Aec is away (talk | contribs) →User:RMHED: Nonsense |
|||
Line 996: | Line 996: | ||
:::::I'm not convinced it qualifies as goading, but I do think that Aitias should disengage, if only out of caution. (I will do so as well if asked)--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
:::::I'm not convinced it qualifies as goading, but I do think that Aitias should disengage, if only out of caution. (I will do so as well if asked)--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::Nonsense. The only person responsible for RMHED's behaviour is RMHED himself. Noone else can be held accountable for it. [[User:Aec is away|Aecis·(away)]] [[User talk:Aecis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
:::::Nonsense. The only person responsible for RMHED's behaviour is RMHED himself. Noone else can be held accountable for it. [[User:Aec is away|Aecis·(away)]] [[User talk:Aecis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::Disengagement sounds like a good idea. Is your presence helping WP salvage a good but flawed editor, or is it making things worse?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::RHMED is now IP socking on his page, following the block. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
::::RHMED is now IP socking on his page, following the block. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:03, 26 February 2009
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) |
|
Soliciting off-wiki pressure on editors
- Scripturalreasoning (talk · contribs)
- Scriptural reasoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently posted about the above user's threat to publish inflammatory material if other editors didn't back off. [1].
Same editor has been in direct consultation with an organisation mentioned in the article: "I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing."
Now this statement from said Trustees has appeared off-wiki, repeating unproven claims about the affiliations and hostile motivations of editors here *, as well as making heavy hints about what the article should say about this organisation. Apart from such close communication being probable COI, this smells of attack-by-proxy. Does it come under WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
PS: oh, apparently not here, since (despite precisely matching what he said was discussing with them) the statement doesn't mention Wikipedia by name. Must be some other user-editable "online encyclopaedic resource" with exactly the same dispute then. FX: rolls eyes Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- This looks like the kind of editor who is here to Right Great Wrongs, having no caring about our policies and community ethos. Such people often have a short but turbulent career on Wikipedia. Does WP:BATTLE apply, do we think? as an aside, the article scriptural reasoning needs a complete rewrite or nuking; right now it reads as an unholy mix of WP:OR and WP:HOWTO. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- They come to Right Great Wrongs and then we tell them to Fuck Right Off. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- You could possibly add that slogan to the policy guidelines. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- You could possibly be slightly more subtle HalfShadow. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- And you could burst into flames spontaniously. What's your point? HalfShadow 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- In your opinion, should this user be indefinitely blocked? PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- And you could burst into flames spontaniously. What's your point? HalfShadow 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- They come to Right Great Wrongs and then we tell them to Fuck Right Off. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I approve of the "fuck right off" message. In regards to the article, do we have any experts who could take a look and assess and edit? please step forward now... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- So you approve of an indefinite block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Me, definitely, yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The same editor has also created Interfaith scriptural reading with a lead "Interfaith Scriptural Reading is a form of Interreligious Dialogue, and takes place is a variety of different ways. This page is new and under construction..." (and Interreligious Dialogue is red-linked, so..). Google and Alltheweb come up with [2] and a mention in a pdf of someone taking part in an interfaith scriptural reading conference but that wasn't the title of the conference. At least Scriptual reasoning is I think notable enough for an article, but the Isr article needs to be dealt with appropriately. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cameron Scott: there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group. The other editors appear to be editing well within WP:NPOV, but it's very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way (akin to describing a tea-party and citing it to the Brewing Instructions on a teabag box). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The same editor has also created Interfaith scriptural reading with a lead "Interfaith Scriptural Reading is a form of Interreligious Dialogue, and takes place is a variety of different ways. This page is new and under construction..." (and Interreligious Dialogue is red-linked, so..). Google and Alltheweb come up with [2] and a mention in a pdf of someone taking part in an interfaith scriptural reading conference but that wasn't the title of the conference. At least Scriptual reasoning is I think notable enough for an article, but the Isr article needs to be dealt with appropriately. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Me, definitely, yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- So you approve of an indefinite block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I approve of the "fuck right off" message. In regards to the article, do we have any experts who could take a look and assess and edit? please step forward now... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
←And on the 8th day Jimbo (and/or Sanger) did createth the wiki. And thine policy shall stateth: Go forth and propagate thine web with great "sum of human knowledge", but be not vain in your efforts. Thou shalt push neither negative, nor positive OR, but rather provide great NPOV. (ohhh I hope the big guy upstairs don't get mad about that post!) — Ched (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reading the posted document, it is not just a matter of propaganda in favor of this religious group, but a question of there being two rival groups, the one that posted the message, the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and its sponsor,the "Interfaith Alliance UK" (which cooperates with a loosely associated US organization, ""Interfaith Alliance"; and on the other hand the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its "Cambridge InterFaith Programme". The matter at controversy is the relative importance of the two, and also whether, as the SRS claims, the term "Scriptural Reasoning" is generic for reading the scriptures of various faiths in parallel. Given all this, I would therefore not make any assumptions about which edits to the article are the fair ones. I of course do support the present block, and it is possible that other editors may need similar attention. In any case, i would not disparage any of them, & I think the two immediately preceding comments ought to be retracted. Obviously, as dougweller says, people from outside both must do the editing here. DGG (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Given that that Trustees have clarified that they were informed having received a telephone call from someone from the "Inter Faith Network of the UK" of which the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" and "St Ethelburga's Centre" are both affiliated member organisations (both are also part of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and both have been critiqued by me in past edits of Scriptural Reasoning) ---- the question arises exactly how did this happen? So who exactly put the "external pressure on a Wikipedia editor"? You might therefore want to clarify this from the other users on Scriptural Reasoning since with the exception of Gordonofcartoon they are all stalwarts of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and Thelongview works for the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which is a nice coincidence.
- Also a nice coincidence is how on 27 November 2008 and immediately around that time, after 20 months previously of quiet and low activity on Scriptural Reasoning all of a sudden Thelongview (at that time Nsa1001) arrived and immediately concurrently Mahigton and Laysha101 (new user to Wikipedia), all three of whom admit to knowing each other and are part of the same "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" group. Not long thereafter, other brand newly registered users, all very familiar and supportive of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" position -- and all editing together. External pressure?
- The article Scriptural Reasoning has been a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning and exaggerated the practice's importance and originality (SR is nothing original nor practiced by thousands), and as DGG there is a dispute between the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" which claims ownership of SR and the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford Group) which claims that SR is just a name for something loads of others have done.
- I'm not all that bothered about being "banninated" so do go ahead. But what I don't think is acceptable is for others who have been rather cleverer and less stupidly open about what I think and which of my friends I talk to, to get away with a biased promo article for Scriptural Reasoning. In fact to save you all the hassle....I shall delete my account...so happy jolly days chaps...and tatty bye...(arseholes)
--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- This user has requested that their user talk page, User talk:Scripturalreasoning be deleted under CSD U1, but U1 does not apply to user talk pages unless RTV is invocted, but given the above, I do not think the user talk page should be deleted; I especially don't think it's right that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is to be thrown in my face when I question the deleting admin's deletion of the page.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Admins inappropriate comments in this thread
A number of administrators / other responding parties violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL using comments such as "fuck right off".
It is entirely possible to respond to abuse cases such as this one without insulting the party who caused the problem. Using insulting and abusive language violates Wikipedia's policies and degrades the quality of participation in the community and the communities' values.
This is not acceptable behavior here or anywhere else. Please do not do it again. HalfShadow is getting a warning - others should consider your own actions and participation in the abusive subthread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps they were not setting the most open mood possible, but I doubt those comments constituted WP:CIVIL vios, and certainly not WP:NPA violations. It was indirect speech anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Charming to respond to a WP:CIVIL notice by violating WP:CIVIL again. It's times like this I wish I had admin powers. THF (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between simply using the (cover your ears, children!!) f-word!!! and an actual incivil personal attack - in much the same way that there's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between a painting of a knife and stabbing somebody in the face. It may take some deep rumination, but I'm confident that you - and others who enjoy being the first to fling around wikilinks to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - can grow to understand it. =) Badger Drink (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The civility and personal attacks policies are not a black and white spectrum. The original abuses above were neither as blatant nor as specific as many in the past.
- However, there is a renewed emphasis in policy circles that the policies are real, serious, that we mean it (from Arbcom at the top through normal admins and editors), and that the at times and in places rampant abusive behavior on wiki especially in admin forums has to stop.
- There is nothing in this thread that required or justified rude language or abuse of the problem account.
- HalfShadow's initial behavior was across the line but not horribly abusively so. His choice of responses to the initial warnings was most unfortunately less ambiguous. His behavior has a problem - he needs to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Fwiw, please count my !vote in support of the block given by GWH, though I won't be participating in the ensuing wikidrama. THF (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Complete overreaction. Block should be undone. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. And even if a block was warranted here, GWH should not have been the one doing it. J.delanoygabsadds 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking on the original issue would have been a complete overreaction. A reasonable discussion (which Deacon, to be fair, started) as to whether the original conduct warranted a warning or not is fine. An edit summary suggesting another editor is insane and a comment suggesting another editor is insane are however evidence that HalfShadow has a problem with civility and NPA. As direct responses to an editor warning them about civility... He proved my point.
- Admins are not conflicted out of taking admin actions on the grounds that someone they warned (after no prior interaction or conflict) turned around and got abusive on them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed as well. The use of "fuck" in this thread was problematic, but certainly not blockable of itself. I see nothing else here that shows that HalfShadow should have been blocked, it looks purely punative for the use of salty language, and I see no evidence of it being warrented. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect. HalfShadow wasn't blocked for saying "fuck." He was blocked because he insulted two editors who asked him to be more polite. If we're going to take WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously, it needs to be enforced. There's no excuse for repeated abuse of experienced editors, and we don't do enough to cut it off at the pass, which is why so many editors burn out. THF (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Seems that no one really took note of or had much of an issue with the usage of the word fuck and such, til this admin decided to blow it up into a subsec of the existing discussion. Sometimes the waggling of the "thou shalt not" finger does more to inflame than the original act could ever manage. All in all, an egregiously bad block if I have ever seen one. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talk • contribs) Striking out inadvertent extraneous text. Not sure how that happened. THF (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- HalfShadow is quite often uncivil and left cynical and unhelful comments here, so I don't wonder he is blocked for his incivility.--Caspian blue 04:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see HalfShadow's comments here as being largely satirical. However, when the targets of that satire don't see the humor in it, then it can be time to... "walk right off" for awhile. Before someone else makes you take that walk. On the other hand, if one is having a bad day or week, then in being compelled to take that walk for a short time (24 hours, for example), there is no real harm done, and it can be therapeutic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he has to take the walk for 24 hours from here. Not bad decision.--Caspian blue 05:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The comments here can be read that way now that I reread with that in mind. His responses on his talk page don't indicate that to me, though.
- I don't want to step on people just being satirical, but if that was what he had in mind he should have said so after the warning, or at least after the block, and he's instead defending himself on his talk page saying that the block was inappropriate because I was in conflict with him (because I warned him once??). I would think that he'd be likely to have explained himself then if his original intent was satire. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was going strictly by what he said here, and I gather he doesn't always know where the "line" is. I don't always know either, and that's when I've been blocked. If I were him, I would do as I have done when I've been blocked: find something else to do for 24 hours. It's Saturday. Go to the movies. Go shopping. Help the economy. Wikipedia will likely still be here upon expiration of the block. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you plan on commenting on his talk page, per request? seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did with the block warning. He deleted that from his talk page, along with previous warnings by me and THF, as he is entitled to do under the userpage policy. I generally try to avoid interfering with an unblock request from one of my blocks that's active - that's for other admins to decide.
- If there a specific other request up here for me to ask him / talk about? I don't have a problem with engaging in more discussion with him on his talk, if he will actually discuss something and not just delete it again. What do you suggest I ask or suggest? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see HalfShadow's comments here as being largely satirical. However, when the targets of that satire don't see the humor in it, then it can be time to... "walk right off" for awhile. Before someone else makes you take that walk. On the other hand, if one is having a bad day or week, then in being compelled to take that walk for a short time (24 hours, for example), there is no real harm done, and it can be therapeutic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
civility break 1
Without commenting on the comments or the block at this point.... I remember responding to a WQA sometime ago that was filed against HalfShadow mid-last year. I'd initially suggested that if there were still problems, that it went to RfC, and that a friendly reminder would be enough - but based on his responses to that reminder (which were plain - not satirical), I ended up closing it as "stuck - hopefully the incivility would cease" and advised the filing party to bring it straight to a noticeboard the next time there was a problem. This may be irrelevant given that it was so long ago, and I can't find the link, but wanted to note it just in case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Per Google, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive46#User:HalfShadow. THF (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a fuss about nothing - "fuck right off" just means "go away", it's not aimed at one particular person. And in that sense, many people should fuck right off in regards to their conduct here - the block was pathetic and should be overturned immediately. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
As is noted in the block message and above, the block was for insulting other editors (violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). Kcowolf (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- George is right: rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some, so we are asked to keep it out of anything that might be construed as an "official" procedure or discussion. Even I have worked that one out by now, and I am pretty dense in that regard. I always italicise right anyway. Yes, we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I endorse the block on its merits, too, though it would be better if someone other than one of the insulted users had issued it. Because admins are prohibited from blocking users they are in a conflict with, I'm granting HalfShadow's unblock request, but I'm also reinstating the block as a block of my own. Sandstein 12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I endorse the block...when writing, we don't just "blurt" it out like we may do in speaking. Writing is a decisive act. Decisions are made on the words we choose and their meanings and the effect we wish to accomplish. This brings into play the issue of swearing on the talkspace. Swearing, not by vandals, but by editors to make a point or give emphasis. But it (swearing) brings with it its negative connectors and responses and the conversation starts downward. Dignity is required in this process; we should seek to engender goodwill and approval, co-operation, not the opposite. This is an adult environment, not a saloon. There is really no good argument to the contrary. Administrators should convey propriety not bad examples. BTW... fuck right off means fuck right off. If he typed Go away it would have required fewer keystrokes and would have been less agitating!--Buster7 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Are we fucking serious? We blocked half-shadow for that? (the two diffs noted on his talk page). Come on. I'm not inclined to think that what he wrote there was appropriate, but we have to accept that multiple perceptions of these boards exist. Some people think of them as places akin to a judge's chambers, where arguments and positions are presented in a semi-official manner. Some people feel that they are simply a mechanism for notification of admins and interested editors. Some people feel that they are a watering hole. These have subjective interpretations have varying levels of acceptance and legitimacy, but we certainly don't need to engage in some heavy handed nonsense in keeping the "f-word" off of them. Unbelievable. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- No comment on the block, but there is far too much unnecessary sarcasm and snarky commentary on WP:ANI, and oftentimes it crosses the murky line into incivility. I would put HalfShadow's comments in this thread into that catchall category. Poking fun at another productive contributor is not appropriate (i.e. comments on Georgewilliamherbert's sanity). Wikipedia is not censored, and WP:ANI is not censored, but it's not appropriate to stop by WP:ANI just to leave a snarky one-liner aimed at someone else. -- Samir 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of censorship. If someone is claiming censorship, they need to reexamine the evidence. I don't think half-shadow is being "censored" in the sense that someone is using authority to control content or discussion. We are just (rightly, as you note) trying to avoid cynicism and sarcasm in our forums (which project poorly w/o extra-textual clues) and we went too far in conflating "bad language" with malign intent. I don't think half shadow was intending to lower the discourse or demean another person, I think he was intending to be funny and blunt (or funny by way of being blunt). Was it poorly received? Clearly. Was it a bad idea? Probably. Was it something so wrong as to prompt a somewhat officious "warning" which devolved into an inappropriate block? NO. Suggesting that someone has taken leave of their faculties in leveling a warning is uncivil (borderline, IMO), but not a personal attack (again, IMO). Doing so in an edit summary on your own talk page is relatively harmless (honestly...). Doing so on AN/I is not harmless and half-shadow should have known better. But the impetus for the block ("fuck right off") was an unneeded minor panic over a word used more gently than a former vice president used it with regards to a sitting united states senator. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Saying "fuck" is not blockable (and that comment is not the trigger of this block). But insulting others repeatedly ("you could burst into flames spontaniously", "I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity") is. WP:NPA is policy, and there is never an excuse for violating it. See, generally, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#How to raise the tone of the wiki. Sandstein 23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know, THF. You'll note the sentences I spent on the two diffs cited in his block. I referred to the use of the word of curse as the impetus for the whole display which has played out here. And as for sandstein, I understand that NPA can't be violated but we really should treat things in perspective. This whole thing escalated too quickly for stupid reasons all around. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hang on 2 secs...someone says "Fuck Right Off" to nobody at all, which is not uncivil. Someone says "you could be nicer" and he gives a little sarcastic reply "and you could spontaneously burst into flames", which is NOT an attack, it's sarcasm, meaning "um, not likely". Someone wrongly gives him a warning, and he got a little pissy, and then he gets blocked? A-B-C anyone? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Boy this whole thread sure went to hell in a handbasket. Suggestion: Everyone just take your hands off the keyboard... and back away very slowly - then look around at the real world. This has gone way off-track. — Ched (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Handbaskets are fun. Hell...not so much. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ya know, I'm familiar with the lol cat that says "I iz adminz" and "this iz serious bizniz" and all. But this is supposed to be the big boys board. Self-importance doesn't belong here. This whole thing was about a religious posting, and how to handle it. Somehow everyone seems to have lost track of things. Wikipedia: The objective is to be "objective". geesh. — Ched (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse block per Sandstein. If this was the first time HalfShadow's civility was an issue, maybe a block would be an overreaction in the absence of trying to talk to him (eg; through WQA or other methods). But that's just it; this isn't the first time - attempts to discuss it with him have been unsuccessful. Per Guy; rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some...we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, the block expired some hours ago anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah...seeing I did end up reviewing this, thought I'd note my view for the record before this is archived. Ncmvocalist (talk)
- I wonder about the value of contesting blocks that are 24 hours or less. It's not like they're going to undergo withdrawal or something. Or maybe they will. I was thinking maybe there should be restrictions on contesting short blocks. The risk there, though, is that overzealous admins (if there are any) might take it as license to block more freqently and more frivolously. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah...seeing I did end up reviewing this, thought I'd note my view for the record before this is archived. Ncmvocalist (talk)
- FYI, the block expired some hours ago anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't contesting the block, just the blocker. And vocalist take heart in the knowledge that your thoughts and opinions have no value to me. That goes for THF and Caspian, too. HalfShadow 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- HalfShadow, if one is blocked for making personal attacks on an administrative noticeboard, it is unwise to return to the same thread with more personal attacks. I was about to re-block you, but I don't want to sound like a broken record, so I invite any other administrator who concurs with my assessment to do so. Sandstein 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a 'personal attack' to state an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is 'wanted' or not. Calling them a name would be a personal attack. Suggesting their intelligence is flawed would be a personal attack. Simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value to me isn't; it's simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value. I have nothing more to say on the subject: I simply do not care. HalfShadow 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I also fail to see the attack. Yes, HalfShadow could perhaps be a bit more civil. However, other people could just learn how to appreciate sarcasm instead. I see nothing in this discussion that was a clear personal attack (meaning that it was malintentioned). The way I see this thread, HS was being sarcastic, people got pissed, he responded with more sarcasm, people got even more pissed and warned him rather than WP:AGF, and then he understandably got a little upset about it. All in all, this doesn't seem like an issue that we can't move past. Firestorm Talk 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- HalfShadow made his point quite clearly last year (in the WQA thread cited at the top) - I never assumed that changed. But I suppose I should be the one to break the news: my thoughts and opinions in this thread were written purely for the community; it really is of no consequence whether he, the subject of the thread (who ended up blocked), considers them valuable or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The surprising thing is that there's any controversy over this. Dropping an f-bomb is problematic enough, but it crosses the line to follow up with insults at two people who've asked for greater politeness. When and if WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA get downgraded from policies to suggestions then rudeness may reign supreme at this site. Until then, Usenet is thataway. Kudos to Sandstein for doing it right (Georgewilliamherbert really should have recused). DurovaCharge! 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- One would imagine that those most sensitive to rudeness would be those least likely to block as an involved admin. Or does politeness just apply to those who prefer Joyce to Austen? I dunno, seems like a "he was uncivil, so he doesn't deserve my civility" argument completely undermines what the CIVILity Brigade is on about most of the time, and just goes to show you how these endless debates are much more about silly little power-struggles ("ooh, I get to get this guy in trouble! Teacher, teacher! *puts on best 'wounded' face*") than they are about people's wounded psyches. Badger Drink (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Child's personal information
There's a child revealing personal information at User:Bea0015. Thought it would be best to bring it here. Readro (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- You likely won't get a positive reaction from the editor by describing them as a child - teenagers can get proper surly with such stuff. I shall have a word with them on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- 15 is not a child, it's an adolescent. No 15 year old thinks it's a child. Unfortunately, no 15 year old thinks it's a mortal being, either, and they often reveal information that could potentially put them in danger. (Of course, that doesn't explain Michael Phelps.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, point taken, however my main concern was raising the point. Apologies to all teenagers. Maybe "minor" would be a better term for next time? Readro (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- "
Jailbait" ummm....I think "young adult" is the pc term - speaking of which, a great many of our pc using editors and some sysops are young adults. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)- Do they still use the term "San Quentin Quail"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Technically Young adult would be more 18-24, wouldn't it?
That being said I don't think there's much of a concern with him giving out his first name and city. -- lucasbfr talk 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)- I thought it was a copy paste from something else, nvm ><) -- lucasbfr talk 12:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)I thought a Young adult was 20 - 25. His last name is also there but I'll doubt that he has a mobile phone (IE: he wouldn't be in the white pages) in his name (Next to his age) so I wouldn't be overly worried but it's up to Wikipedia's policies (Not sure if there is one about this type of issue). Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- "
- OK, point taken, however my main concern was raising the point. Apologies to all teenagers. Maybe "minor" would be a better term for next time? Readro (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- 15 is not a child, it's an adolescent. No 15 year old thinks it's a child. Unfortunately, no 15 year old thinks it's a mortal being, either, and they often reveal information that could potentially put them in danger. (Of course, that doesn't explain Michael Phelps.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that "child" can cover anyone up to 13, and "young adult" beyond that. That said, it's not based on anything, just my personal feeling! And if it's just first name and city, then there's nothing to worry about! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- A couple of lines down he gives his full name and date of birth. Readro (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Only as an aside, I think it's untowards to call anyone over 12 or 13 a child unless their behaviour straightforwardly calls for it. Far more fit terms, I think, would be (depending on what's being talked about), underage person, minor, teen, young person, young adult and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- In response to the first comment, well, I'm a teen (won't reveal any info [duh!]) and I don't do things like that! ;) Anyways, we should have a talk with this guy. Should someone delete this stuff? Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to those who thought nothing should be done, how do we know that the information they published was actually theirs? I guess I don't have a problem with a 'child/young adult, teen, whatever' displaying their own info (though I'd like to see someone mention to them it's a bad idea), but how can we actually know that it is their information? --Ged UK (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- We can't know for sure, but the information has been removed from his user page now anyway. -kotra (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Mysticshade back again
User:Dundean19 has just been created and is starting to repeat the disruptive insertion of photographs for which Mysticshade was reported and banned yesterday. Changes on Irish People, Dublin and Dundee illustrate this. The pattern is too similar for it to be a coincidence, we may have a serial sock in the making (some aspects of Mysticshade has aspects of serial sock WIkipiere about the language and mixed celtic/Mediterranean claims. If someone could nip this in the bud it would save several us a lot of time!--Snowded (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- My first thought was the huge similarity between User:Dundean19's edits and those of a serial sock called User:Nimbley6 (adding images, changing picture sizes, fascination with Scotland and any area tangentially related to Scotland). Looking back at User:Mysticshade their edit summaries seem very similar to Nimbley6 - this edit summary in particular is "classic Nimbley6". Just an observation, but I wonder if Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Nimbley6? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- That might be a better guess, the childish language etc would match that and the Scottish link (although it started with Irish articles). Wikipiere and Nimbley6 waste more time than I care to think about for you, me and others. Whatever I'm pretty sure its one of them! --Snowded (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is obviously Mysticshade as well, I have already asked for an admin familiar with this on Commons to block his new account there. O Fenian (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. Don't know if you saw this above [4], but all the edits of Mysticshade and Dundean19 fit into the pattern, and blatantly if you ask me, of Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked for socking in sock drawer quantities. I could bring it to Sock investigaions, but really, it looks blatant enough to deal with here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Addition) Of course, Historian could just be an account in the chain of accounts of a previous sock as well. (Sorry, I missed the earlest contributions of one of the accounts above) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is obviously Mysticshade as well, I have already asked for an admin familiar with this on Commons to block his new account there. O Fenian (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- That might be a better guess, the childish language etc would match that and the Scottish link (although it started with Irish articles). Wikipiere and Nimbley6 waste more time than I care to think about for you, me and others. Whatever I'm pretty sure its one of them! --Snowded (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
⬅ and we may have another User:MarshVeld just created, picture edits on Northern Ireland and several POV edits against consensus (Ulster flag etc). --Snowded (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd guess not Nimbley6 - discussions on talk pages aren't Nimbley6's style. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Almost identical response on my talk page to that of Mysticshade, language and all. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken this to Sockpuppet investigations FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- A cup of coffee and a quick invigorating stroll later and it seems CSI:Wikipedia [[5]] thinks MarshVeld == Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Historian19 with a few other old socks added. (Oh, come on, I can't be the first to do the CSI:Wikipedia joke :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken this to Sockpuppet investigations FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Almost identical response on my talk page to that of Mysticshade, language and all. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Possible anon IP making Mysticshade-esque edits here. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- (...and now making "Im[sic] not who you think I am" edits too, just in case anyone was unsure! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
- Existentially-speaking, I may not be who I think I am either... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- And now we have an IP. Ho ho ho. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...and they've admitted they're User:MarshVeld. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...and they're blocked. Thanks, Canterbury Tail! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP for 1 week (in case it's a rotating IP). Due to the nature of it I had to block all coming off the IP. If some established editors (non-socks) complain I'll review the block, but I thought it best going off the number of socks involved. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but could User:GreyPoint be another sock? Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong yup on GreyPoint. Edited a lot of the same articles that Mystic/Historian were on (Dublin, Irish people, List of Scottish Americans) along with image fiddling in Rotterdam and GDP updating in Finland. There is another editor that has made two edits (as of now) that might fit in the pattern, but I think two edits is not enough to be sure, or at the very least, say it out loud.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Could someone please block this obvious sock? If the articles edited and behaviour isn't enough, it's Likely according to a checkuser on Commons, well likely for the account that uploaded an image GreyPoint added here five minutes later.. O Fenian (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
has been deleted by User:William M. Connolley, despite a deletion discussion that ended with a keep, see [6]. He claims that there is to much edit warring going on and that all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order, see [7]. That is absolutely not true, as several editors, including me improved the article and tried to enforce Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and neutrality. And since when is edit warring a reason to delete an article? Does this mean that I can get an article deleted by just edit warring on the article? Afroghost (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding. Connolley's account must be compromised. I would suggest blocking the account pending further clarification.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can assume you that I'm still the same me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain where you come off deleting an article out of process, when the AfD resulted in a 'keep'. NoCal100 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, what a POV fork. Process is not really as important as our core goal of neutrality. I did not see neutrality mentioned in the delete reason, but is sure is a good one. There is always WP:DRV. Chillum 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Same happened with the article Pro-Turkism, also triggered by a 3RR report, see [8]. Afroghost (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't delete P-T William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I just rechecked WP:3RR and WP:DP, just to be sure, and no, neither of them say you can delete an article to deal with an edit war. I see no way of escaping the conclusion that an administrator has violated Wikipedia policy and abused his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't delete P-T William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, what a POV fork. Process is not really as important as our core goal of neutrality. I did not see neutrality mentioned in the delete reason, but is sure is a good one. There is always WP:DRV. Chillum 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain where you come off deleting an article out of process, when the AfD resulted in a 'keep'. NoCal100 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can assume you that I'm still the same me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a dreadful POV fork - amongst other issues - which probably shouldn't have been kept (precis should've been merged into the main article), but even given the ridiculous edit-war magnet that it's become, William shouldn't have deleted it over an AfD. That's what we have DRV for. I have restored it and fully protected it for 3 days to give some breathing space. Can editors please suggest some way of sorting the problems out on the talk page? I am prepared to extend the protection if necessary. Black Kite 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- You should no more have restored it without DRV than William should have deleted it without AfD. Lets not have any more back and forth with this, I hate it when admins go reverting each other without a decent attempt to come to agreement first. Chillum 23:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Er, no. DRV is for review of in-process deletions and deletion discussions. This wasn't one. Black Kite 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not always happy with Connolley's decisions (two to be exact), but then again I think he makes these difficult choices in order to retain neutrality, so I commend him for that. It is true the article is an edit war mess, we have had 2 AfDs. It is also true that the overwhelming majority of people voted keep yet most of them were not involved in the article and related articles before and after the AfDs. I do think Jalopenos and Afroghost have made an effort to fix the article but the article is a POV fork, it would be futile to salvage it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a POV fork, it's reasonably sourced but 80% of it is a litany of news stories. I'd suggest that editors urgently look into merging a summary of the article (most of it could be condensed into "Anti-semitic incidents were reported from many countries") into the main article. Black Kite 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks BlackKite for the swift action. I completely disagree though with your claim that this is a POV fork. As it has been discussed during the deletion discussion, ending with at best no consensus whether it is one or not, I am not going to start this discussion again. This is not the right place for this discussion. And it is definitely not up to a single admin to make this decision and to delete (and in fact his reason was just edit warring). Doing so was a blatant abuse of admin powers, and the willingness to accept this abuse means that from now I will stop editing here. I tried my best to insist on good sources and neutral wording, and as my edits show I was willing to delete any edits regardless from which side they were if they did not conform to this policies. Good luck with your project, I am done. Bye. Afroghost (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I wish Wikipedia had the solidarity to keep obvious violations of neutrality out of here. Even the title makes it clear the article seeks to espouse a particular point of view and the content only supports that idea. Often these things are quickly and correctly deleted, but you get enough people arguing that it is a legitimate point of view and we are stuck with it. I got news, the only legitimate point of view here is the neutral point of view, that that article ain't even close. It is not a neutral presentation of ideas, just one that has enough support to let the vote override policy(which is should not). Chillum 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Umm Afroghost is going on a vandalism rampage. He is blanking random article pages. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked. Black Kite 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- At least that one problem in Wikipedia has been swiftly dealt with. Afroghost has been blocked. Chillum 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Umm Afroghost is going on a vandalism rampage. He is blanking random article pages. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Afroghost should not be permanently blocked. All he needs is a cool down block for say 12-24 hours. I kinda understand why he went a little nuts. An article that he has worked so hard on gets deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? If something permanent should be done it should be the removal of admin powers from User:William M. Connolley, who with a horrific display of power abuse deleted an article that survived two afd's because he decided it was a POV fork.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I indeffed, but I'm sure an unblock would be granted if he came back and said "sorry, got a bit pissed off there - won't happen again". I'd rather not limit it to a short block just in case he is so incensed he does it again. Black Kite 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Unblock the guy vandalizing and desysop the admin who deleted a POV fork? good luck with that campaign. That being said if the user is apologetic, then indef does not mean infinite. Chillum 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Bkite: That might be reasonable. But am I missing something here? An admin just displayed the most egregious abuse of admin-power I have yet to see here at Wikipedia and noone is saying peep? I must be missing something here. No? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dudes, VfDs are not real votes or even polls, they are certainly not binding on admins. An admin has to use his ro her good judgmen in deleting an artcle. The importance of the VfD is not any vote, but a mechanism for eliciting reasons for keeping or not keeping it (a good reason that has one vote carries a lot of weight, a bad reason - I mean interms of policy - that gets 50 votes has no weight; it is the reasoning, not the quantity of votes, that matters) an artcle. Why would anyone thing this is a compromised account? Can we calm down and focus on policy here? A POV fork should be deleted practically on spot. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was not deleted as a result of an AFD, rather a violation of 3RR?!! Chesdovi (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is true that Admins get to use discretion when closing an AFD. However, the AFD was already closed as keep by another admin. Connolley came in after the AFD was closed, and went and unilaterally deleted it anyway despite the consensus to keep. It is a flagrant abuse of the tools, and although I usually agree with the decisions he makes, this is not something that can go unnoticed. I have seen William confirm that it was him that did it, but I have not seen him provide any sort of justification for going over the head of an AFD. Yes, it may be a terrible POV fork, but we have processes for dealing with that. Unilateral deletion overruling an AFD is not the way to go about fixing it. I agree that some sort of sanctions should take place. Maybe not permanently losing the tools, but something needs to happen to prevent such a flagrant abuse form happening again.Firestorm Talk 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fortunately or unfortunately, we can not desysop without arb com involvement. I would suggest asking for it only in the admin involved declines to make a commitment to avoid such deletes in the future. DGG (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that he should be desysop'd. Of course, i'm not saying he shouldn't, either. I can't suggest a course of action until he tells us exactly why he did what he did, which he has not done yet. A very stern warning at the very least is needed, and depending on his justification, pursuing a desysopping might be for the betterment of the wiki. That said, I would really hate to see that happen, because William has, in general, been a positive force on the wiki. Frankly, I was surprised to find out that he did this, because it just doesn't sound like him. So exactly what sort of sanctions I would suggest depends on how he justifies the deletion. Firestorm Talk 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fortunately or unfortunately, we can not desysop without arb com involvement. I would suggest asking for it only in the admin involved declines to make a commitment to avoid such deletes in the future. DGG (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sometime things get closed wrong. Sometimes things that should be deleted are restored. Sometimes Wikipedia has non-neutral articles as a result. If an admin tries to fix that and then gets reverted for being out of process, it is not a failing, just a good attempt. Chillum 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- of course an admin can try to fix non-neutral articles-- just as any other editor-- through editing, the talk page, RfC, and the rest of dispute resolution. But he has no power as an admin to do anything about it, except to enforce what the community decides to do. DGG (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Point of order: the deletion policy technically doesn't disallow unilateral deletion. I actually applaud WMC for taking a more proactive stance in deleting NPOV-violating content such as this. We need to be more proactive. It's all fine and good saying there's no deadline, and that all NPOV problems can be sorted through editing, but I always felt that was too optimistic. Sometimes, you just can't fix something. Sceptre (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- If unilateral deletion of articles for AfDs that closed as keep is okay, then I hope unilateral restoration of articles even if an AfD closed as delete is also okay. :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Closing the AfD as keep was a unilateral move. It is not like the closing admin was relying on numbers here, s/he had to use her/his own judgment. Connolley probably disagrees with the closing admin's decision, so it is one admin's opinion against another. On a related note I think there should be at least three admins to determine what the result of an AfD should be.
- An admin unilaterally deleting an article that has survived an AFD is violating policy. The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policy is clear that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." An admin like anyone else can argue in an AFD for deletion or take a decision to deletion review if they disagree that the closure was correct, they cannot just say my view is better than yours and delete regardless of what the community says in an AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? - errm no. Where did you get that from. I gave my reasoning quite clearly on the 3RR page: Edit warring disaster area. I'm not sure I SD'd it either: I just deleted it. I wasn't claiming any of the SD criteria applied William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- William: Are we to understand that you will do the same in the future?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Just my 2 cents. Something that has bugged my since I first joined WP is this whole thing/process about "what stays" around here, be it articles, lists, "material" or whatever is that the ownous(sp) is on the parties that want to remove in stead of the other way around. I admitt I am a deltionist/minimalist, but shouldn't consensus be for what belongs here and not for what should be removed? Anyways, just my venting and I have no opinion on the amnins action or article per say. Thanks, --Tom 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Rather than farting about here, how about if we work on that article to remove anything which is not explicitly identified as anti-semitic by a source other than Zionist newspapers and commentators? That's the fundamental problem with it, the assertion by Israelis that everything done to them is necessarily antisemtic, as if their actions against the Palestinians whose lands they illegally occupy in defiance of UN resolutions is wholly free of racist motives, while any retaliation by those they are rather brutally oppressing is motivated solely by racism. Or perhaps we should simply rename it to reflect the fact that these are actions against Israel, and reference the (no doubt equally problematic) Anti-Arab incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Oh, wait, that's a redlink. Who'd have thought? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- or preferably, just chopping out the entire laundry list of events and merging the rest (not much) into the main article, which is where it should've been in the first place? I'm beginning to wish I'd left it deleted now. Black Kite 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Um what? This didn't have any original research issues. There were general articles discussing the anti-semitic nature of much of these attacks. This isn't about "Zionism." Nor if this at at all about whether or not the Israeli government's actions are motivated by racism. That's a completely separate topic. (No matter how racist the Israeli government it would not make any of these attacks any less anti-semitic) If there are sources for Anti-Arab incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict by all means go write that article. In any event, this is besides the point. These are arguments for an AfD or a DRV. Oh wait. We had that. It was closed as keep because the community consensus was that it was possible to write a carefully written, neutral article on this topic and that there were sufficient sources. The issue here is that that article was then deleted out of process. That's not ok. If you disagree wait a month or two and try another AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This entire discussion seems to be getting rather POINTY. I think we should wait until William can justify his actions in a detailed manner. I would like to hear him say exactly why he thinks that deleting what he sees as a battleground for editwarring over the head of two AFDs falls within policy, or at least within his interpretation of policy. William is known throughout the wiki as a good contributor and administrator, and something this radical seems out of character. I'm sure (at least, I hope) that he had a good reason beyond what he originally specified. The case might need a trip up to ArbCom, or it might just need a stern warning. Until William gives us more detail on his rationale, I can't be sure. Firestorm Talk 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I move that any arguments about the relation between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, or arguments as to whether such a relation exists, or arguments as to whether or not it is anti-semitic to say such a relation exists, or arguments on what is or is not an occupation, or what is or is not an illegal occupation, or what is or is not proportional response, what is or is not terrorism, . . . be banned from this page. Nableezy (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Calling the article a POV fork is incorrect. The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is about an armed conflict. This article is about antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm frankly not sure what I feel about the article itself, but I think the best analysis was that of Mangojuice in the Deletion Review after the first AfD. [9], where--among other things--he dismisses the forking question as a side issue. The question is not whether or not the article can remain. The question is whether or not an administrator has the right to remove articles out of policy and against the clear and expressed consensus. the answer is fairly obvious, at least to me: the results of such actions if accepted would be chaos. I would have hoped the admin in question would simply admit the error, either explicitly or tacitly by agreeing that he wouldn't do such again even though he might still feel he was justified. I suggest we give him another day to think about the implications of his explicit refusal. I recall that the article in question is subject to arb com discretionary sanctions [10], and that on that basis alone, arbitrary action without any basis in policy was particularly unwise. DGG (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Continuing with the previous comment: there is a lot of noise in this discussion coming from people who have issues with the article. The place to voice those issues is/was the article's talk page and the article's AfD page, which was closed as keep. The noise should not distract us from the actual subject of this noticeboard discussion, which is the fact that an administrator deleted this article to deal with an edit war, thus apparently violating WP policy and abusing his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- We just had an AFD a couple of days ago and it concluded with keep. Those who claim POV-fork should go to the latest AFD where most, if not all, of the popular criticisms were dismissed cordially. This is a clear breach in protocol for an administrator to simply delete an article after an extensive review which resulted in keep, overwhelmingly if I recall. I'm not disputing William's claims and perhaps they have merit, but they have all been thoroughly discussed at the afd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, we should try and keep this discussion limited to the question of whether or not William abused his power. I, and I think several other people, have been waiting for William to provide a detailed rationale for going against policy and consensus in this manner. As of yet, he has not given us one. He has been logged in and contributed to other parts of the project since this discussion began, and is clearly aware of the discussion (having already commented in it). Since he's such a big net positive for the wiki, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and give him one more day to provide a detailed analysis of his rationale. If he doesn't, then i'll take that as a refusal to do so. Unfortunately, in that case, I would have to take the incident up to ARBCOM. I really hope he gives a reasoning, because I don't want to report him to arbcom. As I have said several times, I have a lot of respect for William, and I don't want to slay one of the last WikiDragons left. I'll leave a message on his talk page, in case he is no longer watching this discussion. Firestorm Talk 03:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hang on. It is completely possible to think that this deletion wasn't a hot idea and should be undone without having a lynching. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- It should be taken very seriously is he doesn't apologize and promise not to pull this stunt in the future. I did ask him point blank at his talkpage about this. I got back a somewhat cryptic response, but it seemed like he agreed not to do this type of stuff again. See for yourselves: User talk:William M. Connolley#Question.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The issue isn't so much that he deleted it anymore, it is now that he has not provided an explanation of it. There are quite a few people here that want to know why he did it, and he isn't telling us beyond a non-rationale about edit warring. Firestorm Talk 04:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've already provided my reasonning: Edit warring disaster area. Do you want me to invent some other reasons? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hang on. It is completely possible to think that this deletion wasn't a hot idea and should be undone without having a lynching. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
re: deletion policy WP:DP"If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." and "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to . . ." seems to allow quite a bit of room for admins to use their own judgment when deleting pages. wc did just that. another admin undeleted, and now there should be a discussion at deletion review if someone wishes to nominate it. there should not be a 'call for his head' as this discussion seems to be doing. there seems to be a tremendous lack of good faith here. untwirl (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Untwirl is a single purpose account, who has consistently engaged in discussing his/her negative views of opposing editors (ie WP:NPA) rather than discussing article content, while finding nothing but good in those who support this user's editing goals. Considered in that context, this accusation of "lack of good faith" against other users becomes rather amusing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Malcolm, what you wrote about Untwirl may be more applicable to some other editors involved in this thread incl. the one who started this discussion, and you probably knew this Zencv Lets discuss 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- malcolm, one only needs to review your block log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMalcolm_Schosha) and this comment in particular to discover who is "engaged in discussing his/her negative views of opposing editors." if you have a problem with the content of my comment, please say so. otherwise, i'll thank you to cease with your repeated attacks against me personally. untwirl (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- When one of my daughters was in college, she had a friend who's grandfather was one of the Chicago Seven. That was far from his only arrest and trial either. Do you think that make him a bad person? And even if his crimes had been nothing better than break-ins, do you think that mean he would never deserve respect, and forever treated with disrespect? (And remember what occurs here is only wiki-crimes, and being sent into wiki-exile means nothing outside of WP.
- Personally, I think that was a good friend for my daughter to have, and I have a lot of respect for her grandfather...even though I do not agree with many of his views, nor all of his acts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- admin noticeboards arent the place for personal stories or blog entries. stick to content. untwirl (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) replied on your talk page. untwirl (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Untwirl, remember when I brought a complaint here about edit warring, and you and another user, filled up a lot of space on this page with accusations about my bad character? That had nothing to do with the complaint, because I had not been edit warring. (If you do not remember I can give the link.) Why do you think it was good for you to do what you did then at length, and think it bad for me to now do something similar in in brief?
- here is the discussion you misrepresent. [11] in it, you accused another editor of edit warring on an article in which your first three edits ([12],[13],[14]) were to revert info from the lead without discussion. i made no accusations about your character, only listed your actions. take this back to your talk page, please. untwirl (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the diffs you supplied make it clear that I was not edit warring, and that I tried to resolve the dispute by moving the disputed material to the talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- here is the discussion you misrepresent. [11] in it, you accused another editor of edit warring on an article in which your first three edits ([12],[13],[14]) were to revert info from the lead without discussion. i made no accusations about your character, only listed your actions. take this back to your talk page, please. untwirl (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Untwirl, remember when I brought a complaint here about edit warring, and you and another user, filled up a lot of space on this page with accusations about my bad character? That had nothing to do with the complaint, because I had not been edit warring. (If you do not remember I can give the link.) Why do you think it was good for you to do what you did then at length, and think it bad for me to now do something similar in in brief?
- admin noticeboards arent the place for personal stories or blog entries. stick to content. untwirl (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) replied on your talk page. untwirl (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that was a good friend for my daughter to have, and I have a lot of respect for her grandfather...even though I do not agree with many of his views, nor all of his acts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Deleting against consensus -IS- wrong, but everyone deserves a bad day. An admin who makes one definitely wrong decision and backs down is a lot less worrisome than one who regularly makes questionable decisions and doesn't. If admins try to be better than human and never do the former, they risk becoming the latter.
(I'm not trying to make coy insinuations; I have absolutely no one in mind wrt the latter hypothetical admin in the comparison.) arimareiji (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is that William has not backed down, has not expressed any regret, and has not said that he will refrain from doing the exact same thing in the future. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if an article that is plagued by constant edit warning warrants a deletion, Connolley thinks it is a valid reason and he has provided that as his rationale three times now. *If* it is not a valid reason as determined by Wiki policies, then one admin, preferably BlackKite, can reveal that to him and to ask him to refrain from making such deletions. I think the deletion was made in good faith, and it should be treated as such. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- He's an administrator. Surely he would understand the reaction from deleting an article days after it was declared keep. If he didn't see the AFD then I could perhaps empathize (sinner here), but not responding to valid criticism is a cause for concern. I don't want blood or any form of punishment whatsoever, but it would be settling to in the least promise you won't delete the article without an afd or an extremely justifiable reason. Normally good faith mistakes are followed by an apology, concession, compromise, or understanding...William has done none of the above. However, I think it's safe to say he won't touch the article again but that's my opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the permanent block of Afroghost. My understanding is that when editors are being disruptive, such as vandalizing articles, the intent is to end the disruption and is not punishment. I remember, in a discussion I had with El_C about an IP user who had vandalized an article I was editing, El_C gave the IP user a five minute block which solved the problem. It was my understanding that it was El_C's common practice to start with very short blocks, and extend them only if that was demonstrated to be necessary to end the disruptive activity. Perhaps if the block of Afroghost had been one week, or one day, or five minutes that would have been enough to end the disruptive activity. If an administrator starts with a permanent block, it is impossible to know if less would have been enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits and Mkil at Boxrec.com
Vintagekits
Vintagekits and I seem to be having a problem. I think he's making biased edits and he thinks I'm removing referenced material. That's fine, content disputes are normal. However, his actions during this dispute involve things like calling me an "idiot," a "dick,"[15] referring to my edits as "moronic"[16], "fuck ups" [17], "ill-informed bullshit"[18], etc.
I bring this up because he's had a long history on this site and has been blocked in the past for similar name-calling. He's also been blocked because of his problems dealing with Irish issues. The issue at the heart of our content dispute involves Irish nationalism -- i.e., it's about a boxer who was born in Northern Ireland and whether or not he's Irish or British. In fact, it's not even about that, it's about how a website reports that. He uses unreliable references to push his point-of-view and, when I attempt to clean it up, I get vitriol from him.
I'm tired of dealing with his profanity and his inability to see his biases. He seems to have been unblocked on the condition that he play nice with others. I certainy don't feel he's doing that in this case.MKil (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- This discussion here will give you some indication as to what kind of brick wall i have been banging my head against. Profanity was entirely justified.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- More background here - my head hurts!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)No, being civil is not optional. Kevin (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Simply calling a spade a spade, I stayed as civil as possible - read the moronic arguments of the editor for evidence as to why he IS moronic. Maybe you should be more worried about an editor that refuses to adhere to wikipedia editing rules then focus of some extremely minor as this. Sheesh sometimes I wonder!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you get it, so I'll be clear. The next time you refer to another editor as a moron, dick, idiot etc you will be blocked. Regardless of any perceived provocation, you must remain civil. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Have a little perspective my man - look at what I am dealing with - someone who REFUSES to abide by editing rules. What are we hear for? What are you going to do about that?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at his block log. He's been blocked a number of times for doing this type of thing. He's even been blocked indefinitely and then reinstated. How many times can he continue to flout the rules?MKil (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- I don't think you get it, so I'll be clear. The next time you refer to another editor as a moron, dick, idiot etc you will be blocked. Regardless of any perceived provocation, you must remain civil. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Simply calling a spade a spade, I stayed as civil as possible - read the moronic arguments of the editor for evidence as to why he IS moronic. Maybe you should be more worried about an editor that refuses to adhere to wikipedia editing rules then focus of some extremely minor as this. Sheesh sometimes I wonder!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits, you know that kind of language doesn't serve you well; it gets people's backs up without solving the problem. You wouldn't appreciate it at all if someone called you a moron if you made a bad edit. On the other hand, MKil, that is indeed a poor edit. The information was correct as of a specific date and time, and the more correct edit would be to include a phrase such as "in 1996, the site received xxx visitors a day..." Removing the information was not the preferred option here. Risker (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Its not just today its been going on for months with this guy. this is his idea of a good article, this is mine. How can you deal rationally with someone who says ""If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined." - that is more uncivil than any swear word.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- VK, you're absolutely right IMO (those unfortunate enough to remember 2007 will know this isn't something I say very often). I really can't see what the fuss is about here. – iridescent 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine, I'll admit that it could have been a better edit. When someone mentions that civilly, I can see the point. However, I don't believe I broke a rule here. I do believe that Vintagekit broke a variety a rule in this instance and in the past. Why do administrators continue to enable his bad behavior? I tried to discuss it civilly with him, I presented a compromise option, and he ignores it and continues to push his point of view using his unreliable references.MKil (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- Is this your idea of a civil and rational discussion - I see one person trying to sort stuff out and once person basically saying "f@ck you".--Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Since you are the one who resorted to name calling there, I'd say you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
- However, let's take the BoxRec edits. In my version, which I wrote after a discussion with you, I accurately and without bias describe the issue: "Some users have also raised issues with how certain boxers' nationality is represented on the site. For instance, there is a dispute over whether John Duddy, who is from Northern Ireland, should be listed as being from Ireland or the United Kingdom." Your version is this, in which you use "references" to support your opinion, not source your facts: "The Boxrec team changed the nationality of Irish boxer John Duddy to British on their boxing record database after it was initially listed as Irish.[8][9] A number of Boxrec members raised the issue with the owner of the website and Boxrec were contacted by members of "Team Duddy" to inform them that Duddy held an Irish passport. However, the owner of the website, John Sheppard, refused to accept Duddy's nationality as Irish.[8][5] A petition was then created objecting to Boxrec's refusal to amend Duddy's record.[5]" That gives undue weight to a minor controversy and takes sides in the issue. Why not a simple description like mine, which is free from bias?MKil (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- I give up! its impossible to have a straight discussion with the guy - impossible! One subject to the next without a thing ever getting resolve - he hurts my brain I tells ya!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is my version an accurate description of the issue? Is there any bias in it? Two simple questions. No need for profanity or dramatics.MKil (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- There is a time and place for that discussion - this is not it. Lord give me strength!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to have this discussion with you elsewhere, but your reply, when you weren't swearing, was that your insertions had references so they cannot be touched. You refused to discuss the content of your edits and instead relied on your interpretation of the rules (which I feel are incorrect, btw) to avoid addressing your bias issues. So when and where do you want do discuss the actual issues? I'm happy to take it to mediation.MKil (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- Hence the reason that I took the issue to the Boxing Project so that I could get other editors opinons on the issue. Seriously man you need to understand the VERY basics of how wikipedia works before you start opening your mouth. Read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS and then you will have the basics. I'm now finished here. Can some moderator please take this guy under their wing and explain to him some of the procedures before I throw my computer out of the window.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to have this discussion with you elsewhere, but your reply, when you weren't swearing, was that your insertions had references so they cannot be touched. You refused to discuss the content of your edits and instead relied on your interpretation of the rules (which I feel are incorrect, btw) to avoid addressing your bias issues. So when and where do you want do discuss the actual issues? I'm happy to take it to mediation.MKil (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- There is a time and place for that discussion - this is not it. Lord give me strength!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is my version an accurate description of the issue? Is there any bias in it? Two simple questions. No need for profanity or dramatics.MKil (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- I give up! its impossible to have a straight discussion with the guy - impossible! One subject to the next without a thing ever getting resolve - he hurts my brain I tells ya!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is this your idea of a civil and rational discussion - I see one person trying to sort stuff out and once person basically saying "f@ck you".--Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine, I'll admit that it could have been a better edit. When someone mentions that civilly, I can see the point. However, I don't believe I broke a rule here. I do believe that Vintagekit broke a variety a rule in this instance and in the past. Why do administrators continue to enable his bad behavior? I tried to discuss it civilly with him, I presented a compromise option, and he ignores it and continues to push his point of view using his unreliable references.MKil (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- VK, you're absolutely right IMO (those unfortunate enough to remember 2007 will know this isn't something I say very often). I really can't see what the fuss is about here. – iridescent 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wasn't there a parole when VK rejoined the community? - I am uncertain if it were to do with areas of editing or use of colourful terminology (or both). Has it lapsed or been put aside? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Lapsed long ago. – iridescent 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- VK's editing of boxing related articles was also never part of any parole. - Galloglass 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- The restrictions Vk is currently under is listed here. The ring-fenced civility parole, resulting in an immediate block, has expired. That said, a reversion to aggressive, abusive language of the past should not be tolerated either. We don't want to go back there. Rockpocket 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I purposefully tried to avoid the guy with this edit - gimme a frickin break for god sake!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- A number of people are supporting your content edits, but no-one is agreeing with the way you addressed the other editor. That should tell you something. If you find yourself getting wound up, you can always turn of the computer and walk away. Rockpocket 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Check out the discussion before this report and see if there was any abuse and see who was trying to approach the subject in a rational and policy based manner.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've read it all and don't really see the problem with your version of the article. However, the very fact that this discussion is at ANI should tell you that your method of dealing with the disagreement was ineffective. Believe it or not, admins deal with fucking morons on a daily basis, yet how many of them do you see being called that? Very little, because doing so tends to be counter-productive. How many times is this going to happen before you get it in that skull of yours: using abusive or incivil language is only going to backfire on you! Rockpocket 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you will find that I went about it right - I disengaged with the guy, posted on the Boxing Project page but then the editor that has the balls to report me hounds be on my talkpage just because I wont get into an argument with him. If I used some of what you think was incivil language then it was deserved at the time and then I dropped the discussion where it belonged in the trash!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are keen to remind MKil of our policies (on his talk page: Listen I dont make the rules, I am not telling you how to edit - I am telling you to abide by wikipedias rules.), so heed you own advice and abide one of our key rules yourself: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." There is no acceptable justification for calling him an idiot just because he has a content disagreement with you. Drop that sort of language, and people will help you deal with content issues, continue to use it and you become the problem. Rockpocket 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- If have been perfectly civil with the guy for months on end, and constantly trying to inform him of wikipedia policy with regards editing articles - I care a lot more about the content of articles then the odd fuck, bollocks or moron on a talk page - great your priorities straight! If you spent even one eight of this effort advising User:MKil of wiki editing policy then we wouldnt have this issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are keen to remind MKil of our policies (on his talk page: Listen I dont make the rules, I am not telling you how to edit - I am telling you to abide by wikipedias rules.), so heed you own advice and abide one of our key rules yourself: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." There is no acceptable justification for calling him an idiot just because he has a content disagreement with you. Drop that sort of language, and people will help you deal with content issues, continue to use it and you become the problem. Rockpocket 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you will find that I went about it right - I disengaged with the guy, posted on the Boxing Project page but then the editor that has the balls to report me hounds be on my talkpage just because I wont get into an argument with him. If I used some of what you think was incivil language then it was deserved at the time and then I dropped the discussion where it belonged in the trash!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- A number of people are supporting your content edits, but no-one is agreeing with the way you addressed the other editor. That should tell you something. If you find yourself getting wound up, you can always turn of the computer and walk away. Rockpocket 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I purposefully tried to avoid the guy with this edit - gimme a frickin break for god sake!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- The restrictions Vk is currently under is listed here. The ring-fenced civility parole, resulting in an immediate block, has expired. That said, a reversion to aggressive, abusive language of the past should not be tolerated either. We don't want to go back there. Rockpocket 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- VK's editing of boxing related articles was also never part of any parole. - Galloglass 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Section deleted, unacceptable for undue weight and soapboxing reasons. Find something else to write about and be nice to each other unless you want a time-out. Thatcher 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's nice to have a rational and neutral admin come out of retirement to give his opinion and then scurry off - I'll be reverting your illogical edit in 10,9,8,7,6,5............--Vintagekits (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Scurry off? Excuse me for not being online 24 hours a day. Thatcher 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Now it seems Vintagekits is trying to get me in trouble for bringing his uncivil behavior to light. He has reported me for violating 3RR [19], which I certainly did not do. The edits I made were not reversions but attempts to clean up the article and make it more accurate. And, violating the procedure for reporting me, he failed to notify me on my talk page of such a report. As his complaints below about me illustrate, it's clear he's trying to shift the focus from his uncivil habits.
His response to Thatcher (calling his/her edits "illogical") and his vendetta against me should illustrate that Vintagekits still has problems playing nice with people here.MKil (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- I am merely hightlighting your bad behaviour - in a perfectly civil manner to I might add. Have a read of Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions to see what exceptions there are to WP:3RR - an attempt "to clean up the article and make it more accurate" is not one of them!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- They weren't reverts, for one. One was a revert and the other three were edits designed to clean up the article and remove your original research and outdated references.
- You ask below what opinion you are promoting. You have called the labeling of John Duddy as a Brit a "racist" action on the Boxrec talk page. Your views on Irish nationalism are well known. You've been forbidden to edit certain Irish-related topics because of your trouble keeping a cool head on the issue. Your action pushing your opinion on the minor BoxRec dispute about John Duddy illustrates your trouble keeping your biases free on this issue.
- I'd invite anyone to look at the edit history of BoxRec. A variety of editors have tried to remove or modify the section in dispute. Vintagekits always returns to insert it. Only he seems to want it in. Most other users recognize that it is not only non-notable but biased and sourced with unreliable sources.MKil (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- I am merely hightlighting your bad behaviour - in a perfectly civil manner to I might add. Have a read of Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions to see what exceptions there are to WP:3RR - an attempt "to clean up the article and make it more accurate" is not one of them!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Vintagekits has been pushing this soapbox issue since October 2006, according to the talk page. Respectfully suggest he has made this article into a Troubles-related article under the terms of his probation, by his own persistent actions. His probation does not appear to be an Arbcom sanction, who enforces it? Thatcher 18:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Soapboxing is about promoting ones own opinion - what opinion am I trying to promote?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps your opinions about Irish nationality. Or perhaps merely your own opinions about the unreliability of this web site. Wikipedia is not your soapbox nor your coatrack. You can't tell us that the web site is unreliable, nor are you allowed to prove it by pointing to inconsistent data on the web site itself (as that is original research). You may report what reliable sources have said about the web site. Your sources to date include anonymous people posting to the web site's internal forums and to the editor of a blog for a particular boxer. Neither of those are reliable sources, and you have been told this on the article talk page since 2006. 2-1/2 years is more than enough proof that you are trying to use the article as a soapbox for something. Thatcher 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have explain this before but you are choose to ignore it (Thatcher is an apt handle for you and possibly explains your bias) - it is not my opinion that Duddy is Irish OK!, it is everyones except BoxRec.
- You choose to ignore the validity of the sources provided - Thatcher by name and nature!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. Duddy's nationality is not at issue. The issue is that the web site is claimed to have problems with reliability of national identification of its boxers. For which proposition you have offered original research and a single blog posting. Drop it. And by the way, making ethnic insinuations based on my user name does not help your cause. Thatcher 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- No YOU are missing the point. Also "ethnic insinuations based on my user name" - I dont know or even care what ethnicity you are. This is becoming moronic!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- VK, you are violating both the letter and the spirit of WP:NPA by commenting on Thatcher's user name, and no amount of "it's not ethnic" wikilawyering can obfuscate that - and that's before we ever get to your use of the word "moronic". Lapsed parole or no, if I see any sign of continued personal attacks from you, I'll be issuing a block. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- To answer some questions, the current ban is a community topic ban due to expire this coming may, enforceable by any administrator. This particular issue does NOT fall into the formulation of the topic ban. That having been said, it isn't particularly exemplary behavior by vintage kits, but I think the behavior problems will be better handled if everyone walks away from it for a day or so. If people don't, then corrective actions will be justified. I'll get into the underlying issue within the next day or so if I can, if y'all can wait until then.--Tznkai (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. Why wait upon Tznkai? The underlying issue is incivility - which is policy. Below that is vk's failure to accept responsibility and admins' failure to respond to that. An admin (any admin) should block vk for 24 hours for incivility. Next time it should be 48, etc. Meanwhile a list should be created of "unparliamentary"/incivil terms. Such as moron, dick, idiot, bullshit, bollocks, frickin, fuck, fcuk. Automatic blocks would follow any breach. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- To answer some questions, the current ban is a community topic ban due to expire this coming may, enforceable by any administrator. This particular issue does NOT fall into the formulation of the topic ban. That having been said, it isn't particularly exemplary behavior by vintage kits, but I think the behavior problems will be better handled if everyone walks away from it for a day or so. If people don't, then corrective actions will be justified. I'll get into the underlying issue within the next day or so if I can, if y'all can wait until then.--Tznkai (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- VK, you are violating both the letter and the spirit of WP:NPA by commenting on Thatcher's user name, and no amount of "it's not ethnic" wikilawyering can obfuscate that - and that's before we ever get to your use of the word "moronic". Lapsed parole or no, if I see any sign of continued personal attacks from you, I'll be issuing a block. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- No YOU are missing the point. Also "ethnic insinuations based on my user name" - I dont know or even care what ethnicity you are. This is becoming moronic!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. Duddy's nationality is not at issue. The issue is that the web site is claimed to have problems with reliability of national identification of its boxers. For which proposition you have offered original research and a single blog posting. Drop it. And by the way, making ethnic insinuations based on my user name does not help your cause. Thatcher 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps your opinions about Irish nationality. Or perhaps merely your own opinions about the unreliability of this web site. Wikipedia is not your soapbox nor your coatrack. You can't tell us that the web site is unreliable, nor are you allowed to prove it by pointing to inconsistent data on the web site itself (as that is original research). You may report what reliable sources have said about the web site. Your sources to date include anonymous people posting to the web site's internal forums and to the editor of a blog for a particular boxer. Neither of those are reliable sources, and you have been told this on the article talk page since 2006. 2-1/2 years is more than enough proof that you are trying to use the article as a soapbox for something. Thatcher 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- But, erm ... the majority of those terms are not uncivil. We do, after all, have WP:FUCK and WP:DICK. It's all in the usage of the word, and not the word itself. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- But, I digress ... the user shows no concept of desiring to understand WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL .. in fact, they have the nerve to justify their actions. If you were in your church/temple/mosque/religious meetingplace, and the leader said something you disagreed with, would you stand up and say "look you fucking idiot, that's pure BULLSHIT"?? No, you wouldn't because that's not what you do in that community. Wikpedia is no different - it's a community,and incivility is not valid. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Standing on principle is fine and all, but isn't particularly useful for problem solving. I'm looking at this as a problem that needs to be fixed. If you're intent on getting an admin to punish Vintagekits' uncivil behavior, you'll have to wait for someone else. If however, you want someone to at least try to remove the behavior pattern and solve the underlying content dispute, I will attempt to do justthat, later today, if at all possible. Either way, even a proper handling of incivility needs to weigh in the context (it is context that gives meaning to words, if I say "you fucking bastard" to my best friend after he beats me in cribbage, no one should blink twice, if I say "You're utterly incompetent" after someone has spent two weeks lovingly crafting a new article, I'm being far more incivil) and also look at ALL parties - all of which takes time, time I have not been able to spend yet. Its also worth noting that since the latest version of Vintagekits' community ban, we have had few problems, and he's more or less been staying out of trouble, or so it seems to me. That too, has to be weighed in.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tznkai, you are right, I shouldnt have blown up and the guy no matter what the provocation and circumstances were. Sorry about that - obviously I have calmed down as it was a few days ago but you can just see from the reasons that I got from MKil how difficult it was to deal with him. I dont accept that I have been trying to push a POV into the article - I do accept I was trying to include the issue but I also included comments about many positive aspects of the site. Like I said in this post - have look at the way it was before I got a hold of the site - MKil seems very interested in the article but never has made a positive contribution to it.
- To Thatcher, sorry for snapping at you to, heat of the moment and all that, you were just doing your job and gave your own fair assessment of the sitiuation - no hard feelings - I will now back away from the article and find improved sources. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate that a lot. I did look at Lexis/Nexis for news sources about Boxrec.com; I found hundreds of times where they were mentioned as a source but no stories about them. This does not mean there aren't any reliable sources about the nationality problem, but they may be hard to find. Thatcher 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Standing on principle is fine and all, but isn't particularly useful for problem solving. I'm looking at this as a problem that needs to be fixed. If you're intent on getting an admin to punish Vintagekits' uncivil behavior, you'll have to wait for someone else. If however, you want someone to at least try to remove the behavior pattern and solve the underlying content dispute, I will attempt to do justthat, later today, if at all possible. Either way, even a proper handling of incivility needs to weigh in the context (it is context that gives meaning to words, if I say "you fucking bastard" to my best friend after he beats me in cribbage, no one should blink twice, if I say "You're utterly incompetent" after someone has spent two weeks lovingly crafting a new article, I'm being far more incivil) and also look at ALL parties - all of which takes time, time I have not been able to spend yet. Its also worth noting that since the latest version of Vintagekits' community ban, we have had few problems, and he's more or less been staying out of trouble, or so it seems to me. That too, has to be weighed in.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It appears it is only certain editors who get blocks or even have blocks considered for civility as can be seen below in the post I made about Attacks and harassment. Can't see anyone scrolling down the page to call for sanctions against editor who has made them. Seems like double standards, either every breach gets the same treatment or then it is seen to be cherry picking who to sanction. BigDuncTalk 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that VK has acted here with commendable patience and restraint. I am not so old or so delicate as to be wilted buy a little colourful language and I am always surprised by those who are. Whatever, it is now obvious that VK has decided to turn his back on those here, and I don't blame him. I hope that can be the end of this rather strange business. Giano (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
(Undent, replying to Vintagekits) Vintagekits, I appreciate that you're willing to apologize, especially to Thatcher. Wiki gets frustrating, and I'm sure most people around here will be able to forgive and forget. In the future, try not to transfer your invective from the user you are in conflict in to the administrators and other users trying to come in and settle the problem. Administrators, as a breed, tend to try to create peace (whether we are any good at it is another problem.) They are not ignoring the content issue as such, but trying to deal with the problem at hand - and it behooves you not to create a civility problem, so that the content issue IS the problem at hand. I myself will get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to endorse Tznkai's comments and join him in thanking VintageKits for apologizing. We all get worked up sometimes, or make mistakes, and too few of us are willing to say "I was wrong". But those words can smooth out a lot of conflicts. I suggest that a break would be good for all the involved editors, and then content issues will be easier to resolve. Will Beback talk 01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
User:MKil
This editor has been causing distruption for a while and it seems to have gone under the radar without a word being said.
1. With this edit he removes references and replaces it with a fact tag and also removes a sourced full section and replaces it with unsource OR. 2. Removes sourced material. And when asked to provide a source for the edit and to justify it he states that "If I think information is outdated, I can delete it. I don't have to get a reference to prove it". and when informed of the rules of Original Research he went on to say "You're not the boss here. I can edit how I like. Unlike you, I've never been banned. If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined."
This is a blatant breach of WP:OR and WP:CIVIL and is a threat to continue his disruptive editing pattern.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's a response to a completely uncivil user who has been banned in the past for his abusive behavior. I stand by my edits to remove inaccurate and biased material from Wikipedia. If any of my edits were inaccurate or a violation of policies, let's discuss.MKil (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil
- 1. What had my previous blocks (no block for my actions in over a year) got to do with your refusal to provide references?
- 2. You were told your edits where we original research, you said you didnt need to prove anything you said was right - that is a breach of WP:OR - have you ever read this policy?
- 3. You threatened to continue this distruptive pattern which is blockable in itself and was also a breach of WP:CIVIL.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Pointy Tit-for-Tat isn't going to help you here, VintageKits. ThuranX (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Pointy!!!! You are having a laugh right!! Its nothing of the sort. What do you want me to do just ignore the behaviour and blatant disruptive editing that has caused this BS? Address the issue or dont post!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am a coarse person, and prone to describing low-quality content how I see it. I still manage to make myself understood without calling anyone a moron. I'm guessing you're at least as articulate as I am. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to comment on my actions then there is a discussion above - if you want to comment on MKil's actions do it here. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- See my comment above.--Tznkai (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mkil, your behavior was just as uncivil as Vintagekits' was. Your tone was patronizing at best. At worst, it is exactly the same tone someone who was taunting Vintagekits' would take. I don't know you, so I havn't a clue whether that was deliberate, but that doesn't stop it from being a problem. Do not make it personal. Ever. Users under restrictions are NOT punching bags, and you need to take care not to even appear as if you are using them as such. I'll get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I endorse this view as well. Don't poke a bear and then complain about getting a reaction. Will Beback talk 01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mkil, your behavior was just as uncivil as Vintagekits' was. Your tone was patronizing at best. At worst, it is exactly the same tone someone who was taunting Vintagekits' would take. I don't know you, so I havn't a clue whether that was deliberate, but that doesn't stop it from being a problem. Do not make it personal. Ever. Users under restrictions are NOT punching bags, and you need to take care not to even appear as if you are using them as such. I'll get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- See my comment above.--Tznkai (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to comment on my actions then there is a discussion above - if you want to comment on MKil's actions do it here. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am a coarse person, and prone to describing low-quality content how I see it. I still manage to make myself understood without calling anyone a moron. I'm guessing you're at least as articulate as I am. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A comment on civility
I want to make something clear, in relation to my comments to Vintagekits and MKil above. Accusing other editors of biased editing is inflammatory, and in most contexts, uncivil. Excessive snarkiness is uncivil. Rudeness is uncivil. Being patronizing is uncivil. Being a jerk, dressed however well in gentility, is being uncivil. For whatever reason, many Wikipedians take their on wiki reputations as model Wikipedian writers very, very seriously. Telling these people that they are POV pushers, bringing up their block logs is uncivil. These acts are no less uncivil (or at least not in any way that matters) than the obvious swearing and name calling that happens. It is all unacceptable behavior, not because we're running a kindergarten, but because of how quickly uncivil behavior derails actual conversation.
In case it needs to be said, we administrators, as a breed, need to be able to deal with civility issues. Our job however, is to defuse the problems, not to sanction the users involved. In addition, when we can, we should help out with the content issues underlying, and if we can't do it ourselves, we should try to find someone who can, otherwise, what use are we really?--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
User:SgtAvestrand1956
I don't know what to make of SgtAvestrand1956 (talk · contribs). The editor makes the same couple of minor changes, and then self-reverts them, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again at Physician assistant. The edit summaries, when present, have nothing to do with the edits.
The page has had previous problems with sockpuppets of User:Nrse, but this is a different type of editing. I doubt that a single user making even a dozen edits a day is going to annoy the servers that much, but it's... very odd. The user, who has been blocked once for edit warring, is uncommunicative and nonresponsive. Should anything be done? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's very...interesting. In all my time at Wikipedia, I don't think i've ever encountered something like this. Although it doesn't tax the servers, it does screw around with the page's history. I'm hesitant to say for sure what should be done, but I would think this would be treated like a violation of WP:3RR. Maybe? Firestorm Talk 03:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Get rid of him. A fundamental aspect of this encyclopedia is that it is built through a collaborative effort. Editors should have to respond to other editors and not just blank their talkpages whenever anyone makes a comment there. Especially when the edits are clearly unproductive/weird. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, they shouldn't just blank their own talkpages, but they can. Blanking one's own talk page isn't grounds for complaint (an exception or two exists), though flooding article histories with useless edits might be. -kotra (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Its not so much the blanking per se, but the blanking is a further indication that he has no plans of discussing his weird edits with anyone. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, they shouldn't just blank their own talkpages, but they can. Blanking one's own talk page isn't grounds for complaint (an exception or two exists), though flooding article histories with useless edits might be. -kotra (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Get rid of him. A fundamental aspect of this encyclopedia is that it is built through a collaborative effort. Editors should have to respond to other editors and not just blank their talkpages whenever anyone makes a comment there. Especially when the edits are clearly unproductive/weird. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is rather tempting to block this account as none of their edits are really productive and it certainly looks like an attempt to swamp other editors' contributions to the page... but there is still a plausible case to be made that the user just can't decide which version of the text is best, and is editing in good faith. If anyone would like to extend a hand to this editor and offer advice on editing/previewing text, that would be great - otherwise, I don't think any serious harm is yet being done, so I'm not going to intervene. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've been watching Physician assistant as well, and concur that the editing pattern there has been unhelpful. Not sure what to make of the editor--as has been said, he's not hugely harmful, but nor is he at all helpful. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps they're trying to get their edit count up before applying for the mop? --Ged UK (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think we are probably looking at 2 people here, working from the same computer (and they always forget to log out, or use the remember me function). I think a (short) block would be in order, to get a response perhaps. Lectonar (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The reverts are happening within less than a minute at times, so I think that's probably not it (though it is amusing to imagine people physically fighting over a computer so they can edit Wikipedia). My theory is this user is experimenting with how well we fight vandalism. -kotra (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Harrying a Move Request
Goran.S2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Goran.S2 has posted a link to a Talk:Ana Ivanović#Requested move at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Serbia, a group he knows to share his opinions. He had previously done this with a similar discussion at Novak Djokovic, which has since turned into a battleground between Eastern Europeans and WP:UE supporters. I asked him to remove his message as inappropriate canvassing at the Move Request discussion and at his Talk page, but he has refused.
Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In a similar vein, User:Biruitorul alerted a friend to the same Requested Move to votestack the opposition, as seen here. When brought up on the Talk page, the friend, clearly misunderstanding votestacking, says it's okay because 'Biruitorul knows that I have taken part in all such "let's drop the diacritics" debates in the past, and I have made my opinions clear for each and all to read.', which confirms that Biruitorul was contacting someone he knew to share his beliefs.
I hate to see this discussion turn into a war beyond its worth, but the canvassing is clearly meant to turn it into such. It seems like a common-sense example of WP:UE to me, but the discussion so far has not been very constructive, and with the latest developments, it appears to have lost any chance of being so. Any advice? --Yano (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to see myself hauled before this tribunal again. Neither Göran nor I told anyone how to vote; we were merely informing parties we knew to be interested of an ongoing debate (which, I might add, is itself being conducted in rather sly fashion by Yano, taking one article after another and proposing that diacritics be removed thence, instead of centralizing the discussion somewhere). Surely there's nothing wrong with that? After all, no one can know what's going on across Wikipedia at all times. Dahn even confirmed I did not canvass him, and no one has bought the canvassing charge in Göran's case (on the contrary).
- So can we dismiss the case already and move on to more substantive arguments? - Biruitorul Talk 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Biruitorul, I think you've misunderstood votestacking. This seems like a clear example of it, and I included you here in the hopes of making it as clear to you as it is to me. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. As for your second point, there is already consensus on Wikipedia to follow English usage, so accusing me of being sly for enforcing that guideline seems a little over-the-top. --Yano (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- A discussion is not a vote, and I've read the canvassing guidelines many a time, thank you very much. Regarding the second point: it would be more straightforward for us to have one central discussion rather than bringing up the same issue every week. - Biruitorul Talk 17:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:UE and the other naming conventions were all discussed by the Wikipedia community before they were adopted through consensus. That central discussion you wanted already took place, and it was in favor of common usage. If you want that to change, then renew the debate on a wider scale. --Yano (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- This doesn't have much to do with ANI, and in any case, we use diacritics routinely, regardless of usage. Nothing wrong with that, provided redirects exist. - Biruitorul Talk 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Baselessly claiming that readers of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Serbia cannot or will not support WP:UE and framing this dispute as "Eastern European vs. upholders of WP:UE" is both offensive and only serves to poison the editing atmosphere around the discussion.
The message left at the wikiproject was a single neutral notification at a general venue, and thus not a breach of WP:Votestacking. That you happen to believe that the audience of this message will not respond to it in an unbiased fashion is a personal prejudice, and nothing more. The only admin intervention required is a watchful eye on the discussion, to prevent a discussion on the quality of sources being recast along nationalistic lines. Knepflerle (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your response is hinged on the idea that my claim is baseless, but we have seen from evidence that it is not. Your choice of language in characterizing me is also rather extreme: "poison," "offensive," "personal prejudice," etc. I don't believe any of that is an accurate reflection of the issue or my concerns. --Yano (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even if you personally perceive a correlation, this does not imply cause. Extrapolating your observation into stereotyping based on nationality is unfounded.
- Just because an editor comes from Eastern Europe does not mean they can not or will not understand and uphold WP:UE, and stereotyping them as such is offensive. Just because an editor reads a certain national WikiProject does not mean they can not or will not understand and uphold WP:UE, and stereotyping them as such is offensive.
- Framing an editor's interpretation of policy based on their nationality is not an accurate reflection of the editor. Claiming all cogent dissent in this discussion is entirely based on nationality is not an accurate reflection of the issue or their concerns. Knepflerle (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Members of that Project who responded to canvassing in the past prefered the Serbian spelling. It follows that the same person who did the first canvassing would expect a similar turn-out. In essence, User:Goran.S2 was calling for backup. We do not want Talk:Ana Ivanović to turn into the same perennial debate that Talk:Novak Djokovic did following its broadcast at Serbian Wikipedia and Project Serbia, but this is exactly what will happen if these simple matters of WP:UE keep turning into battles of national pride.
- Your exercise in logic is also too elementary to accurately reflect the entire situation, because there is more at play than you consider in your scenario. --Yano (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Perceived) past correlation is not a basis for permanent stereotyping. The closing administrator will weigh the quality of argument presented, but in doing so is not going to assume a priori bad faith of a user based on nationality or membership of a WikiProject. Until then, it's far from clear what administrator intervention is needed right now. Knepflerle (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Administrative action might be to make User:Biruitorul aware of his votestacking and to rectify the inappropriate canvassing by User:Goran.S2. Ideally, the move request would also be settled before it explodes. --Yano (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Perceived) past correlation is not a basis for permanent stereotyping. The closing administrator will weigh the quality of argument presented, but in doing so is not going to assume a priori bad faith of a user based on nationality or membership of a WikiProject. Until then, it's far from clear what administrator intervention is needed right now. Knepflerle (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I confirm that I am aware of your opinion that I votestacked. No admin action is needed to make me aware of that. - Biruitorul Talk 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Being willfully quarrelsome is not helpful. --Yano (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me? You called for an admin to make me "aware" of your opinion that I votestacked. I am confirming, for about the fifth time, that I am aware of your opinion, for what it's worth (precious little). No admin is needed to make me aware, but I would certainly like it if one came by and closed this rather farcical thread. - Biruitorul Talk 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Being willfully quarrelsome is not helpful. --Yano (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Digwuren has arrived to strike out some of my and others' comments, in addition to accusing me of assuming bad faith in the edit summary. The discussion is starting to focus on individual editors and larger causes rather than on how to comply with guidelines. --Yano (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to argue with no one, but Yano mentioned my name at least five times, so I must say something. This articles are part of Wiki project biography, Serbia and tennis. Before, we had discussions on Wiki project Tennis, calling people from project to help with some tennis articles; so what is problem for calling people from project Serbia (which is articles part of) and asking then if they want to participate in open discussion? I didn't say "vote for this, or that", and I didn't "recruit" people from some other part of Wikipedia community, I just ask people for their views from project Serbia (as same I would ask from project tennis), which is article part of. I know, people from project Serbia don't share the same views as Yano, but everyone have a right to vote in survey; and I think there lies the problem. --Göran S (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is an important task for each country project to formulate a guideline over transcribing names related to their country. It appears that members of Serbia project choose to use diacritics in Serbian name. It was their choice. Members of project Russia have different rules, members of project Estonia use another rules, project China uses another rules, etc. It is reasonable and commendable that tricky cases are discussed on the project. It is not canvassing. If a name can be related to different projects with different rules then the announcement should be made on all the relevant projects otherwise it indeed can be seen as canvassing but fortunately it is not the case here (thanks goodness). If somebody thinks that members of a project adopted wrong sets of rules then it is their task to persuade the project to change the rules rather than change a few random names by stealth Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1
Note: I've removed the archive templates on this. I request that people please stop that nonsensical practice of "archiving" threads that are still active. None of us gets to tell everybody else to stop talking. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Well, not resolved as such, more that there is nothing to resolve. Silly spat, go out for a beer and come back tomorrow, it will all seem trivial. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC) - (unstriking) Maybe I did happen to see a breezy kerfuffle fluttering by on my talk page, I guess it's been shooed off to another meadow now. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}}And I'm striking this through because it isn't resolved, this thread was created to have other eyes look in upon the disruptive editing, and incivility, by the two aforementioned users. Just because the thread on Gwen's page is closed does not make the issue resolved.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
All involved parties have been notified, please give them the chance to comment on this issue.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Although I would just love to try and summerize events.. Well, I don't exactly trust my fingers with such at thing at this very moment, so instead, I'm going to ask for the extreme patience of several admins and users to just look over this thread at the admin Gwen Gale's talk page.
Besides that page, I would also like to point out these last two diffs, which first show Ohconfucius changing his name to Osomething, clearly making fun of me when I couldn't remember his name during a thread creation, as seen here. Secondly, please look at the following diff, which shows Ohconfucius responding to another user in a mocking manner: Oh, quelle surprise to find you here. In need of friends perhaps?.
This is all I have to say for the moment, I'm going to go take a break from anything in regards to this thread, so I can force myself to calm down.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you upset that Ohconfucius posted the Wikiquette alert? You need to brush that off. People were clearly in your camp; you should have read it and laughed it off. Posting this to yet another forum is simply giving Ohconfucius and Tony - trolls, as far as I'm concerned - more loudspeaker time. Tan | 39 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- And you want us to do... what? seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Although I am sliglight miffed at that, that is not the reason for this thread, but, as stated, their behavior at Gwen Gale's talk page. Apparently they seem to have the idea that on wikipedia, a user is guilty until proven innocent, and they don't have to provide any evidence at all to back up their claims.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- To Seicer, I would at least like to see some comments on the matter, at most, a short block for the obvious disruptions on Gwen's talk page. Either way, I want some outside opinions on what transpired, and if anything should be done about it. In my opinion, this behavior is outright disruptive, and shouldn't be allowed to take place again.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally went to Gwen Gale's page this morning to ask a question, and saw the exchange - it reminded me of 2 coyotes and a deer I saw yesterday. Gwen's patience is incredible. The actions/interactions on Gwen's page and their continued actions on the WQA are truly not the type of actions we want to see on Wikipedia. Oh, and someone should teach them what "Plaxico" means - they seemed to think that was a serious warning of some type. Gwen Gale's comments on this are vital. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- No comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
BMW is it your position that user disagreements and complaints are disruptive? If so, WP might need to find a way to replace human editors with computers. ("2 coyotes and a deer"? Could spell out your meaning? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's a waaaayyy big stretch there. There is a significant difference in "could you please explain what happened here" and "you fucked up (even though you have proven you didn't) and I expect you to resign NOW!!", followed by a pile on by others with the same misunderstanding (or possibly an axe to grind). One is a disagreement/complaint. The other is a pure, unadulterated multi-prong attack. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- BMW, I understand that you have worded your position strongly because you are sure that you and Gwen Gale are completely in the right. In fact, I admit that I do not actually understand the issues involved in this particular dispute. I am not taking sides on that. What worries me is the attitude the anyone who disagrees with BMW, or with Gwen Gale, or with just about any administrator, can go shit in his hat. More over, even if you actually are completely right and Ohconfucius and Tony1 are completely wrong (which I doubt), I still do not see why the very occurrence of talk page argument over an administrator's actions was brought to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Malcolm, I really don't care who's right in the entire situation because my point was to let others decide right/wrong. I accidentally stumbled upon an absolute mugging - it was pretty vicious and vindictive. It was not a discussion, it was pure attack. I rather loudly stated that based on the type of "discussion", the place for it was NOT on a talkpage as it had progressed well past bloodshed, and if they had actual concerns, they belonged in a place like here. In fact, I challenged them to have the same discussion in view of admins, make their point, and let admins deal with it by consensus, rather than the coyote2-deer event that was going on. I had no dog of my own in the fight. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- "absolute mugging"? Give me a break. Gwen Gale is an experienced administrator and knows how to take care of herself in an argument. Moreover, she had at least two other users defending her, and throwing plenty of their own accusations. I think that her defenders were actually rather personally abusive, while her accusers seemed to stay focused on the issues. What I see in this thread is administrators putting down a revolt by a few the wiki-peons, who should have been out in the wiki-fields editing instead of complaining about the whippings handed out by the overseers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a look at your own posts here, Malcolm. Instead of doing something constructive, you thought it necessary to add yet another "give me a break" opinion to the mix. The argument was/is dying down, people are going about their business now. Try not to re-flame the forest fire, okay? Tan | 39 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- "absolute mugging"? Give me a break. Gwen Gale is an experienced administrator and knows how to take care of herself in an argument. Moreover, she had at least two other users defending her, and throwing plenty of their own accusations. I think that her defenders were actually rather personally abusive, while her accusers seemed to stay focused on the issues. What I see in this thread is administrators putting down a revolt by a few the wiki-peons, who should have been out in the wiki-fields editing instead of complaining about the whippings handed out by the overseers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input Tanthalas. Did you really write your edit just to let me know that you have nothing to say? (I see above that you called some other users "trolls"....and that now you are worried about me igniting a fire.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Admins closing ranks?
Please note that the convo on Gwen Gale's page which is referred to above is now in the her talkpage history: here it is. So what's going on there—administrators closing ranks? Tony1 is admittedly a little long-winded, which is caused by his quoting WP:ADMIN (apparently an offense in itself) but he's a very hard-working and respectable editor, and it's completely weird for GG to blow him off with statements unsupported by a single diff and without mentioning a single name, and altogether making it nightmarishly difficult to check up on anything that she says. Instead we get from her "another admin"; "a member of arbcom" (let's all hold our breaths in veneration); "three admins"; a blank refusal to reveal where and when she warned the user; and a claim, hanging out there without evidence of any kind, that "All your points have already been thoroughly addressed, whatever you might assert otherwise."
Admins are supposed to set an example. The most important principle to come out of RFAR/InShaneee, which reminds me to a quite spooky extent of this argument, and this self-righteousness on the part of an admin, is that
- "Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner."[20]
Please discuss in a timely manner, Gwen. Don't blow off users. Not even if you think they should have requested info in a meeker and humbler fashion, as you complain here:
- "Had the editor begun this thread in a civil, polite, AGF way, asking for diffs of warnings and blockable behaviour (along with why the behaviour was taken to be blockable by at least three admins), I would've been happy to give them and talk about it but this kind of wanton incivility and lack of any assumption as to good faith throws off strong hints of wikilawyering, with the whole thing spinning off into a disruptive waste of time."
The accusation of "wikilawyering" presumably refers to Tony's quotes from WP:ADMIN; I honestly don't see what else it could be.) Compare another RFAR/InShaneee principle:
- "All Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to keep their cool even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While personal attacks are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them without retaliating. Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack."[21].
Not that I see any PA in Tony's posts. GG is being excessively touchy in speaking of wikilawyering and disruption.
Epithets such as "troll" (from Tan), flung at Tony in the course of the dialogue, are shameful IMO. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
- Your opinion here does not change my thoughts, just for the record. As far as I am concerned, both these editors in question were trolling. Ergo, trolls. It's a pretty good thing I couldn't care less if you think this is "shameful". Tan | 39 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be interested in helping to drive the drama that surrounds these two editors. seicer | talk | contribs 17:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
He began that thread with the section title Breach of admin policy without a shred of AGF. The blocked editor had already been warned twice, had rm'd the warnings from his talk page (acknowledged), was blocked for edit warring with the arbcom clerk and coming out of that block, uploaded a cropped joke image of the clerk with a caption meant as a personal attack. I blocked the editor three days for a long pattern of incivility. The editor knew he had been warned twice and was fresh out of a block for edit warring in the same arbcom project space. Nevertheless, the editor went on the attack as he had before (I could care less about that) and was then blocked for a week by a member of arbcom who also shut down his email and talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale, it is possible that I misunderstood, but it seems to me that what Bishonen requested was diffs and names. What you have given above is just a repetition of what is already on your talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale, you are very welcome. Does your reply mean that you do not intend to supply the names and diffs to support you statement above? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Malcom, since you seem to have the idea, that the diffs and names do not exist. Why don't you try a bit of hunting. It shouldn't take long. I found the diffs already. The reason, in case you may not have gleamed it, that Gwen is not responding to you, it is because you are asking for the diffs in a rude manner, a manner that assumes bad faith, and to respond to an incivil question like that would be to feed the trolls. You don't give a user what he or she wants because he or she is being rude to you. You deny the request until he or she can learn to keep the incivility to his or her self.
As I have stated so many times before, if you're going to accuse someone of doing someing, back it up with diffs. The burden of evidence to the contrary is on the accuser. If you're going to accuse someone of abusing their admin status/powers, then you need to make sure that you are right, and search for a lack of warning, if you are arguing about warnings. You need to make sure that you are not wrong in your accusation, and assuming you don't, and someone else does, you need to admit that you were wrong and/or drop the discussion.
Besides the two warnings presented above, there is simply the incivility in the edit summery of the first warning, obviously showing the user didn't really care to stop the incivility he was warned against, or should I note the picture? It was a cropped image of an arbcom clerk drunk, with the caption of Notwithstanding the caption on his userpage, this Wikipedia Administrator was clearly not at work when this picture was taken. There is no way you can argue that that was civil.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Does User talk:Praveen4nes strike anyone else as kind of odd?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
User talk:Praveen4nes ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs) just came across my radar. It is chock full of personal e-mail addresses, phone numbers, names, etc. Does it seem a mite strange and rather delete-worthy to anyone else? --Dynaflow babble 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have deleted it. Only 1 contribution by the owner, therefore nothing that needs preserving. Kevin (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
USers Willking1979 & Marek69
i deleted a section on mongoloid article with an explanation in my edit summary, then USer:Marek69 came along and accused me of blanking without explanation. i left a note on his talk page expplaning what had happened, and reverted him on mongoloid article again. USer:Willking1979 came along and reverted me, and accused me of blanking without explanation, which i did explain. i left a note on his talk page, and then reverted him. he removed my note and totally ignored it, and reverted me, and i reverted him back, and then admin J delanoy accused me of vandalism.
i suspect these are trigger happy users who use huggle primarily to increase their edit count, rather than genuinly fight vandalism, as willking1979 and marek69 totally ignored me, and willking accused me of the same thing twice, thinking that since i am an ip, no one would beleive me and everyone would beleive him, and thinking i woulnd take this up this far. these usrs should be stripped of their huggle tools and blocked for a period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.134.46 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
i am going to handle this on the talk page of the article
User:Mezlo & an extended history of vandalism...
RE: Mezlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user seems to have a long history of semi-unchecked vandalism... I happened across a new article created by them (which was subsquently tagged for CSD), and then after leaving a message on their talk page, decided to take a look back through their previous contributions... It seems that the user has recieved several warnings (including a final warning) for their vandalism, and has even been blocked once for it... The user removes the warnings from their talk page after a while, and continues vandalizing... He/She/It has recieved 7 inappropriate article warnings, 2 level 3 warnings, and 1 final warning... Of his/her/it's total 262 contributions, 94 have been chatting with friends on user talk pages, 83 to userspace, and only 58 to mainspace (of which at least half (probably closer to 75%) have been vandalism)...
I do not believe this user has been an overall benefit to the project, and originally thought about just taking it to AI/V, but then realized that this situation needs more than a simple report and a short block... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mezlo is unlikely to win any prizes for his work here, but he's done nothing specific in 2009 that is blockable except for this vandal edit today and a similar one on Feb 11. Why not leave him a final warning? Do you think this is the type of record that would justify an indef block? EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, he has not done much recently, which is why I brought it here instead of AI/V... I was not implying anything, more along the lines of having someone with more blocking experience than myself look into the case to decide if an extended block, a final final warning, or maybe just a detailed note or adoption should be the outcome... What I'm afraid of (after reading his talk page, and his comments on his friends talk pages) is that he is part of a small group of schoolchildren that really have no interest in bettering the Project as a whole, but are only here to chat with each other and cause minor mischief... I'm afraid if it goes unchecked it will continue indefinately, and I'd rather nip this activity in the bud now... whether that means he stops the vandalism and starts making useful edits, or he stops using the project altogether... maybe I'm just looking into his contributions too critically... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mezlo has so few edits it is not worth taking the matter very seriously. Keep bringing things to WP:AIV as you see them, and if there is a long enough record of blockable behavior, more serious action could be taken. We're just not there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, he has not done much recently, which is why I brought it here instead of AI/V... I was not implying anything, more along the lines of having someone with more blocking experience than myself look into the case to decide if an extended block, a final final warning, or maybe just a detailed note or adoption should be the outcome... What I'm afraid of (after reading his talk page, and his comments on his friends talk pages) is that he is part of a small group of schoolchildren that really have no interest in bettering the Project as a whole, but are only here to chat with each other and cause minor mischief... I'm afraid if it goes unchecked it will continue indefinately, and I'd rather nip this activity in the bud now... whether that means he stops the vandalism and starts making useful edits, or he stops using the project altogether... maybe I'm just looking into his contributions too critically... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Alright... like I said, it was more than a simple AI/V report... just trying to get more eyes & opinions on the situation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked him for a week. Registered users are to be kept to higher standards than anonims and he already got a vandal block Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
possible vandalism
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
There is a template on the page 68 that looks legit but is full of red links, and I wonder if maybe a vandal found it and messed with the dates that are redlinked. Can someone look into this? I'm only on the page on account of homework, and unfortunelty due to the homework can not spare the time to investigate further. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I only saw two redlinks, in the infobox under the dates for the Hebrew calender. Perhaps it was a random glitch? J.delanoygabsadds 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) No, it's left over from the MediaWiki upgrade (see WP:VPT). Fixed by purging the page. Hermione1980 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
"disruptive editing"
I was told by admin at AIV that this venue was more appropriate for this matter:
- 99.131.138.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Editor has introduced dubiously sourced material to a series of articles tonight, no references, no edit summary, continuing past final warning Deconstructhis (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Deconstructhis (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- 98.227.102.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Ditto, almost, for this character, whose schtick is not to introduce new misinformation but to change what's there. Somebody gave him a template telling him This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, an empty threat, as he just kept on going. The particular edit I noticed was this one, smugly made about 50 minutes after that "only warning" and about 40 after a milder one. Morenoodles (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Both IPs are blocked for 24h Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Alex. Morenoodles (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Alex. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
How to delete a malicious photo?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I don't know how to get this deleted other than noting it here [27]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's on Commons. You'll have to get a Commons admin to delete it. --Carnildo (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The uploader is clearly Photoshop-challenged. A four year old child could do better than that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- God I wish they would at least be creative about it. Chillum 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Done Perhaps we should have a category for active wikipedians who are also commons admins? -- Avi (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely. So how did that photo end up on Commons in the first place? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Uploaded by a brand-new commons editor commons:User:Newjerusalem2009 -- Avi (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is he blocked yet? Where can I see a list of his so-called contributions? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone really, really likes wheels. Cause for concern?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
WAAAALLLLEEEEEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An old friend, perhaps? --Dynaflow babble 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, just another of the many wannabes. WP:DENY and WP:AIV next time ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, something might be going on. See Spock on crack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly this. --Dynaflow babble 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but one of these always crops up every few weeks / months. They usually get tired of it, or drop to the level where they don't stand out against the background noise. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, something might be going on. See Spock on crack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly this. --Dynaflow babble 05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It's amazing how, after all this time, Willy still has a fanclub. Firestorm Talk 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Harvest09's disruptive editing
This concerns WP:TE, WP:DE, and maybe WP:COI.
Introduction
- 1) Harvest09 (talk · contribs) is the same editor as JScardilli (talk · contribs). After four months, is a WP:SPA working on one article.
- 2) This editor's first edit was on 11 October 2008 on Don Stewart (preacher) and has continued making edits to exclude critical information and include promotional material on miracles.
- 3) In four months the user has not edited a single article except Don Stewart (preacher).
- 4) This editor says he is in personal contact with the preacher/association and is writing a book on the subject/Stewart. ("it will be in my book".)
- 5) This user's motivation is clear and his edits as well as discussions are unproductive.
As the diffs show, this user is attempting to white wash established facts on an article he is personally tied to. The material below starts with simple obstructing edits and misquoting policy to flat out lies, vandalism, and WP:TE. To keep the material off he simply says its "controversial" then misstates wikipedia policy without giving any specific or clear reason. I have not found one productive edit by this user in his four months of editing on wikipedia. As such, I think the adminstrators should provide sanctions for his disruptive behavior. I recommend at least barring him from editing the Stewart article per WP:COI if not a stronger punishment to keep this behavior from happening again. BBiiis08 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Examples
- Attributing motives to other users
- 1) First edit on the talk page claims "There seems to be an effort by some on the internet to criticize ridicule, and demean ministers of the Pentecostal culture..."
- 2) Speaking to another editor: Mike Doughney "undid at least 5 edits at one time, but hid at least 4 of his edits so it looks like he only did one. (How does he do that?) Aren't you only supposed to undo 3 at one time within 24 hours? He is using a non-NPOV web site to reference his edits, (Trinity Foundation), that only criticizes Pentecostal ministers." And near the bottom of the diff, "I don't like to see Wikipedia used to just smear someone even if they are kind of odd or unusual."
- Accuses the sources (organizations and living authors) of lying
- 3) In this diff he is told not to call a living journalist a liar/Ayatollah.
- 4) In this diff "following statement was made up by Fisher and attributed to the Dallas Morning News..." (Fisher is a living journalist.)
- 5) In this diff he cautiously does it again calling a living author/journalist and an organization "...Fisher and Trinity don’t accurately quote the news articles that look so officially referenced in their theological dissertations." I read the articles, and in fact inserted the Dallas Morning News article and this editor is incorrect--as explained below. Furthermore this same Dallas Morning News is the one he wants removed below (see #12-15)
- 6) In this diff, without evidence, claims "I'm reading the cited articles on this page and many of them are misquoted, don't link to the sight listed, or only give one point of view." They were not misquoted or mislinked. But yes sources have views, but that's not reason for exclusion.
- In contrast, he says Stewart's autobiography (a book by the article's subject) "seems like the most NPOV."
- 7) In this diff he states: "In the section "What Wikipedia is not,” it says something about people using Wikipedia as another web-site for themselves, I think the Trinity Foundation is doing this with Stewart and many of the ministers they don't like."
- 8) He wrote: "The Trinity Foundation also puts itself in as many Wikipedia articles as it can, in an apparent attempt to create links that help boost its web page’s rank on Google. When Wikipedia defines itself, “What Wikipedia is not.” The use of the Trinity Foundation in this manner is a violation of this policy."
- 9) He wrote: "I’m not fond of the Trinity Foundation, because I feel they are biased against Pentecostals and ignore abuse by all other ministries who do the same things."
- 10) He wrote: "The Trinity foundation only criticizes Pentecostal Ministries and is not NPOV. There is no criticism or even on going investigations on the Trinity Web page of non-Pentecostal ministries such as Catholic Priests who molested young parishioners, and the money spent to defend and settle these cases..."
- 11) He wrote: "...the only source cited that had anything to do with Stewart was provided by a service using an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned."
- He is wrong the other sources have everything to do with Stewart. As for the "old photo copy," it actually google's online archive. You be the judge: "Arson Could Be Cause". Kingman Daily Miner. September 22, 1982. Retrieved 2009-05-17.
- 11.2)Repeated again: He wrote: "The newspaper source BBiiis refers to wasn't Google. He may have been lead there by Google, but it is a low budget internet newspaper photocopy service."
- Exhaustive effort
- He tries to get material removed by first claiming its false(see #3-11) then its misworded then just wants to remove it. The whole several day discussion is about one or two sentences (depending on the context) currently included:
In 1996, the Dallas Morning News noted that some of Stewart's fundraising letters were written by Gene Ewing, who heads a multi-million dollar marketing empire, writing donation letters for other evangelicals like WV Grant, Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts.[1] Included in some of Stewart's fundraising letters was Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural healing power.[1]
- 12) In this diff makes several claims says the article clams Ewing was the creator of the green prayer cloth (which is incorrect). Then he asks "Why not say Rex Humbard or Oral Roberts they are mentioned? Why is it important to drop a random name here anyway?"
- He is told what he wrote is incorrect. Yet, editors agree to add Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts to the sentence.
- 13) Subsquently, in this diff, says "An editor has said the prayer cloth was a direct mail piece written by someone other than Stewart." (This is untrue.)
- 14) In this diff, asks "Where does it say in the Dallas article that the Green Prayer cloth is a direct mail piece by Ewing?" (It doesn't.)
- No such thing was ever said [28][29]
- 15)In this edit he nows realizes that wasn't stated, but still wants a WP:RS-newspaper article on one who wrote some donations letters removed. He asks "but wouldn’t it be better to just not mention the prayer cloth"?
- 12) In this diff makes several claims says the article clams Ewing was the creator of the green prayer cloth (which is incorrect). Then he asks "Why not say Rex Humbard or Oral Roberts they are mentioned? Why is it important to drop a random name here anyway?"
- This is a good example of showing how this editor is not being reasonable and is very disruptive. After two and a half weeks of discussion, the user wants to ignore the sources and discussion to remove a sourced sentence. The sentence wasn't even critical either.
- Exclusion of material because its/could be critical
- 16)Second edit on talk page says "You could criticize almost any church or ministry for fund raising and lifestyle...This kind of criticism does not fall under Wikipedia NPOV guidelines." (Shows an attempt to exclude material simply because its critical and misunderstands WP:NPOV policy.)
- 17)Claims a link from google news is "an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned." That is his reason for removing a paragraph with several independent newspaper sources (as you can tell by the different footnote numbering in his quoted block). Ignores all the independent sources mentioned here to make a broad and unapplicable usage of BLP.
- 18)In this diff he wants the same paragraph removed now because "it described very serious events of murder, riots, racial church burning, implied mail fraud, etc. in a way that didn't make it clear who was involved." No explanation of what's confusing or unclear despite the several. Another broad BLP claim to white wash material.
- 19)Based on his misunderstanding over the one or two sentences(above 12-15), he wrote "I think the solution would be to remove the paragraph as it stands, with the inaccurate material and add the paragraph as follows with just the facts from what Stewart is doing and saying." (If a one claim is wrong then you remove that sentence not the whole paragraph.)
- 20) In this diff, "Better Business Bureau doesn’t endorse its members anyway so it seems to be included only as a negative comment violating Wikipedia NPOV." The BBB wasn't a "negative comment," but simply said Stewart didn't disclose his finances so they couldn't judge him.
- Unproductive discussions
- 21) In an attempt to move things forward Another editor asks "Harvest09, are you suggesting that this sentence word-for-word needs to appear in the reference?"
- Harvest09 doesn't answer the question, but brings up another (and incorrect issue).
- As the editor pointed out, "In the webpage which quotes the Dallas Morning News article, the phrase you quote does not exist, so the charge that it was "made up by Fisher" seems questionable at best."
- As stated above, nonetheless the wording was changed and Harvest09 still wanted all mention removed.
- Removes cited material
- 22) Removes a cited fact that he lost his tax-exemption.
- 23) Removes the cited sources again.
- 24) he removes a source ("Watch where you make donations," USA Today, February 3, 1992) with a summary "No link to verification removed for WP-V and NPOV."
- 25) Wholesale removal of paragragh his given reasons "it isn’t supported by the reference cited and seems to be there only as criticism WP-V NPOV" aren't true. As anyone can visit the refs/links.
- Misleading edit summaries
- 26) Summary marked "Corrected improper use and non-use of a comma", but is was a deletion of a name.
- 27) "I corrected language that was NPOV" was an entire white wash. Once the white wash was complete his next edit removed the word controversial from the lede. This left the article a halfiography.
- 28) Summary read "Removed random name in statement. WP-V NPOV" The name is mentioned in the context of the article and the source is link WP:V/RS.
- 29) Summary says "Corrected information found in Bussiness Journal article", but if you look below he added "and no charges were ever filed" to a sentence sourced to the IRS, which is not made in that source. Also note he undid the other change a little while later leaving in the false IRS claim.
- Promotional material
- 30) First edit includes promotional material it gets removed then added again then deleted, and added for a third time.
- 31) Maybe not too promotionally but this uncited OR gets added repeatedly by him.
- 32) He wrote: "I don't think anyone really cares that much about this page, but it is a good one to practice on." Later, its clear the article is not wiki-practice because he's writing a book on the subject!
- 33) Wants material removed, but "it will be in my book."
An example attempting to work with user, most recent issue
- 34) I sought opinions on this at the AN/I board for opinions, but got little help. Seeking to add mention of police shoot out (and the resulting three deaths) as well as riots and fundraising issues that happened related to Stewart led me to create Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph section (also mentioned in my AN/I thread). Another editor responded that it sounded good for inclusion and there was no response from Harvest09 for three days (though he kept editing the talk page). This lead me to add the paragraph assuming there was no issue.
- A few hours later Harvest adds some material to the article.
- Then he posts a question about the sources and I respond.
- His next post calls the paragraph "offensive" and wants the material removed citing "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."
- Then he writes on another editor's talk "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?"
- I asked for my for any "specific sentence/source ... concerns". Again he gave no specifics. I asked again for specifics quoting myself. He again gave no specifics.
Violates WP:CIVIL
- 35) He wrote: "Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?"
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs)
- No offense, but way too long of a report to be effective. You'll get a better response here if you can boil it down to 2-3 points of interest. Dayewalker (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sławomir Biała
- Sławomir Biała (talk · contribs) is a new user who has been acting oddly. He has asked to be blocked for being a vandal. Created an insulting page. Insulted other editors. And now posted a fairly inappropriate comment to his userpage [30] that insults various ethnic groups. Bringing for review here before blocking for disruption. MBisanz talk 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- We don't need that sort of behavior disrupting the work of other users. Kylu (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Child cannibalism
Can someone have a look at this article Chinese child cannibalism and determine the appropriate course of action if any? I'm off to sleepy land. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The only source being someone's web page, and even he said "This Story is not Presently Known as Verifiable". Deleted. yandman 08:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sockfest
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
There's apparently an ongoing problem at Strong Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Given the following: diff = diff = diff ≈ diff = diff = diff = diff = diff, that gives us a whole drawer-full of socks. They are:
- Sowazaadizmorni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Itoljuchihanocarir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Chiluflaaliz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Dondeestalupe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lupitaarroyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Iditwajuasgmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ditiheerii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Chihanocarir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Happy blocking. --Dynaflow babble 07:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Moving to SPI. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chihanocarir. A CU should deal with it. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Attacks and harassment
Could an admin have a look here please. This editor has been blocked for personal attacks or harassment before here and was told that the next block would be indefinite by admin Barneca. As you can see they have not heeded the warning with the latest attack on me. I asked Black Kite to have a word on his talk page which resulted in this breach of WP:CIVIL and maybe if you didn't act like a little schoolchild gobshite you wouldn't be called one. Honestly, reverting, ignoring, accusations etc. Thats not the traits of someone who isn't a gobshite. I'd say your a fifteen year old billy no mates still in school, the fat spotty kid in the corner with no real prospects. Thats certainly the way you act. Is that personal enough for you, you irritating, infuriating little man? Black Kite then warned this editor here but editor still puts the attack back on the Dunmanway Massacre talk page. BigDuncTalk 09:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Something tells me that it might not take a genius to work out that this is a newly created sock of a certain estabishled user.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman was being very reasonable with them here, and asked that they just stop the provocations. I am concerned that they do edit without logging in if this is the type of conduct they engage in. Troubles articles can be rough enough without IP's which are a consistant problem. --Domer48'fenian' 12:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I kindly asked Big Dunc to explain how I'm breaching regulations with my post on the Dunmanway talk page. I want this thing to end but there is no justification for removing the original post. Big Dunc is refusing to discuss it, preferring to arbitarirly remove my post, despite the fact two admins have already looked at the post.
And no, I am not a 'sock' of an established user.
I have not personally attacked Big Dunc since receiving my warning, the last post I made to him was a request for him to explain how I'm breaking the rules. This reporting of me has been a waste of everyone's time. Can we not just let the matter drop, and allow the post to remain? No other admin see's a problem with it and Big Dunc is making a mountain out of a molehill. (Bear in mind he was extremely uncivil with me before I personally attacked him, for which I regret. He simply reverted my post without offering an explanation. When I ask him for one he reverts that post. I'm doing my best but it takes two to reach a compromise.) NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For example, take a look at my most recent edit to Big Dunc's talk page, which has inexplicably been removed. I cannot fathom his reason for reverting a very simple and what I thought to be a courteous question aimed at putting this thing to rest. I'm sure the admins we each have dragged in are tired of this so can we please just agree to disagree, this is such a waste of everyones time. NewIreland2009 (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It has to be said that Dunc 'n' Domer are very difficult editors to deal with. They often act in concert, appear to "guard" certain articles, and are often quick to revert other editors, but slow to engage in discussion. They are quick to revert to WP guidelines and run to admins at the slightest thing, when genuine engagement in discussion is more likely to produce consensus. One user of whom I am aware (User:The Thunderer) has already been driven off WP by his frustration at this pair.
This post will probably provoke the usual keejerk NPA response by one or both of the two, but it is not intended as a personal attack: merely an explanation of the context in which editors on Irish topic are operating, and the resulting frustration which can provoke those with a short temper into making attacks such as that under investigation. The pair are very adept at using the WP guidelines (or, more particularly, their colossal knowledge of them) to their advantage.Mooretwin (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Mooretwin, so you agree they were attacks on editors, and should stop. You might also consider removing this attack on me here and your accusations here the very one you were warned about here and given final warnings. I have ignored being called a liar twice in recent days by you. The first time I tried to be reasonable and the second time I just ignored it and moved on. So stop now. --Domer48'fenian' 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Lets see what Admin's think? --Domer48'fenian' 14:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- When I see an editor call another editor a liar on an admin noticeboard, I want to see a diff, strikeout, or block. Posting on Mooretwin's talk accordingly. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Domer provided the diffs himself, but - anything for an easy life - I'll strike it out! Regards. Mooretwin (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Mooretwin could you strike through your comments hereand here also thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Good lord, such drama. Can people just grow a pair and let things go? This is getting silly. NewIreland2009 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Dynamic IP spamming Self-injury
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Hi, the following is taken from WP:AIV, after an IP persistently added their link to the Self-injury page. The page has been semi-protected by Agathoclea, however they expressed a desire to have this discussed. Specifically because the home page of the link they keep adding has a sentence that calls for volunteers to help them with their article. Any ideas what if anything should be done, I expect once the semi-protection has expired 77.222.x will just start spamming again but I might be wrong.
- 77.222.21.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Dynamic IP persistently adding non reliable source to external links of Self Injury article. 77.222.x IP has been warned through edit summaries but as a dynamic IP I don't know how to warn via talk space. There is also a comment at the start of the external links section taht warns against adding such links which the IP is also ignoring. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- A more complex issue. The website in question actually refers to their efforts in getting linked on wikipedia and is calling for volunteers to help with "their article". This might need wider input so I think AN/I might be a venue and URL blacklisting might help. Agathoclea (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The link in question is Cutting From the Teenager's Perspective. There is a discussion on the Self-injury talk page about which links are and are not appropriate, this certainly falls into the latter category. Jdrewitt (talk)
:I can't find the section on the external site that talks about linking to Wikipedia. --Ged UK (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I found it, it's on the main page, talking more about emotional intelligence rather than cutting specifically. [31]. --Ged UK (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- A link to http://www.eqi.org/ is also persistently being added to the Emotional Intelligence article by 72.222.x and is being removed each time. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is also being added by Irafromhungary, no doubt a sockpuppet of 77.22.x ? Jdrewitt (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did spend a little time on the site in question yesterday and found that there was an agenda to a)control a particular article on wikipedia and b) to get links to their site onto a range a wikipedia articles. A link search also suggested that they are quite successful. My semiprotecting the article was only a shortterm measure until a better solution can be found. The intention of the website are definetly public service but are they WP:RS and is spamming the way to promote? Agathoclea (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think they're a relaible source. They certainly appear laudable, but they are just using WP as a promotional tool. I totally understand why, from their point of view, but this is clearly spamming. We should be making it clear to User:Irafromhungary and others about the relevant policies, and remove any such links. If it continues, I would have thought some continued reminders/warnings within the {{uw-spam}} sequence would be the best way forward, then if necessary, blocks. Perhaps an email to the site from an admin might be a good idea clarifying what we're all about? --Ged UK (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did spend a little time on the site in question yesterday and found that there was an agenda to a)control a particular article on wikipedia and b) to get links to their site onto a range a wikipedia articles. A link search also suggested that they are quite successful. My semiprotecting the article was only a shortterm measure until a better solution can be found. The intention of the website are definetly public service but are they WP:RS and is spamming the way to promote? Agathoclea (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is also being added by Irafromhungary, no doubt a sockpuppet of 77.22.x ? Jdrewitt (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- eqi.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- I see this added indeed by quite some in the 72.222.xx.yy range, and some other IPs which seem close, and more IPs (but also regulars use this site?)
- 79.143.100.254 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- uses more domains.
- 79.143.100.253 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- uses more (2) domains.
- 85.96.85.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- focus on eqi.org
- 77.85.67.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- focus on eqi.org
- 85.94.107.178 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- focus on eqi.org
- 85.94.122.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- focus on eqi.org
- 77.222.21.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- focus on eqi.org
- 77.222.20.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- focus on eqi.org
- 77.222.21.8 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- focus on eqi.org
- 85.55.3.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- focus on eqi.org
- Irafromhungary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- focus on eqi.org
Would XLinkBot be a solution to keep the site a bit clean, or should it be blacklisted? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, this maybe a cross-wiki case, I'll report it to m:User:COIBot/XWiki/eqi.org for the IPs, all will be in a linkreport in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/eqi.org. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Drexelenglish
Check out User:Drexelenglish. Class project or something? With bonus copyvio images! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Images deleted as obvious copyvios. I've left a note for Drexelenglish (talk · contribs) pointing them at Wikipedia:School and university projects and explaining what Wikipedia is and is not. I've also deleted their user page, quoting WP:NOT in an attempt to avoid the rather more WP:BITEy CSD#G11, as the whole thing was an advertisement for something called Project H.O.M.E. Any admin should feel free to undelete if Drexelenglish asks for the material back. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 10:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:UAA is overflowing
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
There's quite a backlog at WP:UAA. Any takers? --Dynaflow babble 10:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- This should really be at AN, not AN/I. — neuro(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...someday after my RfA, I'll be jumping in there in a heartbeat. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, this was dealt with. Calton found and reported a whole lot of spam usernames, causing the number of reports to go up from around 6 to around 56. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...someday after my RfA, I'll be jumping in there in a heartbeat. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Page move - vandalism accusation- why?
While stub-sorting I found Judge George Carroll and thought it should be at George Carroll (judge). I have since consulted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and read "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation", and concluded that the article name is actually probably OK as coming under that exception (the other GC is a hockey player, recently moved away from the base name), but I don't think that explains why my attempt to move the page got a reply about suspected page move vandalism, and (as far as I can remember - apologies if not) instruction to come here for help. I don't now want to move the page, but I'd just like an explanation, as I frequently move misnamed stub pages and have never had this response before! PamD (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I made the move for you (although, yes, I see you didn't want the move after all, but I still think a move was called for). What will have happened here is, most likely, that you've hit a blacklist wildcard entry to prevent abuse by a certain page move vandal. It's annoying but probably necessary - and certainly no reflection on you and the good work on renaming that we've all seen you doing. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the explanation. Didn't know about wildcard blacklists etc. Makes sense. And thanks for the compliment! Have now done far too much work on other assorted George Carrolls... must get on with some Real Life offWiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sock block request
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Per this SPI report, could I ask an admin to block User:Saving My Face (a confirmed sock-puppet of indef blocked User:Nimbley6)? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fantastic, thanks! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Unjust block
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I was blocked for "persistant vandalism". I was not signed in when this happened. The article I edited was Proxy war, in the Cold War section, all I did was, after a sentence about why the U.S. and USSR fought proxy wars to avoid nuclear war, I added in parentheses "see mutually assured destruction. This is not vandalism. It was in fact a minor edit adding a link about a relevant topic. Gtbob12 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure? There's nothing in your block log. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nor is there anything in the ip's block log. This edit is the top edit of the article. It wasn't reverted as vandalism. I have no idea what this is about.--Atlan (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have indefinitely blocked the offending user (User talk:Johnlemartirao) following a review of past issues. Marking as resolved. Tan | 39 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- And I've cleaned up their (frankly bizarre) templating from the last few days. So that's all wrapped up. And much quicker than usual. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 14:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Need protected redirect created
<redacted alternate title - check history> is locked, presumably to prevent the creation of a one-event biography. I have created an article on the incident itself, which is well-referenced. I need an administrator to redirect <redacted alternate title - check history> to YouTube cat abuse incident. It can remain protected as there should be no reason to have a full bio on this person. *** Crotalus *** 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this might fall under BLP - certainly when a minor is the focus of an article we should be very careful about including their name on Wikipedia due to the high visibility of articles here on the web. I'd oppose creation of this redirect and I've temporarily redacted mention of his real name here (and will do so on the article) until their is consensus that this isn't a BLP problem and it's appropiate to include his real name and/or redirect it. Exxolon (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, BLP nightmare, I wouldn't touch this with a 10 ft pole. –xeno (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't see this as a BLP nightmare. Names were reported in reliable news sources, so, if the event is appropriate to document, so are the names, minor or no. The question to me is whether this article falls under WP:NOT#NEWS, which I think it does.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- We already have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident, fyi. Given that the alleged perpetrator has not yet been convicted, if I understand correctly, then we are way into BLP-vio territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd keep an eye on Cruelty to animals, there was some recent activity there that looking back may be related. Verbal chat 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not always appropiate to include names Kww, it's been established by consensus, for example, that it's not appropiate to include the Star Wars Kid's real name in the article, even though we can easily find reliable sources for it. Exxolon (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't fight very hard to change that, even though I disagree at heart. I see a significant difference between "acting like a doofus, and not realizing how hard people would laugh", and being arrested for torturing small animals. I can at least understand a desire to protect the former, but not the latter.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not always appropiate to include names Kww, it's been established by consensus, for example, that it's not appropiate to include the Star Wars Kid's real name in the article, even though we can easily find reliable sources for it. Exxolon (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd keep an eye on Cruelty to animals, there was some recent activity there that looking back may be related. Verbal chat 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- We already have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident, fyi. Given that the alleged perpetrator has not yet been convicted, if I understand correctly, then we are way into BLP-vio territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Should it become clear that the article about the incident will be kept, we will do well to discuss the inclusion of the name at the article's talk page (with a direction thereto at RFC/B); if a consensus is borne out for inclusion, as probably it will be, we might then create a redirect. Joe 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs) Can someone please deal with this? I'm tired of his continued personal attacks against me and other editors. In WP:AGF, I have made several attempts to help him understand WP:MEDRS, one of the basic principles for NPOV of medical articles, but instead he decides that attacking me personally is the best route to take. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It does rather seem that MichaelCPrice is very insistent on adding synthetic material to that article, and is being excessively aggressive in shouting down those who insist on reliable independent sources to support the inferences he chooses to draw. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, he's taken to implying I'm lying again. He's using all of his tendentious editing skills to try to get his way, and he's not even close to getting anyone to support his POV. Can someone deal with him? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Nationalist edit warring at Sfiha and other food articles
Today I have noticed that there are some anon accounts trying to slant articles on various Levantine foods in their favour.
For example at Sfiha, 90.212.155.29 (talk · contribs · count) introduced the term "Greater Syria" which 193.219.146.95 (talk · contribs · count) [replaced with Lebanon]. I tried [replacing with the non-nationalist Levant] which has now been [reversed in a series of edits] by 94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs · count) whose [removal of multiply sourced material here] suggests alignment with a Syrian nationalist group, despite the use of a UK internet address which the 90.212.155.29 id also has. As for 193.219.146.95, dispite the Vilnuis location, the history fo edits (especially today) suggest a strong Lebanese affiliation for the individual concerned.
Would admins be supportive of reinstating my de-nationalised text? (My reduction in cats is inline with the MOS on over-categorisation anbd actions on other food artilcles such as hummus.) And is semi-protection of this and other articles appropriate?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
More Shalom socking
Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) is at it again. As any action on my part will be taken as evidence of my part in the Evil Cabal Conspiracy Against Him and any inaction will be taken as Proof That I Finally Realise He's Been Right All Along, can someone uninvolved (there must be someone) look over the latest sock's history and revert/block/ignore as they see fit? N.B. – AFAIK he's not technically violating WP:SOCK here as his main account's edits don't overlap with this one. – iridescent 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. Not familiar with the circumstances of Shalom but the last edit was rather superfluous. -- Samir 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Either Shalom or an impersonator. User:Kivel/draft needs deleting. Thanks, Majorly talk 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's I. I endorse the block and expected it. I'm not sorry for hijacking Iridescent's editnotice. She's not sorry for falsely accusing that I harassed people in real life. The world moves on.
- See User talk:Kivel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.165.121 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Either Shalom or an impersonator. User:Kivel/draft needs deleting. Thanks, Majorly talk 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
someone start an RFc on User: Kuebie
- Lengthy text redacted, here is the diff. I have informed this user how to start RfC's if they so desire -- Samir 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Self-revert warning
Ben1985 (talk · contribs) - An account doing nothing but reverting itself. Anyone else smell an impending attack? Doulos Christos ♥ talk 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Quite probably, yes. I've often thought though that the self-revert warning should run to more than one level. Might be easier in cases like this to get a block. --GedUK 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- could just be a new user messing about. I'd keep an eye on it, but it doesn't seem like too big of a deal, IMO. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Irregular move of the article Països Catalans by User:Martorell
In the last 48 hours this user has personally decided to move the article Països Catalans to Catalan Countries up to 3 times witout following the steps explained in the Wikipedia:Requested moves page.
This article is about a political/linguistical catalan concept with quite some similarities to the german anschluss which is not translated in the English wikipedia.
May I inform that this matter has been subject of thousands of kb for the last years in the talk page (here, here, here, here and here , making it a much controversial subject
Most of the users participating agreed to call it Països Catalans as proven by their messages here in the article's talk-page in order to achieve some kind of consensus so as to remove a NPOV tag (if I recall correctly).
User:Martorell as been warned today in the article's talk-page and in his own user-page about having to follow the steps in order to request potentially controversial moves in order to keep some civilized manners towards the rest of the wikipedia users. His answer... another move! He has even modified my very own words in the message ([35]), which is strictly forbidden by wikipedia rules.
For this reason, I'm asking for help so as to prevent this user from continuing moving the article's name. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Harout72
I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user.
At the moment I made my first edit to that article I was aware that some edit war was going on, but didn't pay attention to include the source preferred by Harout72. After he reverted my edit, I wrote him on his talk page that he shouldn't be deleting sourced material. We have continued the discussion a little. Today I proposed a compromise on the talk page of the article. Not between me and him, because I do not see myself as an involved party and have not changed the article after that first time, but between Harout72 and the anonymous user. Harout72's reaction to my proposal warrants an official warning, I feel.
- He is not responsive to my appeals for compromise. In stead he continues the edit war.
- He is implicating me personally of having ulterior motives.
- He is completely convinced that he is 100% right in all his arguments, and does not give any merit whatsoever to counter-arguments.
- He is using belittling language to me (in my perception at least), by stressing his experience on Wikipedia as opposed to mine.
In short: he is being confrontational in that conflict and uncivil to me.
After placing {{adminhelp}} on my talk page with precisely this same information I was referred to this page by Ten Pound Hammer.
User:RMHED
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be on a trolling spree. Making sickening jokes at Deaths in 2009, single-handedly changing speedy deletion criteria without consensus. There's probably more in the edit history. Aecis·(away) talk 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I hope the end isn't near :( seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) He's already violated 3RR at Template:Db-g11. Considering RMHED has two prior blocks -- including one very recent one -- for 3RR violations, I have issued a 72 hour block. An editor this experienced should know better. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (Addendum, the fourth edit fell just outside of the 24-hour period. I still think this violates the spirit of the rule, as well as the "Not an entitlement" clause. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC))
- Actually, the edits on Deaths in 2009 clearly constituted Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Has this been taken into account while blocking? — Aitias // discussion 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) He's already violated 3RR at Template:Db-g11. Considering RMHED has two prior blocks -- including one very recent one -- for 3RR violations, I have issued a 72 hour block. An editor this experienced should know better. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (Addendum, the fourth edit fell just outside of the 24-hour period. I still think this violates the spirit of the rule, as well as the "Not an entitlement" clause. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC))
- Calling me an arsehole
RMHED just called me an arsehole. Could someone please extend the block accordingly? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- eh, I thought we kinda agreed sometime a while back not to extend blocks for blocked users venting on their talk page? –xeno (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Oh calm down. Editors routinely vent on their talk pages after a block, maybe take it off your watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Xeno, but if it goes back I'll happily reblock to prevent talk page edits. As someone else said, a proper break would be useful. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Though, violating WP:NPA is entirely inacceptable. — Aitias // discussion 02:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) And again. Could someone please intervene? — Aitias // discussion 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Kevin locked the talk page... Hopefully he come to his senses when the block expires... (From the looks of it, he's trying to commit wikicide). –xeno (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think Aitais needs to get a thicker skin if he's going to carry on kicking a man when he's down. DuncanHill (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Kicking a man when he's down? That makes it sound as if somehow Aitais is the culprit. RMHED can only blame himself for his block, and his behaviour before and after the block was uncalled for. Aitais has got nothing to do with it. Aecis·(away) talk 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Aitias is deliberately goading RMHED both here (which is what led RMHED to call him an arsehole) and on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tend to agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it qualifies as goading, but I do think that Aitias should disengage, if only out of caution. (I will do so as well if asked)--Tznkai (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The only person responsible for RMHED's behaviour is RMHED himself. Noone else can be held accountable for it. Aecis·(away) talk 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- RHMED is now IP socking on his page, following the block. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Aitias is deliberately goading RMHED both here (which is what led RMHED to call him an arsehole) and on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Kicking a man when he's down? That makes it sound as if somehow Aitais is the culprit. RMHED can only blame himself for his block, and his behaviour before and after the block was uncalled for. Aitais has got nothing to do with it. Aecis·(away) talk 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think Aitais needs to get a thicker skin if he's going to carry on kicking a man when he's down. DuncanHill (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- ^ a b "Mailbox ministry: Direct-market evangelist brings in millions lawyer says it all goes back into his mission". Dallas Morning News. March 10, 1996. Retrieved 2007-05-17.