→Harassment by anon IP: for shame |
→USER:BLUEMARINE, aka Matt Sanchez: collapse |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
== [[User:Bluemarine|USER:BLUEMARINE]], aka Matt Sanchez == |
== [[User:Bluemarine|USER:BLUEMARINE]], aka Matt Sanchez == |
||
{{hat|1=This has degenerated into more heat then light. Removing the source of much of this drama just to have it pop back in from other angles is absurd. If this is going to continue, move it to User_talk. --<u>[[User:AKMask|<font color="000000">M</font>]]<small><sup>[[User talk:AKMask|<font color="000000">ask?</font>]]</sup></small></u> 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{archivetop}} |
{{archivetop}} |
||
Someone can go on and block me for reporting this but since no one has seen it or done anything about it, contrary to all the claims during my topic ban circus that someone else would handle any violations by this user, I'm reporting it here. |
Someone can go on and block me for reporting this but since no one has seen it or done anything about it, contrary to all the claims during my topic ban circus that someone else would handle any violations by this user, I'm reporting it here. |
||
Line 402: | Line 402: | ||
:The situation sucks. I hated doing this last night. But I remain confident that it was necessary and have not yet seen signs that he will accept the community issued topic ban going forwards. |
:The situation sucks. I hated doing this last night. But I remain confident that it was necessary and have not yet seen signs that he will accept the community issued topic ban going forwards. |
||
:You and others have asked for more admins willing to sanction longtime contributors or friends, or fellow admins, when people cross the line. I think I count A* as a longtime contributor and someone who was widely respected by myself and the community as a whole. But he repeatedly and relentlessly crossed the line and has so far not shown an inclination to stop. I would like to see him get past this and come back - but that has to be on the communities terms, without involvement with Sanchez in any way. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
:You and others have asked for more admins willing to sanction longtime contributors or friends, or fellow admins, when people cross the line. I think I count A* as a longtime contributor and someone who was widely respected by myself and the community as a whole. But he repeatedly and relentlessly crossed the line and has so far not shown an inclination to stop. I would like to see him get past this and come back - but that has to be on the communities terms, without involvement with Sanchez in any way. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
== [[User:Sweetfornow]] copyvios, no communication == |
== [[User:Sweetfornow]] copyvios, no communication == |
Revision as of 21:04, 29 August 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) |
|
I was told on WP:WQA to bring this here if it continued. Thuran X has been uncivil and downright impossible to work with on the Glenn Beck talkpage and doesn't seem to be able to WP:AGF at all. This behavior has also taken place at the Carly Fiorina page, as was brought up at WQA. In the initial WQA report I included the following examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Carly Fiorina talkpage,Carly Fiorina the last of which earned him a warning. His reply to the warning: shows that he learned nothing, and has been supported by his edits to the Glenn Beck page after the WQA was put up (he was notified on his talkpage of it being there): [6] [7] [8] (With reply: [9]), [10], [11], [12]. Finally one editor snapped, and ThuranX continues to accuse everyone of having an agenda. I ask that something be done so that civil editing can be resumed. Soxwon (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Minor, but there also appears to be a clear-cut instance of WP:CANVASS: [13]. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm leaving the canvassing thing to the side because I see that as minor and not relevant to the main point. I've been monitoring the Glenn Beck page for a little while now, and did recently have to warn ThuranX about civility (it's not the first time I've done that unfortunately). Obviously his block log points to an ongoing problem there (I have blocked him, recently, for a 3RR violation but not for incivility), and I believe there was a recent ANI thread about this very issue though I'd have to check. ThuranX arrived at the Glenn Beck article angry about the content, which I think was understandable since there were/are serious problems, but his editing style has not done him any favors there, and indeed has proven a significant hindrance to collaborative editing.
- From what I've seen, ThuranX is a conscientious editor who has made a lot of good contributions to the project. But he (I believe "he" is correct) is also often a bit of a bull in a china shop, and tends to inflame situations unnecessarily.
- History has shown that we simply do not deal with these situations, and I think we can all think of any number of examples where a good contributor is disruptively uncivil, repeatedly so, and we simply cannot come up with a good way to handle it. I don't think ThuranX will appreciate this thread or care much what is said here, but I'm wondering if there are suggestions (assuming others agree in seeing this as a long term problem) for how to proceed. A user-conduct RFC would be a logical step at some point, but I'm not sure we're there yet. If Thuran would simply agree to chill out/tone it down there would not be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that will happen given past interactions I've had with him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the general sense of what do we do with good contributors who are too abrasive, we do the same thing we would do with a so-so contributor who is too abrasive. There is no provision in any of the policies that say "If you contribute X good edits, you get a free pass on Y civility or personal attack violations". Editors who feel that way absolutely boggle me. a single incident of incivility might be enough to drive 1 or more contributors from the project. This concept of "net benefit" is also ridiculous. Because the moment they make another editor unhappy with editing here, I don't care how many good contributions they've made, they are not a "net benefit". This is a huge problem on wikipedia. I've seen editors complain about this before, and I've seen news stories and other social media stories pick up on this as well and the complaints it generates there. There is a general perception that some editors are protected no matter what they do, and it has a grain of truth. Think about some of the wheel wars and drama we've had over certain users. In pretty much all of those cases they were in clear violation of policies, yet they were coddled, snuggled and given cookies by some editors for months or years before they were finally (if ever) cut off. Yet another user doing 1/10th of what they did was indef, the key was thrown away, and unblock requests or appeals were quickly shot down and everyone carried on with their day. Wikipedia is a big project and if people can't work with the project and discuss things civilly then the community needs to do something about that. There are lots of existing editors and new editors everyday to do the job. The project doesn't live and die on a single editor but it does live and die on how the community feels.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's time for an RfC so much as it is for an indef block, or maybe a six month timeout contigent on this user firmly agreeing to mend his ways. His block log shows many instacnes of incivility but, as far as I know, he has apologized for few -- if any -- of them. That other users annoy him is reason enough to write (as a mild example) "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." [14] Alternatively, as ThuranX has been complained about again and again and again and nothing is ever really done, perhaps it could be made clear that he has special dispensation to act as he does without consequence. IronDuke 02:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we should start WP:Protectedusers so people can refer to it before they file a complaint to see if there is any point? It might cut the drama down significantly. It would also be a handy one stop for news organizations. In all seriousness, if short blocks don't do the trick, do we have an admin who can make the hard block and take the next appropriate step?--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure ThuranX falls under the "protected" editor category. He's been blocked eight times by my count and unblocked twice, with neither of those being drama-inducing "wheel war" blocks from what I can gather. Editors who are "protected" generally get away with incivility without being blocked, or if they are blocked someone swoops in and unblocks. I don't think that's really the case with ThuranX, and I'm not sure he has any particular protectors. The fact that he is not an admin removes one possible layer of protection, since administrators are (regardless of protestations to the contrary) far more protected from blocks or other sanctions then are non-admin editors.
- Maybe we should start WP:Protectedusers so people can refer to it before they file a complaint to see if there is any point? It might cut the drama down significantly. It would also be a handy one stop for news organizations. In all seriousness, if short blocks don't do the trick, do we have an admin who can make the hard block and take the next appropriate step?--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's time for an RfC so much as it is for an indef block, or maybe a six month timeout contigent on this user firmly agreeing to mend his ways. His block log shows many instacnes of incivility but, as far as I know, he has apologized for few -- if any -- of them. That other users annoy him is reason enough to write (as a mild example) "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." [14] Alternatively, as ThuranX has been complained about again and again and again and nothing is ever really done, perhaps it could be made clear that he has special dispensation to act as he does without consequence. IronDuke 02:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the general sense of what do we do with good contributors who are too abrasive, we do the same thing we would do with a so-so contributor who is too abrasive. There is no provision in any of the policies that say "If you contribute X good edits, you get a free pass on Y civility or personal attack violations". Editors who feel that way absolutely boggle me. a single incident of incivility might be enough to drive 1 or more contributors from the project. This concept of "net benefit" is also ridiculous. Because the moment they make another editor unhappy with editing here, I don't care how many good contributions they've made, they are not a "net benefit". This is a huge problem on wikipedia. I've seen editors complain about this before, and I've seen news stories and other social media stories pick up on this as well and the complaints it generates there. There is a general perception that some editors are protected no matter what they do, and it has a grain of truth. Think about some of the wheel wars and drama we've had over certain users. In pretty much all of those cases they were in clear violation of policies, yet they were coddled, snuggled and given cookies by some editors for months or years before they were finally (if ever) cut off. Yet another user doing 1/10th of what they did was indef, the key was thrown away, and unblock requests or appeals were quickly shot down and everyone carried on with their day. Wikipedia is a big project and if people can't work with the project and discuss things civilly then the community needs to do something about that. There are lots of existing editors and new editors everyday to do the job. The project doesn't live and die on a single editor but it does live and die on how the community feels.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- History has shown that we simply do not deal with these situations, and I think we can all think of any number of examples where a good contributor is disruptively uncivil, repeatedly so, and we simply cannot come up with a good way to handle it. I don't think ThuranX will appreciate this thread or care much what is said here, but I'm wondering if there are suggestions (assuming others agree in seeing this as a long term problem) for how to proceed. A user-conduct RFC would be a logical step at some point, but I'm not sure we're there yet. If Thuran would simply agree to chill out/tone it down there would not be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that will happen given past interactions I've had with him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think general comments about "protected editors" are particularly helpful to this thread. I fully agree, and said above, that we have a problem dealing with veteran editors who also have issues with civility and the like. The problem stems largely from the fact that people disagree about how to proceed in those kind of situations. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. I have no idea if someone has brought ThuranX to ANI before and said generally, "what do we do about this behavior?," rather than specifically complaining about one incident. If a previous general complaint did not result in any sort of attempted solution, perhaps it will be different this time, but that would require us to discuss the specific issue before us. IronDuke puts forward the possibility of an indef or otherwise lengthy block, and that would be one option. If others have specific suggestions that would be great, but if there are general complaints about our ability to deal with long-term editors who don't abide by certain guidelines then I'm not sure this is the place for that. For example complaining about the "net benefit" argument does little good when no one here has invoked it, implicitly much less explicitly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, there are many previous AN/I threads regarding this user (with whom, I should say, I have interacted negatively in the past). A sampling of the complaints: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]... There's more, I think, but, well, nuff said. IronDuke 04:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's very helpful, and obviously the notion of giving ThuranX a long term block or starting an RFC or ArbCom case has been broached before. I'd like to hear from other (particularly uninvolved) editors and admins on this, and also of course from ThuranX, as to what can be done about this long-term problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, there are many previous AN/I threads regarding this user (with whom, I should say, I have interacted negatively in the past). A sampling of the complaints: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]... There's more, I think, but, well, nuff said. IronDuke 04:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think general comments about "protected editors" are particularly helpful to this thread. I fully agree, and said above, that we have a problem dealing with veteran editors who also have issues with civility and the like. The problem stems largely from the fact that people disagree about how to proceed in those kind of situations. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. I have no idea if someone has brought ThuranX to ANI before and said generally, "what do we do about this behavior?," rather than specifically complaining about one incident. If a previous general complaint did not result in any sort of attempted solution, perhaps it will be different this time, but that would require us to discuss the specific issue before us. IronDuke puts forward the possibility of an indef or otherwise lengthy block, and that would be one option. If others have specific suggestions that would be great, but if there are general complaints about our ability to deal with long-term editors who don't abide by certain guidelines then I'm not sure this is the place for that. For example complaining about the "net benefit" argument does little good when no one here has invoked it, implicitly much less explicitly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have just read through the August part of the Glen Beck Talk Page--I try not to get involved in these topics, but I couldn't escape knowing. It seems clear that Thuranox , while trying [to bring some degree of NPOV to a previously biased article, has gotten overinvolved. I'm not sure I blame him--the POV pushing done by most notably
BigTimepeaceBytebear is some of the most outrageously biased article editing I've seen here. I think we can deal appropriately with this issue by banningBTPBytebear from this article & talk p. and all other articles and talk pages related to GB) indefinitely --or, if indef is out of fashion, 6 months, I generally think than an angry response to provocation is as wrong as the provocation, but in this case, the provocation is so great that I think I'd be prepared to say that any reasonable person might have gotten upset in dealing with it. But the language Thuranox used was out of control, and I don't know any way of impressing this upon him that would be effective. IfBTPBytebear is gone from the article, that'll certainly help things. There will still be some fighting there, and if Thuranox continues editing there, he'll have to do it with more restraint. If not ,we should take the preventative action of having him stay away from the articles also. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have just read through the August part of the Glen Beck Talk Page--I try not to get involved in these topics, but I couldn't escape knowing. It seems clear that Thuranox , while trying [to bring some degree of NPOV to a previously biased article, has gotten overinvolved. I'm not sure I blame him--the POV pushing done by most notably
← That's a pretty strong accusation DGG. — Ched : ? 06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the interruption. Upon clarification I strike my comment. — Ched : ? 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have a feeling, indeed I very much hope, that DGG (whom I quite respect) is confusing me with another editor whose handle also begins with a "B," namely User:Bytebear. ThuranX and that editor have gone toe to toe at the Beck article, and Bytebear's editing has indeed been very problematic, as I have pointed out on the article talk page and on that editor's user talk page (I also blocked them for edit warring). I have only been acting in an "adminly" (as opposed to editorial) fashion at Glenn Beck (trying to put a stop to the edit warring and calm the waters a bit), and while I have the article watchlisted and have made a number of edits there in the past I have not edited the article since March. So I think this is just a case of mistaken identity and if so then no worries at all, but I would hope DGG could clarify that, because I certainly don't think "outrageously biased article editing" remotely applies to anything I've done over there.
- Operating on the assumption that DGG meant to refer to Bytebear (right-DGG) , I would also be willing to consider some sort of topic ban. Indeed I was working on a formal proposal along those lines a week or so ago (gathering a bunch of diffs to show what I took to be a seriously problematic pattern) but decided to shelve it to see if Bytebear's editing improved. If we are having a conversation about a possible topic ban I can present the diffs I put together (no one else should bother gathering them, what I put together is pretty comprehensive), though personally I'd like to see if progress can be made on the article talk page first.
- I don't think Bytebear's problematic editing means ThuranX gets a free pass, and as mentioned that editor's civility is a longer term issue, though a recent comment by Thuran is, to me at least, encouraging. If we our going to talk about Bytebear (or about me!) we might want to start a subthread just so this doesn't turn into a complete muddle, as Old Stephen would say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
To BTP, since we've out dented already, Actually I got that impression from the mention of how many times its been brought up at AN/I and nothing really being done. This is the second thread on this page dealing with a long-term editor who has civility issues that no one seems to want to do anything about. See the bungie section up above as another example. While no one has wheel-warred over him, no one has rushed to deal with him because he's a veteran. DGG suggests excusing it because there was apparent POV pushing, but I still fail to see that exception in the policy. When we get into that thinking, where do we draw the line? This user was really really really annoying so it was okay for me to chew him out. How many "really"s makes it okay?Do we need 3? how about 2? what if its only 1? We get down to a subjective interpretation of how annoying some user was and who thinks the other user was justified in snapping. Sorry no. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that poisons this community. It will always be the people with the buddies who gets the pass because the other guy was more annoying. Subjective application of these policies doesn't help a single person on wikipedia. There is a reason those kinds of exceptions aren't in the policy. I don't care if the other party is talking about what he did with your dead relative's corpse last night, its the internet. Report them and move on. If someone is supposedly POV pushing, start DR, get third opinion, report it to the relevant projects, and move on. There are millions of articles out there. Conduct the debate civilly, though passionately if you want, or don't be involved in it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- normally I'd agree with you, Crossmr, and very strongly. I think this case is an exception. the initial state of that article was so much of a panegyric that the subject would have been unrecognizable. Bytebear wasn't the only person getting it that way, but he as a major and continuing and very persistent influence. A number of people tried, and I think it actually took Thuranx's intervention to get things going sensibly. Strong medicine, in this case needed. Maybe a little too strong, but the only other way of handing it would have been to topicban Bytebear at an earlier state--and we didn't do it. I think that ThuranX should take great care he doesn't do this again, when they probably will not be so well deserved. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but a majority of the comments have been directed at myself and Morphh who have tried to be cooperative and act for the good of the article. There's also the matter of his comments at Carly Fiorina as well, which seem totally unjustified. If Bytebear was the problem, he certainly missed the target. Soxwon (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I can't see that at all. There still aren't any exceptions, regardless of what he thought he was trying to accomplish. The ends doesn't justify the means when it comes to civility. In addition his comments at Carly Fiorina completely invalidate that argument. If this was a one time issue with no priors and no other issues on other articles, you _might_ (in the smallest sense of the word) have a case. But this is clearly not a problem restricted to this article in this case.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm embarrassed to say that I'm the editor that snapped (not my proudest moment, but I did redact the profanity and clarify it). I've been personally labeled by ThuranX as "disingenuous", a "fanboy", "whitewasher", "pov pusher", "pretender", bad faith editor, and essentially Bytebear's meatpuppet. I don't think I've deserved any of the labels, but that's beside the point to this discussion. The uncivil behavior was unacceptable and created a hostile environment. I don't agree with DGG that he really helped this article move along, in fact, I think his discussions have been disruptive and created more conflicts and issues than needed to move the article forward. I got there a couple weeks before ThuranX, who arrived on August 15th[24] and at that point we were already moving toward some good progress in including the criticism.[25][26][27] I think it was primarily the work of civil editors working together that moved things along. I think these changes would have happened with or without ThuranX, and likely faster without. I'm conflicted as I would like his perspective and opinion, but we can't get there if he's always leveling attacks and avoiding the policy discussion. Morphh (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- normally I'd agree with you, Crossmr, and very strongly. I think this case is an exception. the initial state of that article was so much of a panegyric that the subject would have been unrecognizable. Bytebear wasn't the only person getting it that way, but he as a major and continuing and very persistent influence. A number of people tried, and I think it actually took Thuranx's intervention to get things going sensibly. Strong medicine, in this case needed. Maybe a little too strong, but the only other way of handing it would have been to topicban Bytebear at an earlier state--and we didn't do it. I think that ThuranX should take great care he doesn't do this again, when they probably will not be so well deserved. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Give ThuranX and Bytebear ultimatums: Any further incivility (broadly construed -- in fact, so broadly that it would be safer not to comment on editors at all, just on edits, and comment carefully on them) or edit warring at Glenn Beck/ Talk:Glenn Beck will result in both a one-week block and a six-month topic ban on the article. If BigTimePeace wants some kind of different solution, it would probably be a good idea to give it to him. If Bytebear is POV-pushing, too bad for Wikipedia, because AN/I has no tools to address that, but sanctions on incivility and edit warring can be ratcheted up. This is a "solution" in that it makes the admin's job easier, but it is no solution for the article or the editors: they are allowed to game the system by baiting the other side into edit warring or an incivility violation. The editor who blows his top first loses the game. It's a sport, not a solution. There is no solution, and I started a section below to start groping for an answer. But in the meantime, without a solution, let's make BigTimePeace's job easier: Give 'em ultimatums. -- Noroton (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, since you're considering equal punishment, I don't know that I've seen Bytebear be uncivil or issue a personal attack (could be wrong). He's just been very strict with policy interpretation, so it makes adding content more difficult. ThuranX calls it the Civil POV Push. On the opposite end, ThuranX has been very loose with policy. So aside from politics, you can see where we get the huge clash between these two editors. I don't know what the best course of action would be, but I thought I would clarify what I'm seeing. Morphh (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi all. I really didn't intend to cause such a stir. I have apparently been to strict with my interpretation of WP:BPL relying on the exception for 3RR on such articles, thinking my reverts were in compliance with the rules applied. Rather than applying the rules to facts, I applied them to POV. The edit war in question was an issue of WP:SYNTH where two facts were presented side by side and a direct conclusion was heavily implied. I reverted in the hopes that someone would reapply the information more fairly avoiding POV, but it didn't happen, so I continued to revert assuming the 3RR did not apply under the rules of BLP, and eventually modified the text to a more fair version, which was promptly reverted. I think I have edited in good faith, if not misguided. Since my ban, which I take full responsibility, I have been discussing the issue at length trying to gain a more complete understanding of how BLP applies in this case. I still disagree with some of the assessments by Bigtimepeace, but I am willing to discuss them. ThuranX on the other hand dismisses every suggestion and comment I make with accusations of conspiracy and protectionism, even when other editors agree with me. I think my points are valid, and I admit to having strong convictions about them, but I don't think I have demonstrated a inability to discuss and work with other editors, other than the unfortunate butting heads with ThuranX. Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, ThuranX is by no means the only person who takes Bytebear's editing behavior to be protectionism. Sometimes this seems to take the form of a WP:TAGTEAM with other like-minded users who, like Bytebear, have received warnings and bans related to Glenn Beck and/or other US Politics topics. This obviously does not excuse any of ThuranX's behavior, but it is certainly a frustrating experience trying to improve this article. There is a larger problem here. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Going back to the original post in this thread: As the admin. who issued the "warning" to ThuranX I suppose I should say something here. Yes, I saw his reply. No, I didn't feel a need to respond and inflame the issue. I know the rules fairly well thank you, and I suspect that ThuranX does too. American political articles are going to elicit emotions here, everyone has their own POV. I suggest that all parties simply stick to the facts, the reliable sources, and address the topics and not the editors. All ya'all just need to cool it. — Ched : ? 17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think Bytebear has really been all that uncivil, or if so only somewhat. The issue with that editor is POV editing, not incivility, and that was not why the thread was opened which is probably part of the confusion..
- This thread has gone pretty far afield from where it started, jumping over to the editing behavior of another editor, and moving into a general discussion below. I doubt anything will come of it now, but that's fine. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Wider picture: a new set of rules is needed for this widespread problem
I've said this before and I'll risk sounding a bit like a broken record and say it again: Wikipedia has a problem with its Wild West atmosphere on articles with controversial content (mostly politics, nationalism, probably religion, I think). We treat them like we treat any article in terms of what guidelines and policies editors are supposed to follow, but our rules are inadequate. POV pushers are attracted to these articles and inevitably offend editors who also have strong views on a subject, and there are plenty of these editors when a subject is very controversial out there in the world beyond Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough BigTimePeaces to try to keep the peace, or enough admins like DGG to even recognize that there may be more than one problem. As a result, Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are, frankly, a disgrace. And that's after many editors have wasted their time on them and many admins have wasted their time dealing with the problems.
We'd lose a lot of good editors if we ban all of the ones who have a difficult time with civility, but who mostly keep it to a minimum. It's extremely hard to identify a POV-pushing editor unless you are also well-acquainted with the issue, and it takes not just you but a consensus to do it. That's hardly ever gonna happen. Article probations are complicated to set up, involve too much work to maintain and can be gamed by POV pushers.
What needs to be done is to have some kind of different set of policies and guidelines for editing on articles & talk pages where we find we have excessive fighting and a lack of constructive consensus-building. The rules should involve how editors treat each other and how consensus is formed, they should encourage calm, rational, cordial discussion and encourage more editors to participate (overwhelming POV pushers with reasonable editors from the broader community who are interested in thoughtful participation that actually improves an article in an NPOV way -- this is not really too much to ask: it's what we're asking now), and the rules should be very easy and clear for any admin to enforce or editor to understand (unlike the rat's nest of an explanation we have for WP:CONSENSUS and related pages and WP:CIVIL and related pages).
AN/I threads are fingers in a very leaky dyke. Instead of this problem coming back to AN/I over and over, with different editors at different articles, the dyke needs to be fixed. -- Noroton (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- You raise good points here, but I worry it's impractical. And you'd get a lot of pushback from editors about two sets of rules, how we determine which article goes in what cat, etc. I also think we lose more editors due to the toxically uncivil environment that prevails here than the few who would storm off in a huff after being told no, they really can't tell other editors to "fuck off." I'd also note the editor in question has made no move at all to suggest that there's any kind of problem with his approach, and it bothers me when people take a sort of "Hey, let's move on" attitude as if the person in question had actually said he was sorry and promised to be better in the future. IronDuke 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- AN/I already decides on article probation, as does Arbcom, so we could let them decide whether to put a contentious article into this probation-like status. You'll get no more pushback than we get now, another avenue would be to let a consensus of editors decide at an RfC. All three avenues should be available, just as we would do now for article probation. You don't set up the new rules for any particular article until we see problems with the article and get complaints. This isn't a plan or even a proposal, of course, just an idea of the type of thing that might be done. The real point is that some different kind of set of rules is needed. I would think admins would be happier with an easier system. IronDuke, if you scroll up to my proposal for this particular case, you'll see that I'm not excusing any conduct. POV pushing does not excuse incivility, but solving the incivility problem does nothing to solve the POV problem (by removing editors you may make the POV problem worse). I think the real trick is to channel discussions into calm, reflective, civil exchanges that won't be distracted by comments on editors and where editors will decide on content and decide what to say based on what they really think a neutral article would look like. That's the hardest environment for a POV pusher to succeed, for edit warring to succeed and for incivility to seem right. It's the kind of atmosphere that happens in civil, even cordial discussions, but even in hot, contentious discussions when there is some force or authority, understood by all and seen as fair. You get that kind of atmosphere when you have rules and enforce them consistently, Wikipedia doesn't do that and doesn't get that atmosphere. Editors know that POV pushing and edit warring can succeed, and incivility may or may not result in sanctions. If we can attract more editors to take part in civil, focused discussions, POV pushing will be much harder, and we're more likely to get better articles. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Noroton, we have loads of guidelines on how to behave, and an escalation policy. The lack of structure on this particular page makes this problem a recurring one. I am not thrilled about the layout of RfC but it is a logical next step. One can also make a community proposal here, or refer to the arbitration committee. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner for part of the year, and hope to be timely later on :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- And what we don't have is effective enforcement. Who the hell wants to spend a month (or two, or more) in front of Arbcom until all else has failed, unless the editor is already stark, raving mad and the case is no longer about saving the article but has instead turned into a feud in which the goal really is to get the other side punished? By the time something gets to Arbcom, Wikipedia has already failed, often in numerous ways. The articles are what this website is supposed to be about, and they need much more than some Arbcom judging. AN/I is inconsistent. RfC is an enormous investment in time and effort. None of these avenues provide editors clear, consistently enforced regulations for conduct in contentious-article discussions, nor do they encourage good conduct -- they just discourage bad conduct in the sanctioned editors you're watching. Really, Casliber, this system sucks. An analogy: At a busy downtown intersection the authorities have set up four stop signs. But the intersection is so busy, and enforcement is so light and inconsistent, that plenty of people ignore the signs, plenty of accidents result and good drivers come to understand that using the intersection is dangerous or maybe a waste of time, so they use other intersections. Drivers seldom call the cops, sometimes even after an accident, because they see little good coming from that. Should the judges say "we have loads of stop signs telling drivers what to do, and laws in place to sanction traffic violators. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner ..." I have a personal metric (I think it's an easy example to understand): On Wikipedia, Bill Ayers can't be even said to have been called a terrorist -- the thing he's famous for -- despite his being called a terrorist by every reliable source in creation (New York Times, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, dozens of scholarly and other sources, in fact, just about every source, regardless of political outlook and going back decades -- I've got the proof). The only time "terrorist" or "terrorism" appears in the Ayers article is when we quote him denying it. And it's not as if we didn't have an RfC, an AN/I report and have it brought up in front of ArbCom. I should not have had to go through Wikipedia's clunky dispute resolution system to enforce a 2/3 consensus. Nor is it my fault that after months of effort, followed by weeks of anguish, I gave up. It's only one among many, many POV problems where Wikipedia has failed. We don't need any more guidelines in how to behave, and it's not just a problem of whether authorities will enforce -- it's a system that runs off the rails because it doesn't now have the means to encourage good discussions and effectively, quickly discourage bad behavior on discussions that are inevitably contentious: something like a closing admin, perhaps a better definition of consensus (and possibly a lower bar for consensus), an easier way to canvass more editors, stronger incentives to propose compromises. That's a pretty long list of changes, but they're essentially based on what we already do and tweaking it. Just don't tell me we don't have a problem when we have articles looking like Bill Ayers does, even after the contentious discussion and 2/3 majority. This is just one failure of the system, which has resulted in widespread POV-related failures. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, we don't have effective enforcement. Far too often are veteran editors allowed to insult people willy nilly because they think they're "right". They have a group of friends who will back/unblock them if anyone questions them, or have found the admins to be indifferent to their antics. We really need a page which describes how many edits it takes to trade in for a pass on the various policies.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- And what we don't have is effective enforcement. Who the hell wants to spend a month (or two, or more) in front of Arbcom until all else has failed, unless the editor is already stark, raving mad and the case is no longer about saving the article but has instead turned into a feud in which the goal really is to get the other side punished? By the time something gets to Arbcom, Wikipedia has already failed, often in numerous ways. The articles are what this website is supposed to be about, and they need much more than some Arbcom judging. AN/I is inconsistent. RfC is an enormous investment in time and effort. None of these avenues provide editors clear, consistently enforced regulations for conduct in contentious-article discussions, nor do they encourage good conduct -- they just discourage bad conduct in the sanctioned editors you're watching. Really, Casliber, this system sucks. An analogy: At a busy downtown intersection the authorities have set up four stop signs. But the intersection is so busy, and enforcement is so light and inconsistent, that plenty of people ignore the signs, plenty of accidents result and good drivers come to understand that using the intersection is dangerous or maybe a waste of time, so they use other intersections. Drivers seldom call the cops, sometimes even after an accident, because they see little good coming from that. Should the judges say "we have loads of stop signs telling drivers what to do, and laws in place to sanction traffic violators. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner ..." I have a personal metric (I think it's an easy example to understand): On Wikipedia, Bill Ayers can't be even said to have been called a terrorist -- the thing he's famous for -- despite his being called a terrorist by every reliable source in creation (New York Times, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, dozens of scholarly and other sources, in fact, just about every source, regardless of political outlook and going back decades -- I've got the proof). The only time "terrorist" or "terrorism" appears in the Ayers article is when we quote him denying it. And it's not as if we didn't have an RfC, an AN/I report and have it brought up in front of ArbCom. I should not have had to go through Wikipedia's clunky dispute resolution system to enforce a 2/3 consensus. Nor is it my fault that after months of effort, followed by weeks of anguish, I gave up. It's only one among many, many POV problems where Wikipedia has failed. We don't need any more guidelines in how to behave, and it's not just a problem of whether authorities will enforce -- it's a system that runs off the rails because it doesn't now have the means to encourage good discussions and effectively, quickly discourage bad behavior on discussions that are inevitably contentious: something like a closing admin, perhaps a better definition of consensus (and possibly a lower bar for consensus), an easier way to canvass more editors, stronger incentives to propose compromises. That's a pretty long list of changes, but they're essentially based on what we already do and tweaking it. Just don't tell me we don't have a problem when we have articles looking like Bill Ayers does, even after the contentious discussion and 2/3 majority. This is just one failure of the system, which has resulted in widespread POV-related failures. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Civility applies to all articles. There are many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil. If an editor can't do that, then they should go do something else. If they persist in putting themselves in situations where they become uncivil, then they damage the project. Uncivil editors push away other editors and at times cause some editors to leave the project. I don't care what they think justifies the behaviour, nothing does. We don't need another set of guidelines. Use dispute resolution, get third opinions, ask for a wider consensus. if you can't do that, go to other articles. If you still can't calm down on other articles, go do something else entirely.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some article topics will be more contentious than others. This often results in lousy, biased articles on Wikipedia. In fact, bad discussions go hand in hand with biased articles, which should not be the case when numerous editors have been involved in editing and discussing an article. Civility enforcement does not always apply to each article. There are not many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil if they are constantly confronted with POV pushers. You want the most committed editors, the ones who have a passion for explaining a topic in an intelligent, neutral way, to be productive, but they are precisely the editors who will be most driven away by POV pushers or who will turn to bad behavior because they are the ones who care the most about a particular topic -- along with the POV pushers. Drive away the good, passionate editors and you're left with the passionate POV pushers. It happens a lot. It happens because Wikipedia's set of rules and enforcement of them encourage it. It's systemic. You should not be complacent about it because it hurts the encyclopedia enormously. (I know, this is really not the place for this thread. I need a blog.) -- Noroton (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion here, perhaps this clip from scrubs can clear it up [28]. Civility not only applies to every article but it applies to every single page on wikipedia. Why is it that passionate POV pushers can be civil and passionate "good" editors cannot? If POV pushers are being uncivil, deal with them equally. If they're not being uncivil, why can they argue their side without that? There are many people who are good editors who can argue their point without resorting to personal attacks and incivility. There is nothing wrong with passion. There is a problem when passion degenerates into personal attacks and insults. If "good" editors can't explain their side of the debate without using insults, they have a problem. that isn't systemic. They need to walk away and form a larger consensus and deal with it appropriate. Incivility is never acceptable just because you think you're right. Right is very subjective and we don't apply rules like civility subjectively.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Having a civility policy on a Wikipedia page doesn't work by itself. And it isn't just a problem of inconsistent enforcement (although admins have found by experience that the policy can't be enforced with absolute consistency -- an unwritten policy that Wikipedians can only know through familiarity). For you to say that we should simply deal with POV pushers the way we would with anyone else is fine by itself, but you've ignored the fact that POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility. It also happens to be the prime instigator of biased articles. Much of this is concentrated on contentious articles (often on very prominent subjects), which also happen to generate a large number of complaints at AN/I and ArbCom, although the problem goes far beyond administrator/Arbcom workload. With our current set of policies, contentious articles generate a huge amount of problems and at the same time the huge amount of time and effort that goes into them generates incredibly little good content. The waste is simply enormous. So is the stress.
- In the real world beyond Wikipedia, there is a reason why some people have had a longstanding ban on conversation about sex, politics and religion in dinnertable talk they want to keep polite. There is a reason why certain spots on the Internet are notorious for their toxic manners, and a reason why we have Internet-era words like "flame wars" and "trolls". The reason is that when you combine a lack of clear rules and inconsistent enforcement even of them with contentious topics, you get nastiness and a breakdown in necessary consensus building. It is simply not true that we have an unlimited supply of editors for any topic who are capable of long-term civility in the face of constant POV pushing. (And don't forget that even editors who can remain civil are put under quite a bit of strain by having to put up with POV pushing.) The good editors not only find that their facts and reasoning falls on deaf ears among POV pushing editors who are simply determined to bias an article, but they find that Wikipedia puts up roadblocks to dealing with POV pushing: WP:CANVASS makes it difficult to recruit non-POV pushers to discussions; discussions can go on forever and be difficult to read for newcomers; there is no clear, bright line showing editors when consensus has been reached (or exactly what the consensus is) or where civility is breached or where edit warring begins and ends or where discussions should end -- this informality is fine for noncontentious articles (it usually works best), but it is toxic for contentious articles. Think about it: a casual lack of rules is never the case outside Wikipedia when there is no hierarchy of people (who have the power to enforce ad-hoc order) and where the goal is to get something done regarding a contentious issue. Instead, we appoint chairmen, secretaries, etc., and adopt Roberts Rules of Order (not that I'm proposing any of this). At Wikipedia, enforcement of what few rules we have is often left up to the editors on the page who are already debating the substance, so one editor's citing of a policy like WP:CIV or WP:BLP isn't trusted by the editors he is arguing with (and it's often a strained application of those policies anyway). We have a few areas of Wikipedia where discussions are more structured: deletion discussions (XfD), ArbCom cases, Requests for Adminship and elections. They all have their creaky faults, but they all work better than our more contentious articles. Something similar should be set up for articles identified as so contentious that normal talk-page regulations and other policies aren't enough to keep them orderly and productive. This would improve the articles, make editing an happier experience (or at least avoid some of our sadder experiences) and, overall, be easier on admins. This discussion has gotten too long for AN/I, and I think I'm straining the good will of people who come to this page for its main purpose, so this will be may last comment. At some point I suppose I should come up with a proposal, or at least an essay, or maybe find another place to discuss this. -- Noroton (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility Here is your problem. You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. If you feel so out of control that you cannot control what words you type on a screen, then wikipedia isn't for you. The rules are very clear. Discuss the content, not the editors. Don't resort to personal attacks and insults in an attempt to make your point. There are plenty of steps to DR, and none of those are disallowed by CANVASS. You can use third opinion, posting on relevant projects also shouldn't be an issue for CANVASS. Posting on individual talk pages, coming to AN/I for content disputes, going to the village pump, help desk, other article talk pages, etc. may be. The problem here is that you seem to find fault with the POV for making you or anyone else uncivil. They don't make you do anything.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. That's not what we're disagreeing about. Obviously, many people are baited and many take the bait. POV pushing acts like baiting to anyone who cares about an article. I've said repeatedly, including repeatedly here, that it isn't an excuse for somebody else being uncivil. When the same problem crops up again and again, it's time for Wikipedians to look into the causes and try to do something about it. Your position is simply to let certain editors get into tangles that could be avoided. But of course, reducing the temptation to incivility is not the only reason to try to make Wikipedia more difficult for POV pushers to influence. There is that other concern we have, the actual articles. I've explained all that, and you've ignored all that while personalizing the discussion, and even described my position as the exact opposite of my position, even after I've pointed out the difference, so it's time to stop replying to you. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- My solution is to let them seek DR. If there is a problem with the DR process deal with that appropriately. A problem with DR doesn't excuse civility. Whether POV pushing is the cause, a cause, or some cause all boils down to the same thing, it isn't a cause at all. The only cause of incivility is the user failing to control themselves. In a brand new user we issue warnings and work with them. An editor who has never before been warned for a problem also gets a warning. like baiting to anyone who cares about an article it comes down 100% to personal responsibility. If someone is baiting you, don't take the bait. If you agree there isn't an excuse for incivility then there is no reason for Thuranx to get a pass on this. This is a long term problem he should be well aware of the issues he's had in the past and stayed out of those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. That's not what we're disagreeing about. Obviously, many people are baited and many take the bait. POV pushing acts like baiting to anyone who cares about an article. I've said repeatedly, including repeatedly here, that it isn't an excuse for somebody else being uncivil. When the same problem crops up again and again, it's time for Wikipedians to look into the causes and try to do something about it. Your position is simply to let certain editors get into tangles that could be avoided. But of course, reducing the temptation to incivility is not the only reason to try to make Wikipedia more difficult for POV pushers to influence. There is that other concern we have, the actual articles. I've explained all that, and you've ignored all that while personalizing the discussion, and even described my position as the exact opposite of my position, even after I've pointed out the difference, so it's time to stop replying to you. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility Here is your problem. You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. If you feel so out of control that you cannot control what words you type on a screen, then wikipedia isn't for you. The rules are very clear. Discuss the content, not the editors. Don't resort to personal attacks and insults in an attempt to make your point. There are plenty of steps to DR, and none of those are disallowed by CANVASS. You can use third opinion, posting on relevant projects also shouldn't be an issue for CANVASS. Posting on individual talk pages, coming to AN/I for content disputes, going to the village pump, help desk, other article talk pages, etc. may be. The problem here is that you seem to find fault with the POV for making you or anyone else uncivil. They don't make you do anything.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion here, perhaps this clip from scrubs can clear it up [28]. Civility not only applies to every article but it applies to every single page on wikipedia. Why is it that passionate POV pushers can be civil and passionate "good" editors cannot? If POV pushers are being uncivil, deal with them equally. If they're not being uncivil, why can they argue their side without that? There are many people who are good editors who can argue their point without resorting to personal attacks and incivility. There is nothing wrong with passion. There is a problem when passion degenerates into personal attacks and insults. If "good" editors can't explain their side of the debate without using insults, they have a problem. that isn't systemic. They need to walk away and form a larger consensus and deal with it appropriate. Incivility is never acceptable just because you think you're right. Right is very subjective and we don't apply rules like civility subjectively.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some article topics will be more contentious than others. This often results in lousy, biased articles on Wikipedia. In fact, bad discussions go hand in hand with biased articles, which should not be the case when numerous editors have been involved in editing and discussing an article. Civility enforcement does not always apply to each article. There are not many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil if they are constantly confronted with POV pushers. You want the most committed editors, the ones who have a passion for explaining a topic in an intelligent, neutral way, to be productive, but they are precisely the editors who will be most driven away by POV pushers or who will turn to bad behavior because they are the ones who care the most about a particular topic -- along with the POV pushers. Drive away the good, passionate editors and you're left with the passionate POV pushers. It happens a lot. It happens because Wikipedia's set of rules and enforcement of them encourage it. It's systemic. You should not be complacent about it because it hurts the encyclopedia enormously. (I know, this is really not the place for this thread. I need a blog.) -- Noroton (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Crossmr - POV is not the cause. Everyone is POV pushing somehow whether they realize it or not - in the above for example you certainly have stated your POV about Bill Ayers and that you are sorry that consensus didn't allow it to be represented in the article. No one can say - my POV is the neutral point of view and you people are all biased. That is why we have policies to determine as objectively as possible how to weigh viewpoints in articles. However one can argue in favour of a point of view without being incivil, and that is what we all have the responsibility of doing. PArt of being civil is standing back when one sees that the majority does not agree with one's arguments, and to recognize when better arguments are being made. I don't mind people with agendas as long as they engage in civil discussion, try to reach a compromise and do not stubbornly stick with one particular way that they want things to be.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- POV pushing is not the cause, but it is a cause. Isn't there a definition of POV pusher somewhere on Wikipedia? Maybe in an essay? You're confusing having a POV with pushing one. Of course I have a POV, but what we're supposed to want in articles is an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources say on a subject. That's the difference. Is my estimation of that affected by my own POV? Sure, but it has a limited effect, especially since I try to keep the two things separate in my mind. It isn't that difficult to deal with an editor with a different POV and also different idea of what a neutral article would be. For one thing, both of us will want just about the same thing, usually. We can also direct the discussion toward the facts (that is: What do the best sources and the "consensus" among the reliable sources say?). Discussions about facts can generally reach a consensus. After a while of assuming good faith, you know whether or not the other party is looking for a neutral article or pushing a POV. If the other party is a POV pusher, that should offend the rest of us. And that's a temptation to incivility, and it's more of a temptation when the good editors often don't have effective means to counteract that POV pushing. What matters in the Bill Ayers article is what the sources say, not what I personally think. It's a good example because it's very clear, it seems to me, whether or not the WP article reflects what the reliable sources say. (Having a goal different from pushing one's own POV allows an edditor to add positive information about a subject the editor generally has negative feeligns about. I've been able to do that with Bill Ayers, his wife and Obama in Wikipedia articles -- I want that information in the articles if it helps the readers understand the subjects better.) -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Crossmr - POV is not the cause. Everyone is POV pushing somehow whether they realize it or not - in the above for example you certainly have stated your POV about Bill Ayers and that you are sorry that consensus didn't allow it to be represented in the article. No one can say - my POV is the neutral point of view and you people are all biased. That is why we have policies to determine as objectively as possible how to weigh viewpoints in articles. However one can argue in favour of a point of view without being incivil, and that is what we all have the responsibility of doing. PArt of being civil is standing back when one sees that the majority does not agree with one's arguments, and to recognize when better arguments are being made. I don't mind people with agendas as long as they engage in civil discussion, try to reach a compromise and do not stubbornly stick with one particular way that they want things to be.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Noroton & Crossmr both have parts of the answer. First, there are people who can't be reasoned with effectively: although they may come across as polite & willing to work towards a consensus, they still are pushing for content which does not accurately reflect the subject in a manner which is useful to the average reader. (One case I recently encountered was an anon IP who objected to my adding some text to the article on Ethiopian Christanity which incidentally mentioned local pagan influences -- although various pagan [or non-Christian] influences have been identified & are commonly accepted in almost every branch of Christianity, & the material in question was taken form the Library of Congress website. His POV was that Ethiopian Christianity had no paganism in it, QED. The conflict was resolved simply by outlasting him -- not an optimal solution.) Sometimes article parole is the right answer.
Then there is the problem of dealing with POV-pushers for too long a time; Nietzsche's words about "beware fighting monsters, for you may become on" is appropos here: deal with too many people who are clearly editting in bad faith, & you start to assume everyone is -- or are naive to the fact many are. WikiBurnout then affects for the person, which can be uglier in some cases than others -- but is almost never pretty. This is not a healthy solution in the long run.
On the other hand, I don't think the problem is so much civility, but respect: it is not that hard to learn how to be disrespectful without be incivil, so only the newbies & the careless get caught up in civility problems. And many volunteers here are not confident enough about being "real" Wikipedians to no never see sarcasm or condescension where none is meant. And we can respect other Wikipedians without agreeing with them, or even liking them: part of the secret is to disagree with an attempt at politeness, not being by being snide (even though that can be a lot more enjoyable & fun to read). Yet to talk about civility, assuming good faith, & respect, one has to acknowledge that there are some who do not deserve it.
(Crap. I tried to explain this as a polar situation, with Noroton's & Crossmr's statements as the two opposing points, but I fear I am rambling here. I only hope something of my intent came across. I'm not going to post here until I've had a couple of nights where I average much more than 5 hours of sleep.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure people who argue with people they don't like for too long will sometimes end up being uncivil. However annoying they are, that still is no pass on civility. No one made them do that. It should be clear to many people fairly early if one side is going to compromise or not. If not the good editor needs to step back and engage DR and other editors. If someone is trying to push a non-legitimate POV giving the discussion a larger audience should solve that problem. We may understand why the user became uncivil in that situation. If it is the first or second time, a strong warning may be warranted, but if the user has a history of getting in debates and becoming uncivil then they no longer get a pass. I would never call for a block on the first civil offense, but if its a 3 year old problem with many warnings, a reasonable editor should have realized he has trouble in certain situations and stay out of them before he gets too hot under the collar to apparently control himself. The editor is responsible for his or her actions. We may understand them in the situation of a new editor who is learning or an editor who has never made that kind of mistake before, and offer guidance, but when faced with a long term problem, we can't chalk it up to inexperience at dealing with those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
USER:BLUEMARINE, aka Matt Sanchez
This has degenerated into more heat then light. Removing the source of much of this drama just to have it pop back in from other angles is absurd. If this is going to continue, move it to User_talk. --Mask? 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Someone can go on and block me for reporting this but since no one has seen it or done anything about it, contrary to all the claims during my topic ban circus that someone else would handle any violations by this user, I'm reporting it here. Per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, User:Bluemarine is in violation of his topic ban for recent edits to Talk:Matt Sanchez. Here and here. Per that topic ban, Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a ban from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages. He can't claim ignorance this time as it was fully explained to him on August 3rd here. Kudos to whomever gets the honor of blocking me for making this report. See you when I see you. - allstar▼echo 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just as a note this is being discussed on the Functionaries-en mailing list (and was started before ASE raised it but he wouldn't have known that...) ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A*'s edit restrictionAllstarecho - this was a self-acknowledged violation of the topic ban imposed on you earlier, for which you were just blocked for 24 hrs a couple of days ago. Even assuming good faith that you noticed a violation which needed attention, I believe that you taking this to ANI as opposed to asking an uninvolved administrator in private was a knowing and reckless violation of your topic ban. You and Bluemarine need to stay apart, period. If you cannot do so, and stay so, for real seriously, you need to stop editing here. If we have to enforce that with a long block or indef, that may happen. Please step back and stay there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The last to hear(after ec's) Since no other mentor has stepped forward yet through this long drawn-out mess, it would have been nice to have gotten a heads up about the talk of the day. Was being a good Wikipedian and building content editing a photograph of a president shaking the hand of a baseball player. How can quiet intervention make this situation better rather than worse? Offering one solution: in future Allstarecho is welcome to abide by the terms of his ban and email me. He is welcome to cc any willing administrator to ensure proper handling of his complaints. Durova306 00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Enough is enoughAllstarecho isn't getting it. He violates his ban again in the edit summary here.[29] In addition he responds to the offer with two personal attacks against me: both name calling and an unsubstantiated allegation that I am a habitual liar.[30] This adds up to a total of four times in less than a month that Allstarecho has violated his restriction. The first time was a blatant BLP violation at RFAR,[31] for which he received a warning.[32] During the original restriction discussion Allstarecho repeatedly and vehemently declared his intention to ignore the sanction,[33][34][35][36][37] finally calling it "horseshit".[38] His actions now demonstrate that these weren't just heated words; he was perfectly serious. For nearly two years I have undertaken the thankless task of attempting to normalize what is arguably Wikipedia's nastiest long term BLP problem. Every time an evenhanded assessment favored Allstarecho's POV he accepted the advantage, but when things haven't gone his way he has been quick with insults and allegations of bias. The latter has been difficult to endure, because for religious reasons I would no sooner discriminate against Allstarecho for being gay than against Matt Sanchez for being Puerto Rican. Most of this summer I have sought to pass the mentorship to other hands; Allstarecho's persistent interference has brought endless delays. My last effort at extending an olive branch was the restoration of Noel Coward's portrait shortly before his featured biography ran on the main page. It was intended as a good faith example of how many LGBT topics are far more important than Matt Sanchez. Now there are three novice image editors who need coaching; please give us breathing space from this nuisance so we can return to content work. Durova306 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
AllStarEcho restrictedLet's make it very simple then. AllStarEcho is not to mention, in any way, shape or form, User:Bluemarine, Matt Sanchez, or User:Durova. AT ALL. If he does, the next block will be 1 week. After that, 1 month. Then indef. Too much drama and noise created by ASE. He's as much (if not more) of the problem in this situation as User:Bluemarine. SirFozzie (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Restriction PostedI have notified Allstarecho of his restriction from this discussion. [39]. SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
BluemarineI have restated and clarified the scope of the topic ban. The restriction can be extended to the talk page of Matt Sanchez if necessary, but hopefully it never will be. Thatcher 02:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
New ProposalI personally don't think anyone will support it, but I feel, as ASE's friend, it is worth a shot. I tried to incorporate some of what is being discussed above into this along with my own ideas. Please excuse the length of this post.
I feel this is the best that allows ASE some freedom, but also reels him in and keeps the BM/ASE "feud" to a minimum. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) (ec) To DuncanHill: Bluemarine did nothing wrong in this instance or recently and did not violate his restrictions. On the counterpoint, ASE has crossed far over the line here and recently. This is clearly supported by the general consensus here and there is no evidence that Bluemarine is gaming the system. That is not a defense of Bluemarine's views, purported or actual. We're not here to debate who has the more palatable views. This is simply a matter of basic conduct expectations. Muddying the waters with personal accusations, debates about the desirability of certain views, and so on is simply disruptive. On a related point specific to you, many of your comments in this discussion have been not only counterproductive, but in explicit violation of two core common sense policies (no attacks and "BLP"). If you continue to violate either or both of these principles, you will be sanctioned to curb the disruption. --Vassyana (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Not doneActually, no, we aren't all done here. It's great to have a lynching party when the person being lynched is blocked and can't participate in the discussion, to defend one's self or defend the lies that have been stated in this thread...
Well, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. If you feel this is another violation of my own topic ban, then by all means, please see who can cross the finish line first to block me.. frankly I don't give a shit. Sorry to come off like this but if you wanna treat me like a thug, I'll act like one. - allstar▼echo 07:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bluemarine, Possible Violation of RestrictionsWith regards to this striking edit of another users text, I believe this is in clear violation of his "prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed" rule. Since the the subject of the post is LGBT related, that would be a violation in my eyes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
ASE's first substantial edit after his block ended was to yet againbring up the blue marine nonsense, and edit Durova's comment, both of which are violations of his topic ban, and kicked this thread back up after the whole situation had died down. Why do we need to keep adding drama to this situation? Let it die people. He got testy with an IP, but it wasn't anything beyond the pale. Leave him a note if you have a problem and things might get done. It certainly worked when I did. Running to tell and jump on anything are unproductive. Drama is considered harmful. --Mask? 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Un-archiving because this segment was not resolved. The people who watch this situation should be aware that Matt was referring to Pwok, who has been sitebanned for two years and apparently continues to evade that ban in attempts to degrade Matt and occasionally to impersonate him. There actually is an impersonation site dedicated to Matt Sanchez under the domain cplsanchez.info. It appears to be operated by this banned user Pwok, who for over two years has demonstrated a hostile and persistent interest in Matt's former pornography career which would be difficult to describe without the word obsessive. In short, what Matt was attempting to do was the policy-compliant act of striking an edit by a banned user. His accompanying words were not well chosen--he didn't consult me about it--and the circumstances are so unusual that a plain description can be mistaken for attack or hyperbole. Situations like this are why mentorship exists. To both Matt and the other editors who involve themselves in this matter: please make use of it. Durova306 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Allstarecho in obvious and unambiguous violation of editing restriction
Treatment of an IPThere's no proof that 24.18.136.188 (talk · contribs) is a sock of anyone yet this user's comments are being removed with the rationale that it's a banned user. Someone have proof for this? Not just "I believe it is.." and not "I know it is.." Proof people. If not, the user's comments at whatever articles they have been removed from, need to be restored and I would suggest an SPI case be opened instead of the bad manners that's been shown. The user's page isn't even tagged as a sock. - allstar▼echo 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This was, sadly, too flimsy of an excuse for violating the recently reinforced topic ban. I have blocked Allstar Echo for 2 weeks under the most recent community editing restriction. I have requested that A* consider simply leaving now, if he is unable to restrain himself from interactions with Sanchez that the community have determined are terminally disruptive. I do not wish to see all of A*'s good deeds on Wikipedia undone by a legacy of pathological inability to stop obsessing on this particular topic, leading to a permanent ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A* has rejected comments by myself, Viridae, Sir Fozzie, and Spartaz' unblock decline, and posted another unblock request. I believe more uninvolved administrators commenting there may be helpful to communicate the point, but please do not do so if you are inclined to be abusive to him. I think that type of treatment will simply drive him further into his denial over this and be ineffective. If we can continue to reason with him and be respectful we have a chance of convincing him that the topic ban is real, necessary for his own good, and to respect it. I would much rather not drive him away in spite or cause him to simply not believe any admins anymore. Kid gloves... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this will make any difference with anything, but I'm always curious about things, so I went ahead and asked the editor (the admin User talk:Horologium) who did the reversion, "which banned user" he attributes that IP address' lone edit [43] to - since ASE apparently did not ask the editor that question directly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Good block, it's sad that he simply could not leave it alone and had to pushed out of the door. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Bad block that is over the top and discouraging to an editor trying to obey the rules
|
User:Sweetfornow copyvios, no communication
*see previous AN/I thread here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Sweetfornow.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_new_account.2C_edit_warring.2C_no_communication.2C_copyvios.2C_many_issues
Sweetfornow (talk · contribs)
I reported this user before, because of an IP editing a similar page I suspected sock-puppetry. It was determined that sweetfornow wasn't related to the IP, however the user still engaged in numerous problem edits 99% of which ended up reverted. The account didn't edit for a few days and I just thought to check. First edit back, was reinserting a copyvio [45], and most recently here [46]. The user has a serious problem with copy and pasting and their only response is to blank warnings.--Crossmr (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Er … what? The edit to Paris Hilton that you point to is nothing but the insertion of two paragraph breaks that turns one paragraph into three. There's no change to the prose at all. Where is the copyright violation? Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, a bad google search mislead me. Normally it seems these days that google filters wiki mirrors when you search for text, but for some reason it didn't this time and I saw a facebook and a couple paris hilton domains in the search results and thought it was a copy and paste off a press release or something. I misread the breaking up of the paragraphs. I thought the second paragraph was a new insert, but their first edit back was still a reversion of a removed copyvio and still no communication over it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia mirrors come up all of the time on Google Web for me. You're right about the other edit being word-for-word identical with the source cited. I've looked over the other edits made since the 23rd and nothing leaps out at me. You've reverted the copyright violation, and there don't appear to be others. Is there any other problem that you have seen? If not, there seems to be no basis for any action. Uncle G (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? Lately when I've done searches for text, google has been collapsing all mirrors into a single result. Only when I click "see similar" on the wikipedia entry does it then turn around and list tons of mirrors. The editor has also been using bad sources (imdb repeated times) or otherwise inserting bad info into some articles. This edit to Lindsay lohan [47] inserts info known to be bad several weeks ago[48], and info that is even corrected on IMDB[49] which the user seems to often be using for source. Both before and after the break they've tried to change info in one article with bad sources [50], [51], reverted both times, but at no point has this user ever acknowledged the warnings, or said anything to defend themselves. Given that the bad edits are still going on as of a couple days ago, I see that to be a significant issue with a new account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, really. I put "user crossmr" into Google Web, and the first Wikipedia mirror of your user page is result #17. Other mirrors are listed as results #46 and #49. That was from just a quick skim of the first five pages of results. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, I'm not sure why some of my previous searches have resulted in google collapsing all the mirrors to a single result (obviously not this time). In the meantime we still have a user who has under 100 edits, has engaged in an edit war, inserted multiple copyvios, BLP issues, restores a fact tag from months before their account was created, blanks warnings, and refuses to respond to any concerns about their editing.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since then the editor has gone on to try and push some POV text into two articles (both reverted) [52] and [53]. The editor is was using the second source falsely. Nothing in it supported the text the editor was trying to claim. The source is just a list of accrediting bodies with no links. There is no way for any editor to check that loaded text with what they were claiming as a source.--Crossmr (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, really. I put "user crossmr" into Google Web, and the first Wikipedia mirror of your user page is result #17. Other mirrors are listed as results #46 and #49. That was from just a quick skim of the first five pages of results. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? Lately when I've done searches for text, google has been collapsing all mirrors into a single result. Only when I click "see similar" on the wikipedia entry does it then turn around and list tons of mirrors. The editor has also been using bad sources (imdb repeated times) or otherwise inserting bad info into some articles. This edit to Lindsay lohan [47] inserts info known to be bad several weeks ago[48], and info that is even corrected on IMDB[49] which the user seems to often be using for source. Both before and after the break they've tried to change info in one article with bad sources [50], [51], reverted both times, but at no point has this user ever acknowledged the warnings, or said anything to defend themselves. Given that the bad edits are still going on as of a couple days ago, I see that to be a significant issue with a new account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia mirrors come up all of the time on Google Web for me. You're right about the other edit being word-for-word identical with the source cited. I've looked over the other edits made since the 23rd and nothing leaps out at me. You've reverted the copyright violation, and there don't appear to be others. Is there any other problem that you have seen? If not, there seems to be no basis for any action. Uncle G (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, a bad google search mislead me. Normally it seems these days that google filters wiki mirrors when you search for text, but for some reason it didn't this time and I saw a facebook and a couple paris hilton domains in the search results and thought it was a copy and paste off a press release or something. I misread the breaking up of the paragraphs. I thought the second paragraph was a new insert, but their first edit back was still a reversion of a removed copyvio and still no communication over it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Background of problems with this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sbakuria and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#User:Sbakuria(talk) and Alexander Mashkevitch. One version of Alexander Mashkevitch(Talk) was deleted for copyvio, so a lot of the history of this dispute has been lost. Requests for user to discuss before making significant edits (content and reference removal, poor formatting) continue to be ignored, user has also resumed behaviour after temporary blocks from editing.
I'm wondering if a ban and/or some kind of page protection (in case Sbakuria resorts to using IPs) would be appropriate.
Involved Parties - User:Sbakuria(talk), User:Bricklayer (talk), User:PhilKnight(talk) and myself. Rtdixon86 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, this is ridiculous. This user was blocked twice revert-warring in support of copyright violations, continues to revert war, and has had an RFC against him/her and still has effectively never responded to any message. I'm in favor of a long temporary block (say 1 week) to make the point that this user needs to start talking to people. Not to mention this user is probably editing an article on a family member. Mangojuicetalk 16:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- It gets worse. The account has uploaded several images with the claim that they are xyr own work. But xe has declared at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 10 that the images are the work of someone else.
However, the charges of continued prose copyright violation, along the lines of the now-deleted edits, are not borne out by the recent edits. As can be seen from this diff, the edits are simple, and somewhat inept, content blanking. The repeated edit summary is that this content is "libellous". The charge of non-communication is also not borne out. This account has communicated with PhilKnight on xyr talk page, here, stating again xyr assertion that xe is removing libellous material.
I recommend taking the libel charge seriously and checking the content for neutrality and verifiability. I have taken the administrative action, based upon the fact that several prior "Dr. Mashkevitch with …" image uploads by this account have been deleted as improperly licenced and having insufficient/misleading authorship information, with no attempt by the uploader to remedy this continued problem despite requests on xyr talk page, of speedily deleting all of the suspect "Dr. Mashkevitch with …" images, on the grounds that it wasn't true before, several of the images are just re-uploads, this person's track record with copyright is clearly not a good one, and xe has even acknowledged the improper authorship statement in one case.
By the way, given the account name, given that this account created Tsotne Bakuria, and given the "I made this." at File:Tsotne 3.JPG, File:Tsotne Two.JPG, and File:Tsotne One.JPG, there's a far more likely and straightforward possibility than that this person is a relative of M. Mashkevitch.
I repeat, for emphasis, that the libel charge on the living person biography should be dealt with seriously, and not casually dismissed just because this is an edit warrior who violates copyright. Uncle G (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, of course we should take the libel issue seriously too. I think there might be some real cause for concern: I left a comment on the talk page about the material Sbakuria was removing. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look and seeing what they think of my comments, soon, so that if a change is necessary it can be made quickly. Mangojuicetalk 14:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the claims made in the article are a problem, but its difficult to check the claims made and decide which sources are reliable and which aren't if Sbakuria won't communicate. Are there any guides for checking reliability of sources? Rtdixon86 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the steps you've taken are fine for now. If Sbakuria won't be more specific, other editors will just have to use their best judgment. The important thing is that we don't ignore the issue just because the one complaining hasn't gotten the hang of Wikipedia yet. Mangojuicetalk 05:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's Wikipedia:Reliable sources. See also User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources. I suggest that you review the sources for reliability, and look to see whether other sources cover the subject, who wrote and published them, and what they say. As noted on the BLP noticeboard (q.v.), this issue actually covers multiple articles. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light
A bunch of us are (at the least, I am) getting rather annoyed by one editor who makes a series of bizarre claims such as that the speed of light is not defined as 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light ceased to be meaningful after the 1983 definition of the BIPM as being exactly 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light defined by the BIPM is not the "actual" speed of light but rather some "unrelated" conversion factor between lenghts and time, and so on. For scale, the long talk page you'll see is the result of 9 days of these discussion, which are now simply repetitions of old ones (which are now archived, even if they are 2-3 weeks old at best). This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe. Looking for advice (wheter admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes things around here travel at the Speed of Smell. Anyway, WP:Consensus is key - and article content disputes are rarely actionable 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Having encountered him on these pages a few days ago, you certainly have my sympathy. Jehochman told him that he was from that Talk page back on 19 August, so if he continued to edit it after that date he should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS -- unless a later discussion on that page reversed Jehochman's ruling. (I stopped following the matter a couple of days ago, so I don't know what the situation is with him currently -- beyond the fact he is contributing under borrowed time.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the complaint concerns Brews ohare (talk · contribs), who seems to be continuing User:David_Tombe's fringe arguments and has made close to a 1000 edits on the talk page over the last 45 days. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A proposed lead to speed of light by User:Abtract found here is technically correct and yet conveys all that other editors wish to say. However, under the leadership of Martin Hogbin no attempt is being made to discuss this proposal, but instead Martin Hogbin is calling for a lynch mob to railroad his own incorrect wording into the article. Numerous explanations and reputable sources challenging Martin's wording have been presented and quoted on Talk:Speed of light, and Martin and his colleagues simply refuse to deal with them. Headbomb should have a better understanding than he indicates following a recent (brief) technical exchange with me at Talk:Speed of light concerning a different subsection.
The point for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not this argument over content, but that there is no argument over content. I have repeatedly tried to get some consideration for my opinion that the present wording is contrary to published experts, and provided sources, and no discussion of sources takes place. What happens is hectoring and attempt to impose majority rule (majority of editors, that is). My repeated attempts to get consideration of sourced opinion is being steamrollered by a lynch mob that cannot deal with it. What is needed is enforcement of WP protocol to address published sources, and to avoid repeated hectoring as a method to squelch ideas.
Discussion of the lead proposed by User:Abtract found here should be mandated. The excitement of mob rule should be squelched. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, here we see a malicious allegation in an attempt to get another player sent off the field. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know what Brews was arguing about. So I decided to investigate the matter. The first hint I got that Brews was right and that Martin Hogbin was wrong, came when Brews was eager to explain his position to me, whereas Martin refused to discuss the matter with me. Martin clearly didn't want to reveal his agenda. It took a while for me to work out the subtlety of the argument, but I eventually realized that Brews is absolutely right. The 1983 definition of the metre has had a significant impact on physics, and that needs to be elaborated on in the speed of light article. Brews is not pushing any fringe theories. Rather, those who are trying to prevent Brews from clarifying a very delicate point, are actually engaged in trying to hide the history of the subject. It's time that the editors who bring these malicious allegations to AN/I are themselves subjected to closer scrutiny. David Tombe (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mcalison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello, I was going through new page patrol and noticed this user, tagged one of there artices for deletion as WP:CSD#A3, but after looking at there contribs most of them seemed to only be adding an external link to random articles. Not sure this is spamming, could someone look into this. Feinoha Talk, My master 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I had a look at the 4 most recent diff's and they looked ok to me, relevant and not under WP:ELNO, the links weren't added with any promotional intent from what I saw. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In addition, typically all sites that are owned by a single company or individual, its about generating traffic and increasing exposure. The big picture shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. from, Special:Contributions/Mcalison
- 23:03, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Karmapa (→External links) (top)
- 22:59, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Warlpiri (→External links) (top)
- 22:58, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Warlpiri (→External links)
- 22:50, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Prison Dharma Network (→External links) (top)
- 22:42, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Thomas Keating (→External links) (top)
- 22:39, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Duane Elgin (→External links) (top)
- 22:32, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Indigenous peoples in Ecuador (→External Links) (top)
- 22:30, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Indigenous peoples in Ecuador (→References)
- 22:21, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Dean Radin (→External links) (top)
- 22:18, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Dean Radin (→External links) (Tag: repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user)
- 22:13, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa (→External links) (top)
- 22:12, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Cliff Curtis (→External links) (top)
- 22:06, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Kagyu (→Drukpa Kagyu) (top)
- 21:55, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Bob Randall (→External links) (top)
- 21:51, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Ngarrindjeri (→External links) (top)
- 21:50, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Ngarrindjeri (→External links)
- 21:50, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Ngarrindjeri (→External links)
- 21:47, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Wananga (→External Links) (top)
- 21:47, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Wananga (→External Links)
- 21:46, 27 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Wananga (Added External Link)
- 23:34, 26 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Angel Kyodo Williams (Added External Link) (top)
- 23:32, 26 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cuenca (Added External Link) (top)
- Asside from the obvious SPAM and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, one needs to consider a Wikipedia pillar...neutrality, adding the same domain over and over is contradictory to this. The account appears, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting this one website in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Yes, the internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content.--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- User:Mcalison's only activity on Wikipedia is the addition of these links. I would support undoing all their edits up to this point. We should listen carefully to any response they may give to this complaint, but their record so far is not promising. Video interviews may conceivably have value, but mass addition of such links is hard to accept. Seventh Generation Fund and Freddy Ehlers, now deleted as A3, seem to have been created only so that they could be a receptacle for the added link to the respective interview. We depend upon our editors having good judgment and we don't want them to be entirely devoted to promoting some external activity, like the site that hosts these interviews. No objection if this editor wants to add some relevant content to the respective articles that could be sourced to the interview of the subject. If some random editor who was trying to improve article content had come across one of these interviews and felt it belonged as a link, that would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, I've reverted this users edits. Additionaly it would seem those two article above were in fact only created for, and only contained a "link" to globalonenessproject.org. I've also found a more IP's;
- globalonenessproject.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.globalonenessproject.org
24.5.87.191 (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)
173.11.72.161 (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)
- globalonenessproject.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.globalonenessproject.org
- Also although it may not be related, when you link to the root domain (globalonenessproject.org) it closes the browser. weird...--Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, I've reverted this users edits. Additionaly it would seem those two article above were in fact only created for, and only contained a "link" to globalonenessproject.org. I've also found a more IP's;
- User:Mcalison's only activity on Wikipedia is the addition of these links. I would support undoing all their edits up to this point. We should listen carefully to any response they may give to this complaint, but their record so far is not promising. Video interviews may conceivably have value, but mass addition of such links is hard to accept. Seventh Generation Fund and Freddy Ehlers, now deleted as A3, seem to have been created only so that they could be a receptacle for the added link to the respective interview. We depend upon our editors having good judgment and we don't want them to be entirely devoted to promoting some external activity, like the site that hosts these interviews. No objection if this editor wants to add some relevant content to the respective articles that could be sourced to the interview of the subject. If some random editor who was trying to improve article content had come across one of these interviews and felt it belonged as a link, that would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In addition, typically all sites that are owned by a single company or individual, its about generating traffic and increasing exposure. The big picture shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. from, Special:Contributions/Mcalison
Responsibility to report?
I just reverted this and I'm wondering what to do next. Wondering: Is abuse happening, or is this just a perfectly happy kid/family that wants to state their opinion? I was going to send a welcome note and/or a note to seek police/school assistance, but IP appears to be an Alabama ISP and could be a shared home PC (would be bad if the wrong person received the talk notice). Any thoughts? 7 01:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although yeah that could be a child in trouble, it could also just be a random 13 year old who has an opinion about the subject of Child Abuse worthy of only a level 1 vandalism warning, there isn't really evidence of anything happening, it might not even be a child who made the edit! Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, could be completely innocuous. However, at this point I'd rather not warn them for the edit which might draw attention to it from the wrong person. Unless someone else disagrees I'll just watch this IPs contribs for a few days and make sure nothing else pops up. On this topic though, are there any WP specific guidelines for how to handle these types of issues (where there might need to be some official notification made to authorities) for my future reference? 7 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Start with Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and read the links elsewhere and the associated talk page discussions, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Uncle G. 7 02:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Start with Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and read the links elsewhere and the associated talk page discussions, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, could be completely innocuous. However, at this point I'd rather not warn them for the edit which might draw attention to it from the wrong person. Unless someone else disagrees I'll just watch this IPs contribs for a few days and make sure nothing else pops up. On this topic though, are there any WP specific guidelines for how to handle these types of issues (where there might need to be some official notification made to authorities) for my future reference? 7 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- In my experience, a common form of edit is to click an edit link and add a self-evident statement to an article; my guess is that it's done by a child wanting to leave their mark on an article. I don't see this edit as being any different from adding "Catapults were used to throw rocks" to Catapult, or "The Spruce Goose was a big airplane" to Spruce Goose (both of which I've seen). --Carnildo (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This user placed a template on my talk page that does not apply to me. I view this as an unpovoked attack. I do not know this user nor has he ever contacted me directly. I would like this user to be blocked from editing my user page. Neurofish (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish
It is funny a brand new member knows all about administration noticeboard and the wiki projects. Some admmins will here will recall another episode where I accused a sock puppet of mwalla, a permanently banned user they created an admin noticeboard notification. Please see this page, User_talk:Tiptoety#Mwalla_is_back_on_3_socks_in_as_many_days and also this page.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
How would you know what other editors know? I guess you are the judge. Neurofish (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish
- Well. That was quick and painless. (For us, anyway) So, the first thing sockpuppets do now is commit suicide? I think I like it. It's pointless, but I like it. HalfShadow 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Two in a row...the section above was another PLAXICO (does that have a wikipage yet?). It's so convenient when they come straight here to be dealt with... Auntie E. 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it is resolved
Thanks Toddstq for blocking. There are two other accounts. User:Abcdohrayme and User:Punctuallylate If you review the ip address blocks Tiptoey only blocked them for 3 months so mwalla is now back mass producing sockpuppets again now that the 3 month ip block has expired. See bottom of Mwalla sock investigation archive. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive Toddstq, did you just block the username or the ip addresses as well? It might be worth reinstating blocks on the ip addresses in the Mwalla archive. But will leave the decision up to you. Thanks. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would feel a little more comfortable if somebody would run a CU on the Neurofish account. I usually turn out to be wrong about these things, but there are enough differences from the usual behavior that this doesn't quite quack for me. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- A checkuser would be great Looie, I have requested one on WP:SPI. Maybe Looie it is this edit, where one sockpuppet reverted another sockpuppet,[54], this was done only after I had added templates to all 3 accounts accusing them of being sockpuppets, so they were just trying to divert suspicion in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
An SPI has been filed by myself here.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Disruption, incivility on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) by tendentious editor
User:Cosmos416 has been highly disruptive in this article lately by making tendentious edits, edit warring when other undo them, and showing extreme bad faith and incivility. Examples:
Tendentious editing: He is particularly focused on promoting the POV that R1a originated in South Asia, rather than elsewhere, and labels everything agains this POV as "bias": [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. He is particularly insistent on placing "south Asia" subsections on top of every section, claiming it is "alphabetical" when it is anything but.
Edit warring: Got into a major edit war with User:Jamesdean3295 on August 26 [61] [62] [63] [64] [65], and has broken 3RR today: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71].
Extreme incivility: Virtually every single one of his edit summaries is a personal attack against some editor, getting more and more shrill lately. Displays extreme bad faith, accuses users of being sockpuppets or being "connected". Rarely participates in talkpage discussions, and when he does, it consists of statements like this: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76].
This behavior is extremely disruptive and has got to stop. --Athenean (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just wanted to point out, while he has certainly been edit-warring he hasn't broken 3RR. Per WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I see a total of 3 reverts in 24 hours: this on the 27th, this today, and this just after. Another revert and he can be reported to WP:AN3 but he's not there yet. -- Atama頭 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, he has not actually edited since a recent series of warnings left at his talk page (warnings left 18:12 and 18:17, last edits at 17:20). I don't think a block would be appropriate UNTIL he edits again. However, the very next personal attack, or the very next time he attempts to edit war at the article in question, he should be blocked for either. This has gone on long enough, and I think we can call this his VERY last chance. Also, since no one else did, I notified him of this thread. --Jayron32 19:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would also like to comment here. Cosmos words that he left on my talk page were also very uncivil. Please make note of these for the case. Thanks.Geog1 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1
- Cosmos has been uncivil, and his edit summaries are not really correct or helpful. If that is what is being discussed I leave it to others. But keep in mind that at least so far the substance of the edit war he is involved in is this matter of alphabetical order. Cosmos is not one of the editors currently pushing non-neutral and non-consensus POV in the content, like Jamesdean certainly is. Furthermore as I pointed out to Athenean on the article talkpage I don't see that reacting to such a thing by ALSO moving things around based on (another) alphabetical order is any less tendentious than being the first to do move things around by alphabetical order. I do think this case could be considered for Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually check out his 23:07, 24 August 2009 edit on the R1a page. We were trying to keep the Oppenheimer info in the right place(s) but he kept putting it back in the Eastern Euro section after myself and other editors tried to keep it in its rightful relevant place numerous times. I believe this constitutes as a non-neutral POV maneuvering of sorts...I think all edit wars are lame but there were some things seriously wrong with this article as well as many other topics related to R1a but the pushing was done consistently by Cosmos.Geog1 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1
Why are most pages on subclades of haplogroups just sitting there, while we are geting silly edit wars on the R1a one? Because that is the one associated with "Aryans". Cosmos416 is the typical kind of editor we get there who is interested in Indigenous Aryans, not genetics. Keep that in mind when assessing the situation. The task of admins in this case is clearing the air for an editing-friendly atmosphere for editors with expertise and interest in human genetics which means putting a leash on the "Aryan" tourists popping up at the article. --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
User:NikFreak
User:NikFreak seems to be attempting to purge the history of his talk page by moving it to Junk:3862340023750. I know we used to allow good faith requests for deletion of a user's own talk page, but I'm hesitant to tag the "Junk" page for CSD given that he seems to want to suppress the history of being warned for incivility. I'm not sure what needs to be done about this. Gigs (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've done a history merge to put it back in. He's welcome to remove the warnings, but the page history should remain where it is. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a sock of someone, or someone returning, but who is this? Prodego talk 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that Giano? –xenotalk 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Such a well-disguised alternative account may be difficult to identify *grin* Black Kite 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, shouldn't this be marked somewhere? Prodego talk 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much declares it as Giano on the user page. This is freaking hilarious. -- Atama頭 19:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- It says Lady Catherine was the muse and great great grand aunt of Giano. It's in character, but it's identified.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we have any requirement for people to declare their alternate accounts as long as they do not violate the sock puppetry policy. Chillum 19:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well apparently the wit of that is above me. I need something a bit more obvious to identify alternate accounts, personally. Otherwise they just end up looking like sockpuppets to me. Also: what joke? As for declaring, I would like to know who feels they need to judge my impertinence and manners, rather than hiding behind some account I do not know who is. Prodego talk 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, do we really want to drag out another Giano debate over another one of his obvious joke accounts? No one is going to block him or this account, it's CLEARLY one of his cadre of similar accounts (there are dozens). No one has done anything wrong. I am re-resolving this before it gets out of hand. --Jayron32 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Prodego registered on 23 September 2005, goddam n00b that he is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you're not born on Wikipedia, you're not a native. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Giano most certainly does not boast dozens of "similar accounts." There is, or was, User:Catherine de Burgh, and that's pretty much it, as far as I can recollect. After her Ladyship's untimely demise, she has been editing as User:Ka of Catherine de Burgh (very reasonably so IMO, see wikipedia's article Ka), while usually signing as "Lady Catherine de Burgh (the late)". Giano has never been partial to alternative accounts, and if the thing sounds a bit complicated, that is simply caused by Lady Catherine's unhappy departure for greener pastures. In other words, unless I've accidentally mislaid some sock, Giano has one alternative account. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
- Correct link: Egyptian soul#Ka. FWIW sock pupptry requires a forbidden use of an alternate account. Thus, sockpuppetry reports require diffs. The obtuse should re-read the instructions at the top of this noteboard, specifically the one that says where to file sockpuppetry complaints. Jehochman Talk 07:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of non-notable album cover
In early May of this year, an AfD was closed on an article about an album titled "Blood of Angels". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood of Angels. The album did not meet notability requirements. Some more background on this is available at User talk:Ebonyskye/Archive3.
Subsequent to the AfD deletion of the album's article, the cover art of the album (File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg) was added to the album's artist [77], along with information regarding the album. A few days ago, the image came up for deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_25#File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg. This is how it came to my attention.
Throughout the project, we do not include album covers on their artist's page. They are permitted on article about the albums in particular, but unless there is substantial notability of, say, the cover design related to the artist we don't see album covers on artists page. They are routinely removed for failing WP:NFCC.
In this particular case, we're being asked to host an album cover for an album that was deemed, via the AfD, to be non-notable. I fail to see a reason why we should retain a non-free cover of a non-notable album any more than we retain articles of non-notable bands. I've directed User:Ebonyskye to take the issue up at WP:DRV, but he is reverting to push the image back into the article [78].
Related to this, User:Ebonyskye has thrice put album infobox template onto the article after it was removed by others [79][80][81].
Please note that back in 2007, Ebonyskye was topic banned from Nox Arcana and related articles (and Michelle Belanger is related; in fact the album in question was performed with Nox Arcana. The topic ban was later lifted. However, I see signs of the behavior resurfacing, along with a sense that WP:OWN is being violated.
The FfD on this image is devolving into wikilawyering, over something that we handle on a routine basis without ever touching FfD; non-notable album, we remove its cover. This is pretty simple. An administrator to step in would be useful. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just noting, but as the article was merged I've moved the history back to Blood of Angels and left it under the redirect, so everything's hunky-dory copyright wise. Hammersoft, I suggest an RFC about the user's behavior, if necessary, and to just let the FfD run its course. While there may be some disruption there, it doesn't look like consensus is actually moving for it, and the usual outcome is going to happen anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The FFD is moot anyway. Even if it results in a Keep, the image still needs to be removed from Michelle Belanger as failing WP:NFCC, and it will then be orphaned and, as a non-free file, speedy deletable anyway. Black Kite 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the FfD results in the image being kept, and it's removed from the article, an edit war will result to push the image back on. It won't be speedy deleted. That's why I'm asking for action now, to avoid the unfolding drama and take an action that is already blatantly obvious as to what to do. We just have one editor standing in the way, an editor previously sanctioned for this behavior on tightly related articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're asking on AN/I for an early / speedy close of an FFD as delete? Is there any reason to think FFD process won't work as intended? A decision to delete makes the issue moot. A decision to keep is an endorsement that the image belongs, no? Results you don't agree with are not necessarily a process problem. Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm asking for deletion of an image that should never have been listed at FfD in the first place. We routinely delete images of non-notable album covers. If we instead took all of these to FfD, we'd be overrun by them. The album was already decided to be non-notable by the AfD that deleted it. There's no reason to keep around an image of a non-notable album. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're asking on AN/I for an early / speedy close of an FFD as delete? Is there any reason to think FFD process won't work as intended? A decision to delete makes the issue moot. A decision to keep is an endorsement that the image belongs, no? Results you don't agree with are not necessarily a process problem. Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep Note that I am not banned [82] from the topic that Hammersoft claims. The ban was something in effect for another user. I got involved on the topic months later, but when a checkuser came back negative, the ban was lifted. User:SilkTork [83] originally suggested the album be merged with the author page and suggested I find more news, which I did. I was only following instructions. I added a lot of sources, and it was approved. The question here is not an orphaned file nor an issue of notability. The album is part of a larger discography for Nox Arcana, and the band has already been deemed notable (charted on Billboard, and have been covered in major media such as The Plain Dealer and Fangoria and other newspapers and magazines worldwide), likewise so has the vocalist - and per WP:Music#Albums if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia is permitted to have an album page. If you'd permit for the album page to be reinstated, I think this would alleviate all problems, and I would be happy to add the new citations that were gathered since. Please note that the original vote to Afd the album was populated by sockpuppets User:MarkChase, so although it was deleted the vote was stacked. I believe the deletion to have been wrong in the first place. Ebonyskye (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I note again that your pleading in the wrong place. Please go to WP:DRV. Until the AfD is overturned, the presumption is the album is non-notable, as that is why the album article was deleted. If you are successful at WP:DRV, then the album can appear on the article. This isn't hard. The album cover has now been deleted, and the FfD closed. if you want the album cover to appear on Wikipedia, then your first step is that way. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- What Hammersoft said. If the album is notable enough to have its own article, then a single non-free image is unexceptional. But the place to argue that is WP:DRV. Black Kite 10:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Help please
A thread archived before these three articles were moved, I moved all the other ones I was able. If someone would be so kind to migrate them to more MOS compliant titles I would appreciate it. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Otto Bauer (pornography) - should disambiguate to pornographic actor
- Mark Davis (pornography) - should disambiguate to actor (could add pornographic although that's not needed right now)
- Michael Brandon (pornography) - should disambiguate to pornographic actor
- Just for some background context, could you please link to the discussion involving these pages? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, here is the original thread. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Help please
It's come to my attention that I quite badly fudged up a pagemove at Ophelia (see Talk:Ophelia (character) for move request), so some help would be appreciated. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am confused... what did you mess up? Just the talk page needs to be moved now... –túrianpatois 02:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently he histmerged the disambig... he should have moved Ophelia to Ophelia (disambiguation) before moving Ophelia (character) to Ophelia... Until It Sleeps Wake me 02:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently Ophelia was to be moved to Ophelia (disambiguation), and then Ophelia (character) to Ophelia. However, it seems I accidentally skipped step 1, and so now the dab and the main article are somehow histmerged... I think... –Juliancolton | Talk 02:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's being fixed. No one panic! ;) Wknight94 talk 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still seems broken to me..... ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's being fixed. No one panic! ;) Wknight94 talk 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, this was a mess...
- To recap:
- Ophelia (character) was moved over Ophelia
- The deleted history of Ophelia was restored, accidentally history merging the 2 together.
- I manually un-history-merged 92 of the 97 revisions of the old disambiguation page, and moved them to Ophelia (disambiguation)
- In the process of doing so, I found some old history that was at that title, but had been redirected to Ophelia. I moved this history to Ophelia (disambiguation) (old) - someone still needs to figure out where this goes, maybe just deleted, or history merged with the current disambig page.
- The revisions of the main article are restored, with 5 old (pre-April 2007) revisions of the disambiguation page mixed in.
- Mr.Z-man 02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I history merged all but the latest two revisions of Ophelia (disambiguation) (old) to Ophelia (disambiguation), and deleted the former title as a useless redirect. Here is the diff of the cut-and-paste move from "Ophelia (disambiguation)" to "Ophelia". Graham87 08:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
What exactly did I access?
I was trying to get to Lupin III, but found myself redirected to Lupine for some reason and a very jumbled mess of a page. Anyone can figure out what just happened, if anyone can humor me?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Lupin III does not redirect to Lupine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- But it did for me. So I wanna know is, what the hell did I just access?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Lupine article is meant to be a disambig, but recently someone copied the contents of an article about lupin the plant to it. There was some confusion about what was meant to be there, but I've reverted it back to being a disambig again. The page was definitely a mess. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Unapproved bot
- User:Ohms law appears to be running an unauthorized bot. diff User A1 (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, was running an unauthorised bot. I agree that he shouldn't have been, but it was a fairly minor task that has now completed, and per his talk page he does not intend to run the task again. Any further usage of that bot outside of his userspace needs approval, but I do not see any admin intervention as necessary at the moment. ~ mazca talk 10:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that. He was using it to change his signature from an "Ohm" to the formula for "Ohm's Law". Kind of obsessive, frankly, but apparently harmless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks guys... now I know what it's like to be wikistalked, at least. Sheesh! I'm not sure what all of the excitement was about, to be honest. It was a one time task which remained completely clear of the mainspace, it only touched my own signature (which actually took a bit of testing, you know), and I felt that it was important. I guess that is a little obsessive, but I thought that it was important to ensure avoiding the appearance of trying to impersonate User:Ω, who I didn't even realize existed until Jafeluv brought the issue to my attention a couple days ago. Anyway, back to work for me!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)- Just try to understand that most, if not all, of the talk pages you edited are watchlisted by people. Hence, hundreds and hundreds of people will happen to notice an unusual edit from a user account called "bot" but not marked as one, and a minority of them will raise the question. It's not wikistalking, you just drew some unwelcome attention to yourself! In any case, no harm done - happy editing. ~ mazca talk 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Humm... good point. I did mark the edits as minor, but... it felt as though I was being followed, certainly. meh, anyway...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)- Actually, running an unauthorized bot is a bit serious because of the problems it can cause (see the bot policy). As mentioned above, it was harmless so I'm mentioning this to make sure you'll be aware of that in the future. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm very aware of the bot policy, no worries. The whole reason that it's not approved for anything yet is that I'm working to ensure that it's up to spec. Anyway, I came back here just to (re)remove AN/I from my watchlist. Carry on, folks! File:Smily.png
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm very aware of the bot policy, no worries. The whole reason that it's not approved for anything yet is that I'm working to ensure that it's up to spec. Anyway, I came back here just to (re)remove AN/I from my watchlist. Carry on, folks! File:Smily.png
- Actually, running an unauthorized bot is a bit serious because of the problems it can cause (see the bot policy). As mentioned above, it was harmless so I'm mentioning this to make sure you'll be aware of that in the future. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Humm... good point. I did mark the edits as minor, but... it felt as though I was being followed, certainly. meh, anyway...
- Just try to understand that most, if not all, of the talk pages you edited are watchlisted by people. Hence, hundreds and hundreds of people will happen to notice an unusual edit from a user account called "bot" but not marked as one, and a minority of them will raise the question. It's not wikistalking, you just drew some unwelcome attention to yourself! In any case, no harm done - happy editing. ~ mazca talk 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks guys... now I know what it's like to be wikistalked, at least. Sheesh! I'm not sure what all of the excitement was about, to be honest. It was a one time task which remained completely clear of the mainspace, it only touched my own signature (which actually took a bit of testing, you know), and I felt that it was important. I guess that is a little obsessive, but I thought that it was important to ensure avoiding the appearance of trying to impersonate User:Ω, who I didn't even realize existed until Jafeluv brought the issue to my attention a couple days ago. Anyway, back to work for me!
- I saw that. He was using it to change his signature from an "Ohm" to the formula for "Ohm's Law". Kind of obsessive, frankly, but apparently harmless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, was running an unauthorised bot. I agree that he shouldn't have been, but it was a fairly minor task that has now completed, and per his talk page he does not intend to run the task again. Any further usage of that bot outside of his userspace needs approval, but I do not see any admin intervention as necessary at the moment. ~ mazca talk 10:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Mephiston999 using AWB to change the spelling of book titles
I don't know where else to go to complain about this or even where to start a discussion about this because it involves multiple articles.
Mephiston999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is running the WP:AWB bot and fixing spelling errors, including in "[year] in poetry" articles that have come up on my watchlist. Mixed in with this good work, his edits are damaging the articles by changing the original spelling used in the titles [84] [85] [86] [87] (often antique spelling or alternate spelling that the author chose -- here's an example: (M's edit) [88]; (what the source says) [89] crossed out -- as Uncle G noted, I'm incorrect here and the edit was a good one). This means Mephiston999 is using the bot to introduce errors in Wikipedia articles. The information on the books and poems is sourced with footnotes, and the spelling of titles is the way it is given in the sources. Using the original spelling also helps readers who do an internet search under that spelling (the original spelling and title is usually the way the book is known -- if not, both the best-known and the actual titles are listed, for example "Songes and Sonettes, written by the ryght honorable Lorde Henry Haward late Earle of Surrey, and other, now better known as Tottel's Miscellany" -- 1557 in poetry).
I politely asked Mephiston to stop on the editor's talk page. [90] (02:15, 27 August)
Without replying, the editor has continued. [91] (22:35, 27 August 2009) crossed out -- as Uncle G noted, I'm incorrect here and the edit was a good one). So far, this is the only edit to a year-in-poetry article after I asked the editor to stop. But there are hundreds of these quirky spellings.
By continuing, Mephiston goes against Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use: Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding.
If Mephiston999 wants to make the case that we should update the spellings of book titles in Wikipedia, that's a content question we can discuss and reach a consensus on, maybe at Talk:List of years in poetry. (Some sources do use updated spellings, but we use the spelling that the source uses.) But the editor is silent when it comes to justifying this, and he or she is just continuing to make controversial edits across Wikipedia with the bot. Those edits are going to be very difficult to sift through if the damage continues. Please tell him to stop and get consensus first before continuing. If I'm the one that needs to get consensus to get this to stop, tell me and I'll go do it.
I put a lot of work into getting the proper spellings into these pages and getting footnotes for information (footnotes are rare in year-in articles). Why should I continue if my work is going to be wrecked by someone who won't discuss the problem? If I just revert, the bot will do it again. (Incidentally, Mephiston999 seems to be doing the same thing in "years in literature" pages, but there are no footnotes there, so it's hard to prove that the edits there, like this one [92], are creating inaccuracies. I could actually look up this example in an instant, but I can't easily look up a hundred bot changes.)
Here's what I'm asking:
- Tell Mephiston999 to stop using the bot to change book titles; or
- Tell Mephiston999 to stop using the bot to change book titles until consensus is reached to do so; or
- Tell me I need to go get consensus and,
- If I'm the one that needs consensus, tell me either that I can come back here to ask for enforcement of consensus or what I should do if Mephiston999 ignores consensus with this bot.
- Can I do anything to prevent this from happening again? Reconsideration (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I told Mephiston999 that I posted here. [93] Reconsideration (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like he is running typo fixing without actually examining whether said typos should or need to be fixed. –xenotalk 15:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can start by explaining why the diffs directly contradict your claims. Mephiston999 changes "Brebeuf and his Bretheren" to "Brebeuf and his Brethren"; you link to a book that quite clearly gives the latter spelling; and somehow this is "introducing errors in Wikipedia articles"? Your own pointers to sources are contradicting your claim to have got "the proper spellings into these pages" before these corrections. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have left him a follow up message to your messages. It looks like this may not be the first time he has used AWB without the necessary due care (see prior sections on his talk page). Are there still non-fixed errors he made? I am considering a mass-rv of his recent typo-fixing AWB edits. –xenotalk 15:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Consider carefully. The spelling of the John Beaumont poem title that Mephiston999 used is the spelling that is given on page 495 of Robert S. Miola's Early modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources (OUP; ISBN 9780199259854). Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like his edits have only been correct when AWB's preferred spelling is used in the original. In any case, this is still a haphazard way to go about using AWB. –xenotalk 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. It's a foolish move to apply a 20th/21st century English spelling-correction tool to the titles of 17th century works. But it's also true that some of these titles weren't as correctly spelled in the first place as was being claimed by Reconsideration. And titles like Brébeuf and his Brethren are titles of 20th century works. Uncle G (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like his edits have only been correct when AWB's preferred spelling is used in the original. In any case, this is still a haphazard way to go about using AWB. –xenotalk 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Consider carefully. The spelling of the John Beaumont poem title that Mephiston999 used is the spelling that is given on page 495 of Robert S. Miola's Early modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources (OUP; ISBN 9780199259854). Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to take a closer look at what Uncle G has pointed out, but I also note that when his access to AWB was granted he was specifically asked not to use it for fixing typoes: [96]. –xenotalk 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uncle G is right about Bretheren, Brethren -- Mephiston999 actually did good work on that one, fixing a mistake that I had made. He also fixed a typo I had in a John Donne work (changed Aniversary to Anniversary as in the original). He's also fixed many other typos/spelling mistakes on the year-in-poetry pages. I'm not complaining about actual corrections to actual spelling/typing mistakes. I've praised him for doing that. Now that we've narrowed down the problem by one edit, please tell me what I can do. Keep in mind that the edit that Uncle G identified is the only one to a year-in-poetry page after my comment on Mephiston999's talk page, so maybe he's stopped. -- Reconsideration (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uncle G says Consider carefully. The spelling of the John Beaumont poem title that Mephiston999 used is the spelling that is given on page 495 of Robert S. Miola's Early modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources (OUP; ISBN 9780199259854). Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Is Mephiston999 changing the spelling of a title because that editor has found a source? If there is a reason to change it to the new spelling, then at least the source should be cited and the old source in some cases removed. That's a content question we can discuss on an article talk page. Is that the kind of editing that AWB is used for? There are sources that give modernized spelling, and I've used them myself (but only when I couldn't easily find a source with original spellings, and I plan to change them when I find those sources). Wikipedia editors shouldn't be deciding on book title spelling, we should be using the spelling that we find sources using -- or explicitly tell the reader otherwise. Unless the editor is relying on sources, this is a kind of spelling WP:OR with a bot. Reconsideration (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding Uncle G's astute observations, my gut feeling says that Mephiston is taking AWB's typo fixing suggestions at face value without consulting the sources. The best thing to do would be to examine each edit and check it against a Google book search as has been done above and make a firm determination one way or the other. When you restore an antiquated spelling, you can wrap and obfuscate it in a {{sic}} template (probably using hide=y to suppress the [sic] display e.g.) to prevent careless typo fixing in the future (i.e.
{{sic|Libel|ls|hide=y}}
results in: Libells). –xenotalk 16:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll look into doing that immediately. Will that definitely hide it from AWB? Is there a Wikipedia page on that? It'll be a lot of work, but I'll do it. The diffs I cited at the top, other than the one I got wrong, were cited after I double-checked by looking into the original source I used when I first inserted some of those titles into the articles, The Concise Oxford Chronology of English Literature. Justification can be found for some of Mephiston999's title changes, and some works today seem to be better known by what looks like updated spelling (example: Deffense to Defense [97] seems justified by comparing Google searches, with 10 times the hits for the latter, both versions having reliable sources [98] [99]; yet that edit was one of seven the editor made from 18:16 to 18:18 that day, and it's hard to believe sourcing was looked up beforehand). Thanks again for your help. Reconsideration (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding Uncle G's astute observations, my gut feeling says that Mephiston is taking AWB's typo fixing suggestions at face value without consulting the sources. The best thing to do would be to examine each edit and check it against a Google book search as has been done above and make a firm determination one way or the other. When you restore an antiquated spelling, you can wrap and obfuscate it in a {{sic}} template (probably using hide=y to suppress the [sic] display e.g.) to prevent careless typo fixing in the future (i.e.
Bret Hart
Dear All,
I would like to bring to your attention the page of wrestler Bret Hart. Over the last few days (and indeed the same incidents occured months earlier, through posters who are now banned - using the exact same language) the accepted, and time tested page has been edited to hide / buffer certain incidents. The editors in question are content in leaving the page to look like a fan page for this wrestler.
The Bloodstained Memoirs section seems to be the focal editing point. Although the facts originaly listed are accurate, and cited, (and can be looked up independently) they are constantly trying to be changed to infactual accounts, or altered to be "pro Hart".
The same goes for the Greg Oliver incident. I cited evidence which paints the incident in a far more unbiased fasion, and this was labbled "vandilism" by the trouble editors. I also took down uneccasary and very one sided information from the article lead to the same response.
The entire article is written in a "Bret hart Favoured" tint which is obviously against Wiki policy, and the majority of the information does not even contain cites for what is stated. Its all very one sided.
The editors in question are constantly being foul in discussion, and reverting things to name calling, and trolling etc. The article has gone untested for far too long, dispite myself, and others giving multiple warnings for this to stop. It seems they have no regard for the policies here, and are content for things to go around in circles. I even tried to compromise with this editor, but they wanted it all their way, and again reverted my edits to his/her version of events.
I would appreciate immediate action, from somebody who is unbiased, and not even into wrestling, to see things as they are for Wiki policy.
Thank You. Commoncase (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It should also be worth noting, that a long standing "controversy" section was removed, and its content fit into other sections of the article. This was nothing more than a clever way to phase sections out as "not fitting under the new heading", and these claims are now starting to take on effect. Commoncase (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this was transferred here after originally being posted to WP:AIV [100]. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Legal threats/Heal the world
I became aware of the Heal the World Foundation article because of a report here. It's relatively straight forward - Michael Jackson run the charity and it was shut a few years ago. Then a new charity sprung up with the same name and an investigation by CBS revealed that they are completely unconnected and they have a direct quote from the Estate saying they are unconnected. This of course is not pleasing to the people running the charity and they would prefer this wasn't mentioned. I (and from the history others) have tried to explain to them about RS and are getting nowhere. They have no reverted to their perferred version and have stated they will take legal action against anyone who changes it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Edits rolled back; article semi-protected; IP blocked for a month per WP:NLT. Black Kite 16:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ingrid4hubby (talk · contribs) For a couple of weeks, the above user has made unconstructive edits to talk:Castle, and at one point was blocked for 24 hours for making a personal attack. Ingrib4hubbey has also edited as 66.108.40.200 (talk · contribs) [101]. Since returning from the block, the user has continued to be unconstructive, accusing others of being biased and continued to make personal attacks. There is also a racist tone to her comments (eg: "Americans possess the propensity of not accepting the truth because they think that if it didn't come from them that it must not have been made possible. Again, this is highly discriminatory..."). I cannot take any action myself as after I blocked her the first time I became involved in the discussion. The latest details can be found here, although some slightly earlier stuff to show that this has continued for a couple of weeks now can be found here. Nev1 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've blocked this editor indefinitely. A quick review of their contributions shows a history of personal attacks and disruptive editing. TNXMan 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Harassment by anon IP
I don't know who this is but they have been clearly wikihounding me and have caused at least one semi-outing problem (now resolved). I think there might be a possibility that this is an open-proxy operated by Google, but I cannot verify it. I also see some peculiar similarities between that account and User:Landed little marsdon. Could an administrator look into this, and maybe give an opinion as to whether a CU might be appropriate?
ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am missing the "clear wikihounding". A post to your talk page and a comment to Lar a month ago? Tan | 39 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Content is what is important here. The incredible level of snarkiness is indicative of User:Davkal, for example. In my experience, users acting like this are some of the most destructive around here. I already lost a mentor in part because of this kind of thing. In the past I would have confronted the IP on their talkpage, but now I think it wiser to get outsiders to handle this instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, unrelated to the actual editing, I blocked this IP as an open proxy; it is used by the Google translator service. Tan | 39 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist is right. Any administrator who needs proof of that is welcome to contact me offsite. This is the tip of a nasty iceberg. Durova306 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a reason off-wiki discussion is needed? Those two diffs (only one of which is on SA's talk page) don't seem especially helpful to building article content, but I can't see how they amount to a campaign of harassment. Many of us are sarcastic at times. Is there more to this, and if it can't be discussed on wiki then I think soem explanation for that should be provided for those of us not in the loop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is a reason that Durova's story needs to be left off-wiki. There is a difference, CoM, between accounts that engage in tongue-and-cheek ribbing and accounts that hide behind proxies and anon IPs to attempt to cause people grief. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I hear you SA. But transparency is also important. Maybe I just don't have the level of trust in off-wiki conferencing that you do. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, this is real enough. Surely you realize that for some things, the less attention paid here the better? DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, well then close the thread. All I see are two diffs that don't amount to much and a comment by Durova whose track record on secret investigations comes well short of being perfect. But I'm willing to take the word of you and SA on faith. Is there a policy page on how these military tribunals are conducted or is it classified? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- ChildofMidnight's slur is entirely uncalled-for. If that user had wanted to see what I had to show s/he might have emailed and put it to the test, or at least have contacted user talk before slamming my character at a public board. Do the words severe offsite harassment lack sufficient meaning? I've referred to this repeatedly and consistently since it happened, although somewhat quietly because I have no desire to be revictimized. One would hope, if such a thing had to happen, it would be at the hands of banned trolls rather than by people who have editing rights and ought to know better. For shame. Durova306 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, well then close the thread. All I see are two diffs that don't amount to much and a comment by Durova whose track record on secret investigations comes well short of being perfect. But I'm willing to take the word of you and SA on faith. Is there a policy page on how these military tribunals are conducted or is it classified? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is a reason that Durova's story needs to be left off-wiki. There is a difference, CoM, between accounts that engage in tongue-and-cheek ribbing and accounts that hide behind proxies and anon IPs to attempt to cause people grief. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a reason off-wiki discussion is needed? Those two diffs (only one of which is on SA's talk page) don't seem especially helpful to building article content, but I can't see how they amount to a campaign of harassment. Many of us are sarcastic at times. Is there more to this, and if it can't be discussed on wiki then I think soem explanation for that should be provided for those of us not in the loop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist is right. Any administrator who needs proof of that is welcome to contact me offsite. This is the tip of a nasty iceberg. Durova306 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, unrelated to the actual editing, I blocked this IP as an open proxy; it is used by the Google translator service. Tan | 39 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Content is what is important here. The incredible level of snarkiness is indicative of User:Davkal, for example. In my experience, users acting like this are some of the most destructive around here. I already lost a mentor in part because of this kind of thing. In the past I would have confronted the IP on their talkpage, but now I think it wiser to get outsiders to handle this instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
James Caan (entrepreneur)
Please can someone help me on the James Caan (entrepreneur) page? There's some disagreement over whether his previous name was "Nazim Khan" or "Nazim Khant". The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of "Khan", and I've set this out on the Talk Page (before my IP changed just now :P), but it's still getting repeatedly reversed, without explanation or engagement in discussion.
There has to be a possibility that this is simply vandalism. Clearly false former names have been added in the past, and (whilst of course I don't have a Wikipedia account myself) the vast majority of the "Khant" edits are made by anonymous editors. One non-anonymous editor has also supported the "Khant" change, but they've only made one edit not to the James Caan page (also to a biography of a living person), and this seems a bit suspicous too. However I don't want to jump to any conclusions, which is why I've come to this general page.
I hope someone more experienced will be able to help!
Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss it. You might wish to try WP:3O if you feel no consensus can be achieved on the article talk page. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Aditya (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. As far as I can determine, there's no good-faith dispute at all here - the "Khant" changes are simple vandalism. I'm not sure what the motivation is, but I can't see any decent sources that support that spelling. If this behaviour continues, I'd generally suggest semi protection of the article, but that would prevent all IP editing, including the original poster here - have you thought about creating an account? ~ mazca talk 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The IP making the changes seems rather static. If the behavior continues, we can simply block it. — Jake Wartenberg 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. As far as I can determine, there's no good-faith dispute at all here - the "Khant" changes are simple vandalism. I'm not sure what the motivation is, but I can't see any decent sources that support that spelling. If this behaviour continues, I'd generally suggest semi protection of the article, but that would prevent all IP editing, including the original poster here - have you thought about creating an account? ~ mazca talk 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Commercial link
Admin PhilKnight blocked the IP for 48 hours
An anon editor keeps adding a commercial website as an external link in the black garlic article even after repeated explanations, reversions and a warning. [104]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
User:DBZfan29
I managed to step in this when I swung by the vandalism-in-progress page and saw that an established user had been reported there as retaliation over content dispute. User:Collectonian, who this user was in dispute with, pointed out that this young man's userpage contained a great deal of personal information, perhaps too much. I deleted it for his protection, but sure enough, I'm now in the middle of a hassle over it. Would someone else please review User:DBZfan29? If he limited his personal info as claimed on the talk page, please feel free to restore it. IMO, he's listed too much and this is way too visible a site for such sensitive info. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it was probably too much info, even though the user claims "It's just a copy of my FanCorps profile and it gives info that any fanboy/fangirl would write on their page.". There wasn't a ton of personal info, but enough that I would feel uncomfortable leaving it up. TNXMan 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what I felt. He pulled up just short of using his last name, but I agree that leaving it up is not in his best interest. I'm still trying to get him to calm down after the userpage deletion and the edit warring. Here's hoping he will. Gotta run...thanks for the opinion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)