, and both 'sides' need to be civil. To defend Luke, users such as Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) have also been horrendously uncivil, with comments such as this, where she describes an entire WikiProject (which both Luke and myself are active members of), of being "chauvinistic and pathetic"; she also calls the Project a "circle jerk." That clearly violates WP:NPA#WHATIS, and how is that language and attitude helping anything or anybody? GiantSnowman 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Could Lukeno tone it down a little bit? Sure. But to say that it's one of the worst cases of violation of WP:CIVIL he's seen must mean he hasn't dealt with very much at all here on Wikipedia. Many, many editors are far worse than these difs. Like I said, he could use someone saying, "Hey, calm down a little", but certainly nothing actionable at this rate... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Its definitely not the worst, but its not "acceptable" behavior. that should be the only point. it's not actionable "for now". but we should definitely give fair warning to both sides.Lucia Black (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Template:Cue (Non-administrator comment) You can't exactly block Lukeno solely because they are swearing. Definitely block them if they are willfully disrupting Wikipedia. However, this doesn't seem like disruption at all—just a lack of self-control. Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
lack of self-control can be just as disruptive. its not vandalism, but it doesn't move the discussion along in a nice way. its not actionable, and i think part of the problem is thinking exagerrating how over the top this is. its not the biggest thing in the world, but like i said, it shouldn't be acceptable. User Ryulong has been noted in the past. opinions on ANI shouldn't really vary so drastically.Lucia Black (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lucia, what about comments from your friends that are also uncivil? Why don't you find issue with them? You are portraying this as if it is a one-sided issue when it is anything but. As I've already said, both parties need to tone it down. GiantSnowman 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- well, that'll tone things right down. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure she'll make a big stink over me saying it, but quite frankly, Lucia has made some very bad calls in the past in regards to deeming other peoples civility. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I closed the AfD as redirect and a user keeps reverting the redirection of the article. I undid his revert once and notified him on his talk page that this was not the proper way to contest an AfD closure and he reverted the redirection once more without replying. I adhere to a 1RR restriction and would appreciate a second set of eyes to make sure I am not perpetuating an edit war. Thanks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- On it. GiantSnowman 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I don't tend to do it much, so I could be wrong, but couldn't you just fully protect/salt it? Or do you see it as likely to be rightfully un-redirected someday? (I'm unfamiliar with whatever this subject is about...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- It was a good close - nominated for deletion, supported by two other editors with no one making an argument to keep. I have deleted the old article, leaving nothing to revert to. That should squelch the problem. The objecting editor can still appeal to deletion review. bd2412 T 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)