HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) →Disruptive behaviour at AfD: comment |
MickMacNee (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 630: | Line 630: | ||
:::::*My basic competency as an editor? Let's see, I've created 662 articles on en.wiki, of which only 2 have been deleted. I've also created 195 lists. Add to this 2 articles created on nl.wiki and 9 lists created on de.wiki. I think most would agree that I pass [[WP:COMPETENCE]]. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::::*My basic competency as an editor? Let's see, I've created 662 articles on en.wiki, of which only 2 have been deleted. I've also created 195 lists. Add to this 2 articles created on nl.wiki and 9 lists created on de.wiki. I think most would agree that I pass [[WP:COMPETENCE]]. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::*MMN warned for that last. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 16:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::::*MMN warned for that last. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 16:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::*Well, I knew I was going to get shafted at some point in this thread. Mjroots makes an unfounded complaint based on his total inability to understand WP:AFD, everybody quite rightly tells him to go fish, and I still get fucked over. Brilliant. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*If anyone comes off as uncivil in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101]], it's the voters who decided to make their point with extra-large font. MMN was right to call out voters who didn't base their votes on actual policy. [[User:DC|<font style="color: #002664">'''''~DC'''''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:DC|<font color="#BB133E" face="Tahoma"><b>Let's Vent</b></font>]]</sub> 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
*If anyone comes off as uncivil in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101]], it's the voters who decided to make their point with extra-large font. MMN was right to call out voters who didn't base their votes on actual policy. [[User:DC|<font style="color: #002664">'''''~DC'''''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:DC|<font color="#BB133E" face="Tahoma"><b>Let's Vent</b></font>]]</sub> 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
*I don't believe this thread is especially helpful. Mick has not violated any policy or guideline (except WP:CIVIL, but that seems to be optional these days) and restricting him wouldn't do any good. Nobody is obliged to respond to another editor in an AfD and I suggest people leave it to the closing admins to weigh up the arguments, but I believe ''civil discussion'' (not "who can shout the loudest") about the notability of the subject are far better for the encyclopaedia than drive by voting, often by editors who appear never to have read the policy/guideline/essay they're citing. If I nominate an article for deletion, I believe I have a right to challenge !votes I believe to be invalid, otherwise even more shite would slip through the cracks than it does already (and no, I'm not a deletionist, I just believe in [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:N]]). [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
*I don't believe this thread is especially helpful. Mick has not violated any policy or guideline (except WP:CIVIL, but that seems to be optional these days) and restricting him wouldn't do any good. Nobody is obliged to respond to another editor in an AfD and I suggest people leave it to the closing admins to weigh up the arguments, but I believe ''civil discussion'' (not "who can shout the loudest") about the notability of the subject are far better for the encyclopaedia than drive by voting, often by editors who appear never to have read the policy/guideline/essay they're citing. If I nominate an article for deletion, I believe I have a right to challenge !votes I believe to be invalid, otherwise even more shite would slip through the cracks than it does already (and no, I'm not a deletionist, I just believe in [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:N]]). [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:27, 2 September 2010
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) |
|
99.225.136.84 continues to edit war after returning from block
99.225.136.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA who has returned to much of the same inappropriate behavior since being blocked on 26 Aug. A previous ANI was not completed, because he was blocked while the report was being written. To give him credit, his edit-summaries and comments are less combative. His edits since returning from the block consist of:
- Reintroducing an improper synthesis [1] [2] (two reverts). Credit again that he's not edit-warred over the tagging of this information, as he has done previously with other information.
- Continuing to remove sourced information [3] [4] (two reverts), most of which has been discussed previously on the article talk page
- Restored the claim of it being unaccredited [5] (one revert), despite this was the focus of him being blocked previously, we have sources to the contrary, and we have multiple lengthy discussions on the matter on the article talk page (almost everything since Talk:University_Canada_West#Accreditation).
- He's made a few comments on the article talk page [6] [7] and one to his talk [8]. While he's communicating, he's ignoring the past discussions and the sources that contradict his viewpoint.
All five edits to article space that he's made since returning from being blocked are reverts of information he was edit-warring over before being blocked. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like he's moving in the right direction, even if not as fast as we would like. Suggest he find or be assigned a mentor who can help. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apparent socks
- 99.225.136.139 (talk · contribs)
- 99.225.138.205 (talk · contribs)
- 99.225.160.205 (talk · contribs)
--Ronz (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- His subsequent editing since notification of this report is much improved. Hopefully, this will be the last. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
User: AllahLovesYou
User:AllahLovesYou ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello, User:AllahLovesYou is continuously vandalizing all the information related to Islam in Pakistan, Religion in Pakistan, Sectarian violence in Pakistan, Shia Islam and Shia Islam in Pakistan. He has been repeatedly removing crucial cited information all this articles according to his perspectives on an account of a lame excuse of cleaning up several articles relating to religions in Pakistan, He has some serious issues regarding Shia Muslims being mentioned 10%-30% and argues that Shias only make up 10-20% of the Muslim population in Pakistan. With out reaching a wide consensus on the respective talk page of the articles he goes on reverting my edits completely over here, here while he is vandalizing pages related to Shia Islam or regarding their demographic issues. Including repeated removal of this neutral third-party source claiming Shia Muslims of being nearly 30% in Pakistan. Not only that, AllahLovesYou is being disrespectful towards me and Wikipedia policies by ignoring my warnings on his talk page. He has been using multiple citations in an article to point to two different formats of the exact same reference a work which is misleading. I find AllahLovesYou as an extreme vandal, a sectarian oriented user and an editor inciting religious hate by trying to impose his point of view on bases of bogus editing over here while disregarding others. Anyway, he disagrees with the above source and claims that this is an unreliable news article and that Shia are only 10%-20% and not 30%. This reflects his childish mentality. I have repeatedly told him that Wikipedia is all about giving readers a wider perspectives by showing them both sides of a coin, while he prefers it to be only and only what he thinks is right. I'll appreciate if you take an action against him and users like him. And instead of realizing his mistake he reported me to the un-block admin, for the very reason that i have been hindering him from being successful on his evil intentions. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Content disputes are not the same thing as vandalism. AllahLovesYou appears to be engaging in talk page discussion, does not seem to be edit warring or violating 3RR. I see no warnings on this user's talk page. I see you have accused him of blackmailing you in your ANI notice, and that he has reported you to the admin who blocked you previously. One solution is to request full protection of the articles in dispute on WP:RFPP so that nobody can edit them while you work out what the articles should contain. Be aware that if you make such a request, the version you want will likely not be the one that ends up getting protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Not using the discussion talk page, over here. Before editing Shia Islam in Pakistan i reached a consensus with User:Humaliwalay and User:Houn. While User:AllahLovesYou is not.SyedMANaqvi (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- But he is explaining his reasoning in the edit summaries. You, on the other hand, have violated WP:3RR, which makes you eligible for being blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to voilate the 3RR 24-hour rule, guess i didn't realize it, hopefully will follow it in future. My apologies. SyedMANaqvi (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know, that's why I didn't slap a warning on your talk page. In any case, be aware that it's unlikely any administrator will block an editor over a content dispute when there isn't really any disruption going on. Disputes are stressful, but unless there's edit warring going on that violates 3RR, there's no disruption taking place. There are several dispute resolution avenues that you can pursue. The simplest, if the dispute is between only two editors, is Wikipedia:Third opinion, but a third opinion should be requested only if discussion has reached an impasse. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't believe he reported me here when in fact he is the one falsifying all those articles that he mentioned at the top with links that don't even work. I mean just take a good look at his recent edits regarding these articles, he completely removes the top most trusted academic sources such as Pew Research Center, Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford University, CIA World Factbook, U.S. State Department, and others.[9] His behaviour is very disruptive and he has a long history for getting blocked but continues to edit-war and not only that but removes properly sourced content from articles that doesn't suit him. There is not a single source that states Shias in Pakistan being 30%. I already explained that the news article which User:SyedNaqvi90 keeps using in every article is an error made by the editor of that news article and under no circumstances can that be used in Wikipedia to claim Shias being 30%. I explained this to SayedNaqvi90 on his talk page [10] as well on on mines but he didn't reply anything to that.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The multiple reverts SyedNaqvi90 (talk · contribs) performed on Islam-related articles this week clearly show he is in violation of the editing restrictions placed on him as a condition of the suspension of his previous block. As such, I have restored his one month block. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've had a number of regular complaints about Syed on my talkpage ... as recently as yesterday. Funny, I told one of them to bring it to ANI ... and voila, the other person brought it here instead :-) The process does work (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't this the point where Bugs says something about Plaxico? --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, nope, nope, we don't talk about Plaxico anymore. We talk about stuff like boomerangs and petards these days. -- Atama頭 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- My kids are so right, I am sooo behind the times with my verbage :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, nope, nope, we don't talk about Plaxico anymore. We talk about stuff like boomerangs and petards these days. -- Atama頭 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't this the point where Bugs says something about Plaxico? --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of the problems with the user who brought this issue to our attention (now blocked), I think there may be a problem with AllahLovesYou as well. See e.g. this AfD which the two comments so far (by regulars who have nothing to do with Pakistan or Islam) describe as "the most inappropriate AfD nomination I have seen" and "spectacularly bad". AllahLovesYou may be polite and appearing to play within the rules, but there's also a bit of the appearance of pov-pushing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Systematic and Arbitrary Edit Reversion by Crispincowan
I recently [reverted an edit] by Crispincowan for being original research and notified him of such. I recommended that if Crispin still felt his information was appropriate for inclusion that he should discuss it on the article's Talk page. [11] Since then Crispin has arbitrarily reverted edits that I've made. Examples- [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I would appreciate it if someone would speak with him regarding this behavior, or advise as to how I should proceed. Thank you very much for your time. Doniago (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pinged Cowan at his talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I examined Doniago's history of edits, and it seems to be comprised mostly of arbitrarily removing interesting information from other people's articles. Go look at them and see if you think Doniago is actually contributing, or just randomly damaging articles. In most cases, I found the pre-Doniago version to be more useful. The revisions I made were not *arbitrary*, I only reverted them where i could actually prove his changes were wrong, rather than just *think* they are wrong.
Most specifically, I tried to contribute a particularly interesting similarity between a Futurama episode (Godfellas) and a short story that I read long ago (Gift of a Useless Man). I cited the story, both internally (it has its own Wikipedia page) and externally (an Amazon review of the book). One can read the plot summary of Godfellas and Gift and *see* that they are similar. Yet Doniago keeps reverting it. Just exactly what does it take to contribute a pertinent fact here? Crispincowan (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reliable sources. Original research and synthesis of multiple sources is not acceptable in Wikipedia. If you can find a previously published source which makes the comparison you're making, then it can be used, so long as it meets or reliable sources criteria. But your own research is not workable in Wikipedia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Boggle. Really?! Applied strictly, that would seem to eliminate nearly every line of every article in the wikipeida, because every sentence that is not a citation is someone's synthesis, and there are piles and piles of long passages that only have occasional citations. So where do you draw the line? For example, lets take today's featured article as a representative sample of an article that is supposedly of good quality, Fountain of Time. The third paragraph says "Time has undergone several restorations, due to the deterioration and decline caused by natural and urban elements. During the late 1990s and the first few years of the 21st century it underwent repairs that corrected many of the problems caused by these earlier restorations. Although extensive renovation of the sculpture was completed as recently as 2005, the supporters of Time continue to seek resources for additional lighting, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation has nominated it for further funding." and the only supporting evidence for this claim is a link to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Seems like "synthesis" to me.
Note: I am not, in any way, criticizing the Fountain of Time article. Rather, I am questioning the standard being applied to my contribution of being "original research" as being grossly out of proportion. Crispincowan (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, really, and we apply common sense rather than applying rules strictly. Comparative analysis of two separate works which is not derived from a secondary source is textbook WP:SYN. Looking at the five diffs Doniago provided:
- This is fairly innocuous, but it's still technically personal analysis of the scene. Wikipedia has a general problem with how to cover plot sections like this, however, and I wouldn't have contested that particular bit of prose.
- This is more of the same, though "by gunmakers of the same name" is original research. The film tells us nothing except that the guns have "sword" and "dagger" written on the sides. I wouldn't imagine it'd be difficult to find a secondary source which makes that leap of logic and to reference it, though.
- This, unreferenced, is personal opinion. Again, it's innocuous, but it doesn't really add anything to the article either.
- This is pure WP:POPCRUFT and is of only the most trivial value. As a matter of cleanup I'd have removed it without a second thought. Pop culture references should only be included where it can be established that the reference impacted popular perception of the subject.
- And finally, this is too poorly referenced (a vague handwave at what is almost certainly a user-generated comment on a website somewhere) to count as anything except personal analysis. Without a reliable source to back it up, the reader has no way of trusting that Wikipedia is telling the truth here.
- Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Further to this, Crispincowan, please note that the paragraph you quote from is part of the lead of the article which is a summary of a later part of the article, Fountain_of_Time#Restoration. That section contains numerous footnotes. Although I didn't personally chase them down, it appears that all the factual statements in the passage you quote are amply sourced.
- WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are clear. If you want the article to say that two works of fiction are similar, you need a source that says that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
False accusations of vandalism
I am being accused repeatedly by admin John Carter of putting the words "I hate you" (John Carter's words in quotes) on article talk pages. The accusation is patently false. He has already taken this to the talk pages of three admins, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and most recently Cirt. The relevant diffs are as follows:
diff Jayjg's talk page diff my reply
diff SlimVirgin's talk page diff my reply
diff Cirt's talk page
John Carter has yet to provide a shred of evidence via diffs to back up his allegations, and I can't produce negative evidence to prove I didn't do something. It should be simple enough for the tech wizards that run the servers to check the IPs and prove it wasn't me (or anyone). Being called vile names is one thing, but this is way over the top. I am asking for a formal apology and some kind of injunctive relief to prevent this from happening again. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- This has been brought to my attention at my user talk page by both parties involved, however I have not yet had a chance to evaluate the substance of the matter. -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am at a loss to explain how the material seems to have been edit from Ovadyah's history. I specifically remember that I removed the comments, and that he restored them with an edit summary to the effect of "No, John Carter, you don't get to do that," although now there seems to be no record of that edit. It occurs to me, somehow, that those edits may have been deleted or removed from the record, if such is possible. However, currently on Jayjg's page, Ovadyah has made a comment which at least in passing seems to acknowledge the comment was made by him. Beyond that, I can offer no fuller explanation as to how the edits involved seem to have been deleted from his edit history. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- John Carter, I'd suggest that if these edits can't be quickly found then you apologise and drop it (he has no recent deleted edits, I don't know about revision deletions). Incivility and personal attacks should be dealt with immediately at their talk page, WQA, or ANI with evidence provided, not left to be used as ammunition. He made no acknowledgement of having made such a comment, what he actually said was "Jay, I have nothing to say about the "I hate you" stuff, except that I thought I had seen it all on Wikipedia, but you learn something new every day".[17] Generally your interactions with Ovadyah seem pretty aggressive, it'd be best to tone it down and focus on content. Fences&Windows 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am at a loss to explain how the material seems to have been edit from Ovadyah's history. I specifically remember that I removed the comments, and that he restored them with an edit summary to the effect of "No, John Carter, you don't get to do that," although now there seems to be no record of that edit. It occurs to me, somehow, that those edits may have been deleted or removed from the record, if such is possible. However, currently on Jayjg's page, Ovadyah has made a comment which at least in passing seems to acknowledge the comment was made by him. Beyond that, I can offer no fuller explanation as to how the edits involved seem to have been deleted from his edit history. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It was John Carter that deleted the talk page content (twice) and I restored it. The relevant diffs are as follows:
diff deletion of article talk page content
diff I restored and struck out my own remarks
diff deletion of article talk page content
diff I restored it
Now that I have provided the specific diffs, it should not take much research to prove the lie that any such content was ever added to the article. Ovadyah (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above unsigned comment is from Ovadyah, who seems to have been busy creating a page of history to attack me with over the past day or so. He seems to be implying that I am in some way referrring to those comments, and that is itself mistaken. Those were not the edits to which I referred. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, I can find no suppressed or oversighted edits with the summary you allude to. Perhaps it was on some other page and you're simply mistaken as to where the exchange took place? — Coren (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- "seems to have been busy creating a page of history to attack me with over the past day or so". Do you mean User talk:Ovadyah/Archive 2#User Conduct RfC? If they intend to file an RfC, that's not an attack page. If you make efforts to de-escalate this dispute, I doubt they'll see a need to pursue an RfC. Fences&Windows 23:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been organizing these diffs to provide evidence to back up my claims in an upcoming user conduct RfC. I'm waiting for the second person who is filing the RfC to get back on Wiki. We all have busy professional lives (most of us). Ovadyah (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is the page I meant, and it does seem to have been primarily added to recently. In response to Coren, it may well have been elsewhere. I reviewed Ovadyah's apparent history for all spaces, and find the edit summary no longer can be found. That is all I know. I have no doubt that this request regarding me was brought on by my recent insistent requests on the article talk page Talk:Ebionites that we actually adhere to WP:SS and the material on Gospel of the Ebionites be primarily removed to that article. Beyond that, no, I did not try to keep a history of Ovadyah's behavior, and I resent his continuing to indulge in the passive-agressive comments such as the one above. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been organizing these diffs to provide evidence to back up my claims in an upcoming user conduct RfC. I'm waiting for the second person who is filing the RfC to get back on Wiki. We all have busy professional lives (most of us). Ovadyah (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If an admin can do this to you and just walk away with a smile on their face, what's the point of bringing violations to AN/I? I would like to hear what the three admins involved in the incident have to say, but at the end of the day, if no tangible evidence of vandalism on my part can be found, I am still insisting on an apology, and at least a talk page warning to discourage future episodes. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- You will receive an apology when you yourself offer apologies for your own regular insults, here and elsewhere, something you have to date refused to do. Your regular failure to abide by WP:TPG and other conduct is no better. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
@John Carter. If you check here and look down at the bottom of the diff, you will find the phrase No, John Carter. You may strike out my remarks but you cannot delete them. Here, I'll do it for you. which is sufficiently close to what you said on GWH's page that you remembered, for me to wonder if it is what you remembered. Ovadyah said he was "sick of your behavior" - are you sure you're not remembering this as 'I hate you".
I have to ask all parties - why are we arguing over something that happened on the 29th May? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, actually, I saw that one earlier myself, and that was not the diff to which I was referring. The reason I believe it is being started now, unfortunately, is that I indicated to Cirt, who has dealt with individuals pushing religious views into wikiepdia before, that I was going to do my best to ensure that this article actually come close to reflecting what the academic world believes, and, apparently, that was the last straw to Ovadyah. I however will do my best to ensure that the completely disproportionate, unbalanced article which exists today will be improved, even over his objections. I would welcome any and all individuals who see this thread to mark Talk:Ebionites and Ebionites to assist in this effort. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Elen, I brought it up at AN/I because John Carter continues to bring this false allegation against me to the talk pages of other admins as recently as yesterday. It has to stop. Please make it so. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, it has stopped. There are enough other failures to indulge in even remotely acceptable behavior on your part, including regular violations of basic WP:TPG, to create problems. If you yourself were to engage in acceptable behavior more often, this would never have happened. It is in your power to ensure that it does stop, and always has been. Unfortunately, you appear to insist on engaging in the same sort of behavior which caused this instance to arise in the first place, which is I believe apparent from anyone who looked at your own recent behavior. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Being castigated like this is not an apology. I am still waiting for John Carter to admit that he falsely accused me of wrongdoing and to say he is sorry. I would also appreciate it if a warning can be placed on John Carter's talk page to discourage further incidents so that I don't have to go through this again. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop demanding apologies. John Carter seems willing to let you be. I suggest you disengage from the conflict, Ovadyah. There is no reason for either one of you to concern themselves with the other. We have plenty of editors to watch out for any further troublemaking. Jehochman Talk 01:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pushing the point because he is continuing to say on the talk pages of other admins that I did it and somehow managed to hide the evidence. diff diff This is a basic question of fairness. The apology is less important than the acknowledgment that I didn't do anything wrong. Ovadyah (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop demanding apologies. John Carter seems willing to let you be. I suggest you disengage from the conflict, Ovadyah. There is no reason for either one of you to concern themselves with the other. We have plenty of editors to watch out for any further troublemaking. Jehochman Talk 01:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Being castigated like this is not an apology. I am still waiting for John Carter to admit that he falsely accused me of wrongdoing and to say he is sorry. I would also appreciate it if a warning can be placed on John Carter's talk page to discourage further incidents so that I don't have to go through this again. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, it has stopped. There are enough other failures to indulge in even remotely acceptable behavior on your part, including regular violations of basic WP:TPG, to create problems. If you yourself were to engage in acceptable behavior more often, this would never have happened. It is in your power to ensure that it does stop, and always has been. Unfortunately, you appear to insist on engaging in the same sort of behavior which caused this instance to arise in the first place, which is I believe apparent from anyone who looked at your own recent behavior. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is remarkably poor behavior for an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please make sure you have all the facts in hand before damning somebody, please. We want the disruption to end. There is no need to assign blame at this stage, and if the parties are both willing to drop stale matters, no further time should be spent on this. Jehochman Talk 01:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see a pattern of problem behaviour by John Carter. I'll AGF that he believes that he saw what he says he saw. We're adults: as adults we know that life is not always fair, and that we will not always receive the apologies we want...continually insisting on them will never make it happen, and merely detracts from my belief that we're adults (the UK word "whinging" comes to mind). Everyone drop it, and if something recurs, let us know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll make one final point for the record and then it's time to move on. Things just don't vanish without a trace on Wikipedia. Talk page content can't be removed from the record without admin tools, and I don't have them. Even then, deletion logs would be created which any tech-savvy admin or IT pro can find. I doubt that John Carter has the technical knowledge to erase the record, and I don't have the permissions. I'm willing to leave it there as long as the baseless accusations stop permanently. Ovadyah (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Baseless accusations will stop. It should be noted, however, that if you continue to indulge in such problematic behavior, then you can reasonably expect to receive similar treatment. I mention once again that this whole discussion by Ovadyah was started within hours of my contacting Cirt, telling him that I would copy the encyclopedic sources I have already checked word for word, and asked for his input in helping ensure that the article finally reach reasonable academic quality. It is extremely hard to believe that Ovadyah, who left Cirt a message regarding this conversation, clearly indicating that he was aware of it, may not have been prompted in this matter by those statements, and perhaps, as I personally think, engaged in a last effort to ensure that such improvement to the article not take place. And I very much request that some of those who see this discussion add the Ebionites article to their watchlists. It is an important article to broader religion, as the Christology of the Ebionites is what is according to RS what influenced Mohammed's beliefs, and I believe having additional editors to it who do not have their own axes to grind will help improve it considerably. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Although this thread is practically resolved, I'd like to add one last comment because I've been involved in this dispute in a small way. I hope all of us can agree that John Carter is an established editor who has done praiseworthy work in the past. Further, this article is a controversial one -- which is the case with many subjects where the verifiable facts are few & the speculations -- both expert & fringe -- are many. On the other hand, while the accusations John has made about Ovadyah may perhaps be true, in my experience in the matter I have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing by Ovadyah here. I suspect this has become one of those conflicts where John has simply become inadvertently obsessed with the conflict & now needs to walk away from this article -- both for his own benefit & the project's -- to simply trust that another set of eyes will catch any possible problems in this article. To repeat the cliche, there are 6,839,238 in the English Wikipedia, around half of which are stubs; no need to obsess over just one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I urge you to check the remarkable number of completely nonresponsive "comments" which clearly violate WP:TPG on the talk page. I have produced no evidence, because the accusations were against me, not him. If misconduct on his part continues, however, have no doubt evidence will be presented by me. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I see there was an Ovadyah edit saying something like "I'm sick of your behavior"[18] which John Carter might have misremembered as "I hate you". Enough late-night editing can get anyone confused like that. Ovadyah's editing is less than ideal, but John Carter should probably let other editors/admins notice and handle any Ovadyah-related issues for a while. 67.122.209.135 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
19th century New Zealand history
A number of articles, including Musket Wars, New Zealand land wars, Parihaka and Invasion of the Waikato, have been extensively edited by an anon with a dynamic IP. The edits are mostly unsourced, are frequently POV, and invariably require copyediting due to punctuation idiosyncrasies. Where sources are given, they are not in any accepted Wikipedia style, and are rarely if ever available online. One source used, when checked, proved to be a children's book.
Despite these problems, I believe the edits are in good faith. I am aware that a user who fails to edit to the high standards that I prefer still may have the best of intentions. The IP has been warned a number of times about NPOV and sourcing, but it is difficult to tell whether they receive the warnings because their IP changes. They have been active on Wikipedia since at least July 2009.
A previous discussion about them is on my talk page, at User talk:Gadfium#Pōtatau Te Wherowhero. I attempted to notify the anon about the discussion at User talk:222.153.154.45, but they probably didn't see the message.
I don't have the time, or interest in some of the subjects, to follow this IP around, copyedit their work, and read the sources to establish the accuracy of their content. For many of these articles, it appears that others don't have this time either. I welcome suggestions on how to handle the matter.-gadfium 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Having had similar issues elsewhere the only way to stop persistent unconstructive edits by a dynamic IP is to semi-protect the relevant articles. That may at least encourage them to create a user profile so as to enable proper discussion with them. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the IP edits seem to be made in good faith. From what I've seen, they seem to have strong feelings about some of the topics, and it would be good if that energy could be directed into more productive contributions. Semiprotection is a good idea, seems worth a try at least. --Avenue (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Semiprotection will prevent them from editing, rather than improving the quality of their edits. I suspect they will simply move to different articles; eg the recent addition of material relating to the Musket Wars to Auckland, so the number of articles which need to be protected may grow rapidly. An alternative is to revert all low-quality edits, as is already happening to some extent.-gadfium 06:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Administrator Thumperward assuming bad faith
And that is not all, but he's insulting me on my talk page and implying I'm some sort of drama monger for absolutely no reason. See here [19]. I can barely recall this Sven70 incident from several days ago, but all I did was create a previously nonexistent category that contained an IP sock (tagged by someone else in 2009), and when Sven70 was blocked as the result of an AN/I discussion, [20], I tagged the account as blocked. I also found out that he had previously socked abusively, with that sock being blocked as a result. I also tagged that sock. Thumperward has gone and undone this [21]. For the life of me, I cannot figure out WHY this person is so angry that he would undo my tags and then insult me on my talk page. And this from an administrator no less. There is NO POLICY-BASED REASON that anyone can't tag socks or suspected socks, or puppeteers, or create categories, so that "explanation" is invalid. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy to have this reviewed. This and this were unacceptable IMO, given that Sven had prominently featured a link to his former account on his userspace prior to his block; Kindzmarauli's gadflying here is wholly unproductive, and should be undone again before it invites any further aggravation. Indeed, I have no idea why Kindzmarauli involved himself here at all, which led to my suggestion on his talk that he get his jollies somewhere other than Wikipolitics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not getting any "jollies", nor am I "gadflying", and your repeated claims to this effect are insulting, offensive, and a violation of WP:AGF. A better question would be "why is this otherwise unimportant indefinitely blocked puppetmaster and sock different from the others who are blocked, tagged and left?" Why are you so determined that the socks be untagged and the userpage of the indefinitely blocked account be restored as if the account is not blocked, as if it has not socked abusively, etc.? And why are you so concerned about "agitating" a puppetmaster that was blocked per a long discussion at AN/I? I am happy to see you're willing to answer for your questionable behavior and judgement. Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please tone it down a bit. This is essentially an argument over whether or not to "tag" a sock account as connected to a master or whether or not the account is simply an alternate. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think I see where "drama monger" came from. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not getting any "jollies", nor am I "gadflying", and your repeated claims to this effect are insulting, offensive, and a violation of WP:AGF. A better question would be "why is this otherwise unimportant indefinitely blocked puppetmaster and sock different from the others who are blocked, tagged and left?" Why are you so determined that the socks be untagged and the userpage of the indefinitely blocked account be restored as if the account is not blocked, as if it has not socked abusively, etc.? And why are you so concerned about "agitating" a puppetmaster that was blocked per a long discussion at AN/I? I am happy to see you're willing to answer for your questionable behavior and judgement. Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) May I suggest a third opinion. There is a difference of opinion on whether to tag an account as a sock account or master and the legitimate place to discuss that is on each others talk page or to seek some sort of dispute resolution. Since there is no persistent incivility, and since Thumperward is neither using admin tools, nor claiming admin privilege, there is nothing to sort out on this noticeboard. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- As another un-involved, this whole things sure does all seem to boil down to a major overreaction by Kindzmarauli to what might amount to a mildly bitey post on their talk page... And as for Sven, if I recall correctly he was not blocked for sockpuppetry, so it hardly seems appropriate to tag those as sockpuppets, does it? In any case, as RegentsPark stated, this is hardly a dispute worthy of AN/I. 04:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I also agree that this isn't for AN/I. Thumperward is an admin because the community made him one: overwhelmingly so. So that's how he "became an admin". However, I don't totally disagree with the tagging issue (whether Sven70 was technically blocked for sockpuppetry or not doesn't make it wrong for any editor to tag suspected puppeteers and socks). The tag could/should have been added to the top of the page instead of deleting the page's content, as was done[22]. Thumperward's reaction was not out of line, especially as Sven70 is not a banned user. Wrong? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh you are absolutely right; although, I was unclear that my point was the the community was aware of Sven's other accounts and had basically decided not to take action on that specific issue given the extraordinary unusualness of the whole matter, and for that reason, we wouldn't want to give the impression to posterity that that was the main reason he was blocked... Just my two cents. :-) 06:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is this[23] a decent compromise? Any editor who feels it is error: please revert and discuss... Doc9871 (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. - I switched the order of the tags at Sven's page. Now the question is: are Sven70's socks confirmed or suspected? I see no SPI for Sven70, but maybe I'm missing it. Which category seems more incorrect? It seems one or the other should go at this time... Doc9871 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh you are absolutely right; although, I was unclear that my point was the the community was aware of Sven's other accounts and had basically decided not to take action on that specific issue given the extraordinary unusualness of the whole matter, and for that reason, we wouldn't want to give the impression to posterity that that was the main reason he was blocked... Just my two cents. :-) 06:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The "sock" in question, 219.69.68.109 (talk · contribs), edited five times while Sven wasn't blocked, and self-identified as Sven; a more charitable suggestion was that Sven simply didn't realise he was logged out. 史凡 (talk · contribs) is a slightly different matter because it was technically used for block evasion, but given that Sven never edited concurrently from it and his main account and self-identified it as an alt account on his userspace it's a bit excessive to go all-out in tagging it as a sock. The ANI discussion regarding Sven's proposed ban was characterised by a great deal of rubbernecking from editors who apparently made their minds up about the editor after the briefest glance at his contributions, and this is much the same. Branding him as a sockpuppeteer is simply adding insult to injury and I'd rather that it were de-tagged altogether, the better to not unnecessarily piss off an editor who has already suffered quite enough aggravation. As noted above, he isn't banned, and that means that we should still be aiming to get him rehabilitated and productively contributing again. In short, the status quo prior to Kindzmarauli's actions was fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sven70 may have not been blocked
forduring 219.69.68.109's edits; but I just don't believe he "forgot" to log in: unless, (as I've said at the AN/I discussion) he "plumb forgot" to log in between 25 December 2008 and 6 March 2010 (a lapse in editing which neatly coincides with the edits of both accused accounts, with no overlap). These accounts need to remain tagged: but are they confirmed or suspected to be socks of Sven70? He avoided the community ban (which I supported) by the "skin of his teeth", (and yes, even if he admitted socks after the fact, these are technically socks with no legitimate reason to have even existed). My only (very, very slight) criticism/advice to you, Thumperward, concerning why this thread was started is, "A doctor should never get too attached to his patients." Theorizing on editors "rubbernecking" the AN/I thread is not terribly helpful, IMO. Sven70 deserves his dignity, but it's going to take a lot to let him back here. And Kindzmarauli's extremely vague (and quite seemingly unfounded) accusations of administrator misconduct against Thumperward need to be backed by solid diffs, and a solution needs to proposed for this thread's resolution and closure... Doc9871 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sven's use of IPs doesn't actually fall foul of WP:ILLEGIT either, with the exception of block evasion. He made clear that it was him, referenced his account (along with his surname and age in one post), didn't use them to give a false impression of consensus or to imply support for anything. Let's have a look at (what is hopefully) Sven's complete editing history:
- 3 October 2008 → 25 December 2008 as Sven70. Blocked 25 December 2008 by Seicer.
- 11 January 2009 → 13 January 2009 as 219.69.85.251. Referenced his account history in posts. Blocked 13 January 2009 by Seicer.
- 13 January 2009 as 219.69.68.109. Referenced his account history in posts. Blocked 13 January 2009 by Seicer.
- 28 January 2009 → 22 January 2010 as 史凡. Referenced the Sven70 account in his first user talk post. Blocked 22 January 2010 by Tedder.
- 26 March 2010 → 25 August 2010 as Sven70, following that account's unblock on 22 February 2010 by Xavexgoem. Blocked again 25 August 2010 by Wgfinley.
- So you've got a sequence of accounts, never used in parallel, including two IPs used briefly between the initial block of Sven70 and the creation of 史凡. While this is technically "sockpuppetry" in the broadest definition of multiple account use, it's not actually socking as we generally understand it. Rather, it's simply part and parcel of why Sven was eventually blocked: an inability to follow or respect process, including the unblocking process, in favour of forum-shopping. That is certainly not in dispute, but it aids nobody to go fishing for other misdemeanors and making them out to be separate offences. That the period of IP editing is confined to a three-day stretch over a year ago which explicitly referenced his account does not suggest to me that it is particularly important; if needed, a note of the IPs used could be tacked onto Sven's old alt notice.
- Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sven's use of IPs doesn't actually fall foul of WP:ILLEGIT either, with the exception of block evasion. He made clear that it was him, referenced his account (along with his surname and age in one post), didn't use them to give a false impression of consensus or to imply support for anything. Let's have a look at (what is hopefully) Sven's complete editing history:
Ludicrous. Thumperward was wrong to blindly revert me and attack me, plain and simple. There is no policy stating that creating categories and tagging accounts is limited to administrators. Therefore, I have done nothing wrong. Thumperward knows damn well I didn't violate any policies and so is trying to bully me. I will not stand for it. If I've violated a policy by tagging or creating categories, then block me and be done with it. Editors at Wikipedia have the privilege of editing almost anywhere (indeed, they are invited to) and I don't need special permission from the various supporters and friends of people blocked indefinitely (multiple times, including the other account). Thumperward's comments on my talk page about Wikipolitics are demeaning and insulting, and claims about me attacking this blocked user are patently false and a violation of WP:AGF, not to mention he's provided no diffs or other evidence for his claims. First, he claims I'm deliberately attacking Sven70, then he claims above I'm simply a rubbernecking passerby. Which one is it, Chris? Whichever one happens to suit your personal needs? If you think Sven70 was blocked because of politics and not because of policy violations, maybe you should unblock him or else begin an unblock discussion at AN instead of trying to hide his history of abuse with different accounts and IPs. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, and I agree with Doc's revision. This is not about tagging accounts, but about the behavior of someone attempting to bully me into not editing certain pages and making a number of unbacked accusations against me. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I wonder if you people allow me to suggest a course of action. Looks like this is more an issue of civility (or violation of it) than a technical issue. I think the best way to constructively conclude it is to abandon the recounting of what has happened and to concentrate on discussing what to do now. In return, Thumperward should promise to strive to be more civil in the future; in my humble opinion, his civil communication and social skills definitely require improvements in order to reach the standard level that is expected of a Wikipedia administrator and one who should be a model of good behavior for us Wikipedians. Fleet Command (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am happy to see someone here at least understands what I am talking about. A concur with your suggestion. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Minor note on Betacommand
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Betacommand is being a bit overenthusiastic on deletion again.[24]. Most of his edits delete something, and have the simple title of "cleanup". No admin action is needed yet, but please watch his contributions. The general style of his edits is to take something that's a visible problem and "clean it up" so that it's invisible, without fixing the underlying problem. --John Nagle (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this version does not really look proper, and is indeed unreferenced, moreover, reverted to the 'unclean' version without cleaning up the problems that there were, and it was re-undone in the next edit. Unreferenced info can go anyway, and the rest of the links he removed do not really show any context. Proper cleanup, I think. Did you take this up with Betacommand first (I mean, I know you left him a remark about this discussion, but did you discuss the edit and your concerns with him)? If not, I would suggest closing this thread as overenthousiastic Betacommand reporting, no need for drama when there is no drama. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- John, stop wikistalking me. If you actually take a look at my contributions my primary focus is removing deleted images from articles, and other minor cleanup. this is a good example of what I do during cleanup. I add nonbreaking spaces where needed, I add titles to bare refs, and name and combine refs that are used multiple times (I also changed the names of named refs that are not the same). My primary focus like I stated before is removing deleting missing images. Also what ever happened to common courtesy? The only messages that I have received in regard to any of my recent edits was a generic {{uw-delete1}} and {{ANI-notice}}, no polite request for explanation, no attempt at discussion, but rather coming directly here. John has shown that he is stalking my edits by doing similar actions multiple times and I am getting sick of it. I have a talk page for a reason, please use it. ΔT The only constant 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Every one of those edits improved the encyclopedia. Why are you so eager to stalk Beta? This is exactly the harassment that escalates into drama. -- ۩ Mask 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, no admin action is required here. Every edit I checked looks fine. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Betacommand, do you use a self-modified version of AWB to make your edits? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- no, but Ive been thinking about requesting access. ΔT The only constant 12:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I asked because adding reference names called "autogenerated3" and "autogenerated4" looks very AWB-like. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- If AWB sets generic reference names it uses ReferenceA, ReferenceB. I believe WP:Reflinks uses autogenerated1 etc. Rjwilmsi 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I asked because adding reference names called "autogenerated3" and "autogenerated4" looks very AWB-like. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Block review: Inuit18
I recently blocked Inuit18 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for violation of his/her voluntary 1RR restriction. The editor is asking for a review of the block. There's a lot of history there but since this is an indefinite block, additional eyes on this is not a bad idea. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The user's voluntary restriction? Surely the user has the right to change their mind about restricting themselves to one revert? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I'm having trouble seeing where more than 1 revert was done in a 24 hour period. Could you provide the diffs, Toddst1? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The two reverts are a bit cloudy since they're not simple reverts: [25] [26] (basically removing Hazaras) which was repeated later but not within 24 hours. As for changing his/her mind on the voluntary restriction, that would imply that the previous block (indef) would be restored. Toddst1 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 5) You mean this was a "you can be unblocked if you agree to a 1RR restriction" scenario, then? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2)Thanks, Toddst1...I was looking at two others that were separated by a bit more time. Given this editor's history, the block does seem justified by the letter. I can't help but feel, though, that an indef block for a single breach of 1RR since May 20 might be a bit much. You'd know the situation better than I, though. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sorry, I'm not familiar with the user or his unblock conditions, that's why I asked. Voluntary seemed to suggest that it was a restriction the user had applied to themselves willingly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Looks like reversion to me; maybe be vandalism reverts on one of them, but as the editor is under 1RR it's borderline. Maybe reduce the block to 48 hours with a stern warning to take care? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The two reverts are a bit cloudy since they're not simple reverts: [25] [26] (basically removing Hazaras) which was repeated later but not within 24 hours. As for changing his/her mind on the voluntary restriction, that would imply that the previous block (indef) would be restored. Toddst1 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I'm having trouble seeing where more than 1 revert was done in a 24 hour period. Could you provide the diffs, Toddst1? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Went to his talk page and couldn't help but notice the message right above the block notice where it seems that someone has serious WP:OWN issues. I don't have time to pursue that at the moment though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- And like an idiot I completely missed the fact that the "message right above it" was from June. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Abuse by User:Paxcoder
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Do I really have to take this kind of continuous abuse? User:Paxcoder seems to harbor a nasty grudge against me, the root cause of which I cannot fathom. His behavior constitutes one of the most insufferable displays I've yet seen. The fellow acts like he's "king of the hill" in an excessively abusive manner, and tries to push people around.
- I just met the guy. After being asked to show that the template is used in this way, out of the clear blue sky the user calls me a vandal and responds "I'd point you to something, but I'm afraid you'd vandalize it tbqh" [27].
- I asked him to point me to something, he again responded with abuse "You should be banned from editing this article! Do your own research, vandal!" [28]. After I asked him to "please stop insulting me", he responded quickly with "I stand by my words to you." [29]. I posted on his talk trying to defuse the situation. He simply responded with "You are a troll, "Direktor"!" [30]
- The user then proceeded to edit-war on my talkpage to (re-)introduce a malicious post of his [31][32][33], despite being warned and informed of WP:OWNTALK twice by N419BH [34][35] and once more by Off2riorob [36]
- And finally, I'd like you fellas to review this unbelievable post, talk about WP:NPA. The above are just the "highlights", and this post will give you a good idea what I'm talking about: "I will say this one last time", "I'll give you the taste of your own medicine", "Be certain that I will make sure that you get banned (something I should've perhaps done a long time ago)!", etc, etc. My personal favorite is probably "I see you - and people like you as a threat to Wikipedia! (copy paste this to the admin board, I'm sure you want to)"". I decided to take his advice.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've warned Paxcoder about making personal attacks against you (or against anyone else, for that matter). You two should probably take this content dispute to WP:3O or WP:DR before it gets even more out of hand, though. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ARBMAC warning and WP:EW issued. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please note: I did not engage in edit-warring (Paxcoder's edit was reverted only once). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Twice: [37] [38] Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think DIREKTOR meant that he only reverted it once, Toddst1. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Technically I did revert twice, but I figured what's the point and reverted myself almost immediately the second time [39]. Frankly, though, I cannot see why Paxcoder's edit should stay on. All the POV aside, its a new edit, it was opposed and reverted more than once, plus its disputed on the talkpage, WP:BRD. Just another example of "edit-war your way to having your way". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think DIREKTOR meant that he only reverted it once, Toddst1. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Twice: [37] [38] Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please note: I did not engage in edit-warring (Paxcoder's edit was reverted only once). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ARBMAC warning and WP:EW issued. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Disruption by 24.189.168.173
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- 24.189.168.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
This user is continually disrupting the project. I have attempted contact with this user on a number of occasions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), however they seem to either ignore my pleas or actively ramp up disruption.
They are primarily a single-purpose account, vandalizing and edit warring on articles related to the New York City Subway.
They were blocked (block log) on August 21 (24 hours) for Edit warring, however they resumed disruption very soon after the block expired. This report contains diffs from today backwards only to that block.
They indicated they were 13 years old with this edit, so this most likely is a maturity problem.
Please block, I'm at my wits end with trying to reason with this user. They clearly want to disrupt and not learn how Wikipedia works.
Problems include:
Repeatedly inserting unsourced mis-information;
Edit warring;
- Inserting all local stops vs. all stops (fundamentally changes the meaning)
Inserting editorial comments in articles;
Personal attacks towards other users;
- You dummasses on Talk:BMT Broadway Line
- Threats to "whoever is editing" on Talk:3 (New York City Subway service)
- Talk:N (New York City Subway service)
The personal attacks were so ruthless that they drove away another editor. They blanked their talk page, and signed off.
Thanks, Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this rant here should be grounds enough for a nice, long block. Holy moly. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Abuse of Policy :WP: NOTCENSORED
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Not appropriate venue
This is being trotted out all the time in discussions over whether content is appropriate or necessary to a article (particularly video/ photos). I can understand it being cited if a single editor acts unilaterally (against a consensus), but when it is simply cited as a reason for inclusion or a argument against removal is the policy not being abused? IMO it is, sometimes due to misunderstanding of the policy, but more often than not as a deliberate attempt to stop consensus forming on the removal of certain content. Why should it be raised in a discussion over content at all? Is a consensus among editors to remove something always censorship. The policy is grossly open to abuse in it's current formulation and something needs to be done (and soon) to prevent this DMSBel (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- What do you suggest should be done? I don't see the problem. It's wikipedia policy that we don't censor articles; why should this be invalid for use in debates? It's policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Clearly this and this simply indicate that you disagree with the policy; AN/I is not the way to attempt to change policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to leave this open for a little while longer, and ask DMSBel if they have any diffs to illustrate what they are saying in regards to being used in discussions on content removal. As to the censorship policy change apparently being the reason, I concur with Giftiger, and if this is the case, AN/I is the wrong venue. I just think that it should be clarified before being marked as resolved. GregJackP Boomer! 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to its use in discussion; wikipedia policy can (and should) of course be used to make an argument in a discussion. Arguments are meant to be policy-based, and suggesting that it's "misusing" policy to refer to it in a discussion is simply incorrect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are moving away from the particular abuse mentioned of WP:NOT CENSORED, to the use in discussion of Wiki Policy in general. The reason for stating that this policy itself should not be cited willy-nilly as a reason for inclusion of material or a argument against its removal is that inclusion or removal are matters for editorial discussion. When there is an agreement or while discussion is ongoing censorship is not an issue.DMSBel (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)If there is not a specific incident, then this is the wrong venue. Looking at your talk page, it looks like there might be (re cum shot), but on the other hand - and this is based on a 5 second reading of the situation - NOTCENSORED is a perfectly valid reasoning to combat, well, CENSORED. Your statement that it "is not a subject for inclusion in an encyclopedia" is apparently not backed up by consensus, and consensus is another one of those fundamental Wikipedia policies, like notcensored. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- No. discussion of removal with valid reasoning/argumentation/discussion about its appropriatenes (as per WP:NOT CENSORED) is not the same as censoring so citing NOT CENSORED is not a valid counter argument, it is Bad-faith. See ejaculation —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- There were two issues being thrown about: "is X appropriate to be seen, vs being offensive and should be removed or hidden in some way" and "is there encyclopedic value or does it contribute to content understanding". Many of your arguments boil down to the first, no matter how often you keep saying "no no, it's really about how encyclopedic it is". The talk-page is full of discussions about the encyclopedic value of the content, and there is some strong and rational support for it, and not a stronger consensus to remove. No matter how many times you say the same reasons for removing it and propose the same alternatives and why you don't think it is appropriate, that's not the consensus at this time (and ANI isn't the place to try to alter that sort of consensus or to drum up support from other editors either). WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. NOTCENSORED is just one of the reasons that is given to not-remove it, it just appears to be one that fits well with the pattern of reasoning you keep giving to remove it. No matter how many times you say NOTCENSORED is being used to stifle discussion, you're wrong about that: there was a discussion on the educational merits of this sort of image, in which you yourself participated IIRC. I don't see anything admin-actionable here. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Based on DMSBel's remarks above, Giftiger's marking this as resolved is correct, and this is a policy matter, not an incident. This is not the correct venue. I'm also marking the discussion as closed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Further to above (policy abuse)
There is a specific incident: ejaculation. I will forgo discussion of changing policy here. But I want to know why when the policy states that: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. you are saying my arguments are in some way inferior because they boil down to whether the content is appropriate - that is what is to be focused on in the discussion. All there is in favor of keeping the video (from User:Cyclopia) is that it illustrates the article (that is not a reason - every discussion of content goes beyond that) - is that what you call "strong rational support". There is another argument (occasionally given) - some women might not have seen an ejaculation. That is hardly any stronger. Is it the job of wikipedia to illustrate everything people might not have seen - lets be sensible. DMSBel (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is the job of wikipedia to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the topic; if the content contributes to the understanding of the readers, that is a good argument for its inclusion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- No admin action is required - as this is the Admin noticeboard I recommend dropping it here. A discussion of policy needs to take place on the article or policy pages --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
BLP concern
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Careful: young readers avert your eyes.
I would like someone else to look at Lori Douglas. An IP keeps inserting salacious details into an already troubled biography (see Hans Adler's comments at Lori Douglas--I sought community input, and I further paraphrased the statement based on Hans's justified copyvio concern). They have finally relented on inserting details that seem to come from their own imagination ... details not verified by the source, though the IP editor seems to have (had) access to, ahem, the primary materials. But their latest installment came with a ridiculous edit summary, even an ironic one, since their previous details were clearly not verified by the source to which they pointed again and again. Besides, they added a hearty "fuck you" on their talk page, right below my final warning to them for vandalism: here, and they haven't even kissed me yet.
I don't know my own R-status exactly, though I do know that they went well past 3R yesterday. Moreover, there are issues here of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and even the current amount of detail is, in my opinion, excessive--we are not a newspaper, and the lady hasn't been convicted in a trial or anything. But I'm tired of this, and should probably leave it alone (which is why I haven't reported them for vandalism; I may be wrong in calling this vandalism)--so here you have it. Enjoy, and thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- One thing to keep in mind: Apart from the very unfortunate hobby of the lady and her husband, there is a former convicted criminal in the story who is being discussed in detail in at least one news story but for some reason never found his way in the article, while, as Drmies noted, certain insider information did. Reading between the line, this appears to be a blackmail story. I can't help wondering if the Wikipedia side of things is also a COI story. Hans Adler 16:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruptive editing and violating the three-revert rule. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've nominated the article for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Douglas. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please note I have trimmed this article to the essential facts required for a biography of a judge and semi-protected the article. I have also redacted a good number of the old revisions as they all contained material copied and paste from the CBC. –xenotalk 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:White Rabbit
Can someone please have a look at Talk:White Rabbit#Requested move (August 2010) and put it out of it's misery? It's been bumped back to the top of the list at WP:RM, but there is a clear concensus agains the move. I was going to be bold and do it myself, but since there appears to be some disruption and sockpuppetry at work I'd rather leave it to an admin. PC78 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I took a look & given that a strong consensus was resolved only a month ago and that the only dissenter is the nom (who was the nom last time) I closed as Where there is no contentious debate among participants per WP:RMCI#Non-admin_closure. An admin is welcome to review my closure and revert if they feel it is needed --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I edit-conflicted with you as you closed it, you're quite correct, marked as resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
How ridiculous do AfD !votes have to be before they're removed?
For example User:63.3.1.1, presumably a meat or sock of another user, has argued that a number of articles are notable because they have reliable sources. Unfortunately, some of them (like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source), don't have any sources at all, whilst others are sourced to blogs and fan pages. I don't think this is actually an ANI thing, but given that such non-!votes have actually been given credence at recent AfDs (and there appear to be more and more of them), it might be an idea to strike anything so ludicrous. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmph, just noticed that the account is already tagged as a sock, and another editor has already struck some of their comments. Would be useful if someone uninvolved could strike the rest of the AfD !votes, then - I've already !voted so I can't. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The tag is from 2007, but the IP is just coming off a 1 year block, so... –xenotalk 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- A previous SPI suggested that the IP was one used by a well-known editor who used RTV but didn't vanish, and is currently indef-blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The tag is from 2007, but the IP is just coming off a 1 year block, so... –xenotalk 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've notified the IP of this thread. David Biddulph (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Considering that there are sources now (added by myself), does that make this discussion moot? Though, I suppose a discussion on the overall problem of IPs (and users) doing this in general would be a valid topic of discussion. SilverserenC 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes and no, I'm more concerned that the IP is a sock of a certain indefblocked user; it certainly sounds like them. Users familiar with AfD will know who I'm talking about. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- A little off topic. But I've just learned of another of those computer-generated WP mirrors -- a series of books always subtitled "Websters quotations, facts and phrases." Silver wanted to use one of these books as source. Read here Philip M. Parker for an outline of the problem. Others have long known of this problem, and in august there was a request to create an automated process to remove these "cites." If that's technically possible, i hope that's made a priority. The website is filled with the "author's" (actually, a computer programmers) garbage.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes and no, I'm more concerned that the IP is a sock of a certain indefblocked user; it certainly sounds like them. Users familiar with AfD will know who I'm talking about. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "ridiculous" and "incorrect". I think removing a vote requires worse than this. The thing to do with a bad argument is to reply to it, as was done at the AfD in question. BTW, I'd endorse a process to remove the "Websters" cites, & perhaps we could also write an edit filter. They'll continue to fool people who haven't encountered them before for a very long time. DGG ( talk )
- There's almost never any reason to remove a vote. If its a sock or an SPA, you can make a note that the vote was done by a sock account or IP or SPA, but just make the note and move on. There's nothing that could be said which would influence the decision of the closing admin in the wrong direction; the more rediculous the vote the less the admin will use it to figure into his decision. And if it is properly tagged as "from a sock" or "from an SPA", then admins can take that into account too. --Jayron32 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think a vote would need to be actively disruptive to be removable, and simply being stupid and wrong is not the same as being disruptive. Reyk YO! 08:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
User:M here 4 ever duck sock of User:Dr.Mukesh111
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
M here 4 ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
is a duck sock of
Dr.Mukesh111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Mukesh111/Archive The same reverts to Zeba (after the now request 10 non-edits to become autoconfirmed to edit "page protected" article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
TruthSeekerT4C
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- TruthSeekerT4C (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
This user is tendentiously inserting conspiracy theories into 2009 influenza pandemic, citing sources like PrisonPlanet and InfoWars.[40] We need an uninvolved party to review and potentially block this user. Jehochman Talk 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note that recent edits by 86.184.115.201 (talk) likely also belong to this user. They have already resulted in swine influenza being protected, which is a suboptimal outcome since it's a highly viewed article and people presumably might want to update it. MastCell Talk 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Move that the article swine influenza be unprotected. We don't let WP:SPA type accounts lock up a high profile article for a week because of tendentious edits. This is not a good faith content dispute. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reviewing. Let's not unprotect until reviewed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Er, I already downgraded the article to semiprotection. The history consists of one user (the IP/TruthSeekerT4C) edit-warring to insert patently unencyclopedic material, and being reverted by numerous other editors. This is a case where a block of the editor in question would have been more appropriate than protection, but in any case, there is clearly no multilateral edit war which would require full protection. I'm happy to garner some additional thoughts on the matter, though. MastCell Talk 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reviewing. Let's not unprotect until reviewed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- More trouble, need urgent attention. The editor is now repeatedly inserting material that fails reference verification.[41][42] They need to stop and discuss, or else be blocked. Jehochman Talk 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here are some pretty WP:SOAPy posts.[43] Looking at all this together, it seems to be disruptive editing. Jehochman Talk 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say WP:DUCK on the IP and the account. –MuZemike 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on. I am not sure they are editing concurrently. An IP user is allowed to register an account. My concern is that this editor might be a reincarnation of somebody else. Does the pattern fit any of the usual suspects? Somebody with an anti-vaccine agenda. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- An anti-vaccinationist using Wikipedia to promote their agenda? Gee, that narrows it down... :P MastCell Talk 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- GWH has indefed the account. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The posts on Bishonen's talk page (and other user talk pages) were shining examples of why WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP exist. This user is here with a glaring agenda and editing with a single purpose, to promote it, without regard to undue weight, neutral point of view, etc. I have indeff'ed the main account and blocked the IP for a week.
- It's possible that they will come around once shown the policies and asked to do so, which I did in the block message. Assuming some good faith... If they acknowledge the issue and agree to abide by Wikipedia community values and policies going forwards, in a convincing manner, any administrator may unblock them without asking me first, though I would appreciate a heads-up so that I can keep an eye on them afterwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- GWH has indefed the account. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- An anti-vaccinationist using Wikipedia to promote their agenda? Gee, that narrows it down... :P MastCell Talk 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since I'm not an admin, I'm probably showing my ignorance, but wasn't that a rather strange protection, anyway? Did Rodhullandemu really revert then protect? I thought that wasn't supposed to be done-- please whack me if I'm wrong, but it seems protection wasn't needed, but to revert then protect ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have WP:WRONGVERSION but it's not strictly enforced where the edits were seen to be vandalism or disruptive.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the education! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Somebody could write an essay, WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE. As a general matter, it is best not to revert-protect. That's the sort of sequence people look for, and it may be uncomfortable to have to explain it a year or two from now when the details are no longer fresh in mind. It is better to protect the wrong version, then let somebody make an editprotected request on the talk page explaining what's wrong and why it should be fixed. If the last edit is true vandalism, then just revert and block, rather than revert and protect. Jehochman Talk 03:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the education! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
1rr restriction Appeal
Hi, I am under 1rr restriction almost 3 months now: the reason for this was that my initial account was blocked for ever cause with a total of 2 edits it was considered potential troublemaker in Balkan topics [44].I was not aware about the rules and I created a new account: this time a constructive one, I created new article and always stayed out of trouble. I was soon blocked for sockpuppetry, but thanks to Shirik I made a compromise.I was unblocked and stayed under a 1rr restictrion (June 10). \I hope this is the time to appeal this restriction, User_talk: Shirik#Appeal with Shirik's approval. CrazyMartini (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- As an administrator involved in previously blocking this user/socks, I support lifting the 1RR. The user has proven that s/he can edit and interact constructively and without strife. Toddst1 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Possible threat to create sockpuppets and vote stack
Misinterpreted joke; doesn't require any further attention
|
---|
It's Bencherlite: the edit is here. Maybe the statement was made with tongue in cheek, but the user didn't make that clear, either in the edit or the edit summary. Is this anything to be worried about? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Edit warring/BLP/POV Pushing and Vandalism Concerns at Jewish Internet Defense Force
<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user DavidAppletree (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)> This template must be substituted.
|
User blocked incorrectly
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
A IP user (72.177.53.86) was making changes (e.g. this and this) to articles that appeared to be vandalism but upon re-examination were actually good edits. I and others reverted their edits and warned them without realizing. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this but can somebody remove their block? Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is User:71.244.112.164 a logged-out bot?
71.244.112.164 (talk · contribs) seems to be a logged-out bot. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- it's HBC Archive Indexerbot (talk · contribs) Not sure if we should block the ip for the time being? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked. Left a comment on the bot talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Lamcph6 (talk · contribs) has been making multiple disruptive edits to the Los Angeles article and Los Angeles-related ones. Since July, 2009, he has deleted any mention of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim or its history from the Los Angeles article. [45][46][47][48][49]
And he has insisted in inserting un-sourced factually inaccurate content. [50][51] Particularly bizarre is his constantly reverted removal of the description "urbanized" to San Fernando Valley article and his claim that it's not urbanized while admitting in his edit summary that he lived in an urbanized San Fernando Valley community.[52]
This user has been warned about his disrupted edits four times by four different users. [53][54][55][56]. In fact, these warnings are the only comments on his talk page since he started editing in April, 2008.
We're getting really tired of correcting this user's disruptive edits. --Oakshade (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Suspicious behavior by Degmarshall (talk · contribs) and 4Beauties (talk · contribs)
While on my usual new pages patrol a month back, I discovered an article, David E.G. Marshall, that might not have met WP guidelines. The article was made by Degmarshall (talk · contribs), making this apparently a clear autobiography. My speedy deletion, and then a PROD, was contested by 4Beauties (talk · contribs) who has been extensively editing the article in the previous user's place.
However, after looking through both users' contributions, I discovered something very fishy is going on.
- Degmarshall has existed on Wikipedia since 2006. His edits have been nearly entirely focused on either the article about him or his band, Staggered Crossing.
- With exception to a few edits to Canadian English, 4Beauties' edit history has been devoted to either Staggered Crossing or David E.G. Marshall.
- 4Beauties had his first edit in late July, where he created a userspace draft. Here's what the page looked like: [57].
- Less than two weeks later, Degmarshall created the autobiography. Here's what that initial page looked like: [58] (Notice how the userspace draft created by 4Beauties is nearly identical to this page.)
- Degmarshall and 4Beauties have never edited at the same time. Notice Degmarshall's edit on July 2nd, and 4Beauties' first edit less than a two hours later. Most of 4Beauties' edits occured on August 4th, with exception to one which occurred today. Likewise, note how Degmarshall didn't edit from August 2 until the 12th. He also hasn't edited since the 26th of August. But 4Beauties has, as I said earlier.
Perhaps this is all a list of coincidences, but nonetheless, something fishy is going on. I don't want to open a case at WP:SPI right away as I want some feedback from other editors, as well as a reply from the editors themselves (or himself, as the case may be.) In any case, User:Degmarshall has been engaging in clear violations of WP:COI for four years, and it concerns me that no one else picked up on this until me a month ago. elektrikSHOOS 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- This looks like a pretty clear case of socking, yeah. I'll go let the users know about this thread, and let them know that if they are the same person, they should only be using one account to edit with unless they have a legitimate reason to do otherwise. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, I see you've already informed them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see some pretty clear quacking here, though I'll give the editor in question some time to reply before doing anything as yet. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- If these articles are not notable, deleting them may be the best option. That would remove any incentive for COI editing, inviting close colleagues to edit, or similar violations of WP policy. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is an existing Afd discussion for David E.G. Marshall which you can find here. Commenting would be lovely. elektrikSHOOS 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Commenting here to temporarily stay autoarchiving while we wait for either of the above users to comment on this thread. If a response is not forthcoming, I'd recommend an admin to indef block 4Beauties as a WP:DUCK sock, and a very strong warning to Degmarshall about socking and WP:COI. And I'm definitely going to keep an eye on him. elektrikSHOOS 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism to WWMX
Theaveng (talk · contribs) has begun an edit war on WWMX by adding schedules of DJs, names of non-notable past DJs and information about stations in other markets that share the station's name. I have removed this information several times, once when the user was using User:64.53.75.62 to add the information, and again now under WP:NOT#DIR, along with WP:N and WP:V, but the user continues to readd. I issued this "only warning" and left it at that, the user readded still. Theaveng has a history of edit warring and blocks for such behavior. I believe it is time for another block for the same behavior or just an outright indef block as no amount of talking by many admins has helped to calm this user down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified the user of this thread. Though the user claims not to know what "ANI" is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, what has happened here is you have taken up a bilateral arguement with this user over this issue. From what I can see, no other person besides you and him are involved. Whether or not your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines is the correct one is irrelevent, dispute resolution does not proceed: Step one: Revert, Step two: get into arguement, Step three: demand block. You may be 100% right here (or not, I make no assertion to that end), however if you are, then you should enlist other editors to comment in even, neutral, and friendly tones on the issue. Ask for outside opinion, resolve the dispute, make the article right. There's still LOTS of things to do before we jump for the banhammer. --Jayron32 04:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- CORRECTION: I didn't add the list of DJs, programs, and schedules. The list has existed for [months] on that page (which can be confirmed by reviewing the history) and was added by [199.173.224.32] who is not me. It was NeutralHomer who, without any kind of discussion on the Talk Page, deleted them which I view as vandalism. I simply think he should have consulted with others first prior to doing it. That is why the Talk Page exists. ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC) [edit]
- WP:NOT#DIR, an already exsisting rule, allows me to remove this information. Also, WP:N and WP:V allows me to remove the other information. Both of those are benchmark rules. This is another example of your OWNership of an article. Need I bring up your other OWN problems? Probably not. The information isn't sourced, it is in violation of three rules and isn't notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. And as for me, all I'm trying to do is improve the articles on wikipedia (and protect them from the numerous vandals that roam through this place). I do not mean any offense to anyone - I'm just trying to make sure useful info (like program schedules) do not get erased. ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron, for the record, I happened across this note while filing a report of my own--Homer and I have a little history here, but we see eye to eye. Content-wise and policy-wise, he is spot on: the information added (or reinstated, whatever the case may be) is not in agreement with our guidelines, since it's basically unverified BLP information combined with directory listings (program listings are not part of Wikipedia's mission). I won't speak out on banning or not, but the information was rightly removed (and I just did it again), and judging from the editor's talk page Homer made a pretty good effort to explain. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine; as I said, I can concede the point that Homer is 100% correct with regard to the Wikipedia guidelines on the issue, but it is irrelevent whether that is actually true. However, Homer is short-circuiting the WP:DR process by jumping right to the block demands. The user in question has even stated above that they wish to discuss the matter on the talk page; so lets have that discussion. There's no need to block anyone right now. --Jayron32 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron, for the record, I happened across this note while filing a report of my own--Homer and I have a little history here, but we see eye to eye. Content-wise and policy-wise, he is spot on: the information added (or reinstated, whatever the case may be) is not in agreement with our guidelines, since it's basically unverified BLP information combined with directory listings (program listings are not part of Wikipedia's mission). I won't speak out on banning or not, but the information was rightly removed (and I just did it again), and judging from the editor's talk page Homer made a pretty good effort to explain. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- To me, this discussion should move to the article talk page ... but for reference, WP:WPRS, which has an interest in these types of articles, specifically states in its guidelines "Include a detailed history of the station. In addition, when applicable, include a complete call sign history. (For stations in the United States, the FCC database can help provide call sign history for as far back as about 1980.) Per WP:NOTDIR, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions, or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. You may add properly sourced, encyclopedic content describing a station's programming, but a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added. To a reader who isn't already familiar with the station, a plain airstaff list doesn't do anything to help them understand or get a feel for the topic. Describing a station's programming gives the reader a much better sense of the station, its personalities and its on-air style than a meaningless list of people they've never heard of." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron has a point, jumping for the banhammer was a bit much, I will retract that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll say. It's been almost a year since I last logged-in to wikipedia, and for good reason. I grew tired of the "cliqueness" of this site where people feel their contributions are unwelcome (and stupid). ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't say it was a year, more like 1 month and about a week. Not counting tonight, your last edit was 19:38 on 26 July 2010. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hate to bring it up again after striking it....but an agreement has been broken by Theaveng. Per a January 5, 2010 unblock by admin User:EdJohnston, Theaveng agreed to not violate 1RR for one year. He is at 3RR at the moment on WWMX. We could, since the situation has subsided, let it pass, which I will recommend, but a strong warning would also be recommended. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, lets not block anybody for anything. Lets mosie on over to the talk page of the article in question, and have a rational discussion over there like grownups. Howsabout that? Anyone up for a nice, pleasant discussion rather than a block? --Jayron32 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I last logged in 5 weeks ago? I honestly don't remember that. How do I go back and look it up? ---- Theaveng (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- See Special:Contributions/Theaveng. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. As you can probably tell I don't know much about wikipedia's intricacies. I used to contribute a lot (2008) but now it's rare because of other real-world distractions. ---- Theaveng (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- @Jayron: was just bringing it to your attention. @Theaveng: Check your contribs, top of the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- See Special:Contributions/Theaveng. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, lets not block anybody for anything. Lets mosie on over to the talk page of the article in question, and have a rational discussion over there like grownups. Howsabout that? Anyone up for a nice, pleasant discussion rather than a block? --Jayron32 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hate to bring it up again after striking it....but an agreement has been broken by Theaveng. Per a January 5, 2010 unblock by admin User:EdJohnston, Theaveng agreed to not violate 1RR for one year. He is at 3RR at the moment on WWMX. We could, since the situation has subsided, let it pass, which I will recommend, but a strong warning would also be recommended. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't say it was a year, more like 1 month and about a week. Not counting tonight, your last edit was 19:38 on 26 July 2010. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll say. It's been almost a year since I last logged-in to wikipedia, and for good reason. I grew tired of the "cliqueness" of this site where people feel their contributions are unwelcome (and stupid). ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Can I get a metal sock block?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Anyone with a mop, please walk by Assuck (pardon my French), where you will find, in the history, a disruptive and now indefinitely blocked editor, User:Assuckfan. In that same time frame you see edits made by a staunch defender of the wiki, User:Blackmetalbaz. Then, as you go up toward the more recent edits, you see--hey! that's odd! Blackmetalbaz has changed his mind and is now introducing the material he previously deleted. Well, it's not Blackmetalbaz--it's User:Blackmetlabaz, who is AssuckFan and has copied Baz's user page, and even went as far as to cleverly manipulate his edit summary. But the fun is over. I ask for an immediate ban/block/exile. I'll notify him in a minute. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Done, though the initially blocked user was User:AssuckFan (capital F). We aim to please... --Jayron32 04:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- We're going to need more eyes here, or else maybe just temporary protection. I just indeffed User:Acct.1.of.100. LadyofShalott 05:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. --Jayron32 06:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- We're going to need more eyes here, or else maybe just temporary protection. I just indeffed User:Acct.1.of.100. LadyofShalott 05:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please help
Hi admins I have been working in my native language wiki project. And recently I started an account on English Wikipedia. I got a message in my talk page from another user about a socket puppet issue. Is he an administrator? But I don't have any connections with some blocked accounts he specified. What should I do? why he is suspecting me? please help. -- Logical Thinker 05:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The editor who placed that notice is not an admin. You don't need to do anything, as no report has been filed at WP:SPI. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- That helped me. He was wrong then. Most users in my country are using the same government run DSL ISP(BSNL Broadband). It allocates dynamic IP addresses for all users in a region. He may have misunderstood my connection with a JW user's talk page and the similarity in geographical location to be a sock puppet of recently blocked user. Thank you -- Logical Thinker 07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did not file a formal CheckUser request at this stage because there is insufficient evidence at this stage. However it is unusual that three people from Kerala have all started editing JW-related articles in quick succession (though the latest has thus far only provided 'encouragement' to other pro-JW editors at their Talk pages, which would be fine in itself without the religious rhetoric). It is statistically improbable that the third account is unrelated (either sockpuppet or meatpuppet) to the other two that were confirmed as socking.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- In India there is over 30,000 witnesses and about more than half are concentrated in Kerala. No wonder if another user edits JW articles from the same location. But in this case it made you doubtful as the date I joined and other socks blocked was nearby. I coped with all user interfaces here easily because I have experience in another local wiki project. The first two users are already proved to be the same. So all chances can be only two persons. Anyway Meat or sock puppet are Issues that should be considered seriously. -- Logical Thinker 08:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The other recent editor(s) (who claimed to know each other[59] and were since confirmed as socks) from Kerala also claimed to be involved in the Malayalam Wikipedia[60], and being tech-savvy ("Because I am not a fool,I know how Internet IP works.-:)", implying convenient awareness of the ambiguity)[61]. They also commented about not wanting to communicate with an "Ex-JW"[62] as did Logicalthinker33 in his 'warning' to User:Naturalpsychology. This suggests meat puppetry if not a sock. In any case, it seems unusual that just after 'two' (sock or meat puppet) JW editors from Kerala were blocked for sockpuppetting, that another JW from Kerala would provide 'encouragement' (actually religious rhetoric)[63] for other JW editors as their very first edits. That is not the action of an entirely uninvolved editor who just started editing a specific language wiki project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (The user has since revised their comments at User:Naturalpsychology's Talk page. The beginning of the comment has been altered to say, "I am a new comer in English wikipedia project and I went through some old talk pages in JW articles. I appreciate your good contributions to make JW article's bias free. I know Ex.Jw's here are doing so much discouragement." This in an obvious attempt to redress the original statement as if coming from a previously uninvolved editor, whereas it originally started with, "I appreciate your good contributions to make JW article's better. I know Ex.Jw's here are doing so much discouragement to you.") To be clear, I am not requesting that User talk:Logicalthinker33 be blocked or any other specific admin action at this time. However, I am indicating that I am rightly suspicious of the sequence of events.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- In India there is over 30,000 witnesses and about more than half are concentrated in Kerala. No wonder if another user edits JW articles from the same location. But in this case it made you doubtful as the date I joined and other socks blocked was nearby. I coped with all user interfaces here easily because I have experience in another local wiki project. The first two users are already proved to be the same. So all chances can be only two persons. Anyway Meat or sock puppet are Issues that should be considered seriously. -- Logical Thinker 08:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did not file a formal CheckUser request at this stage because there is insufficient evidence at this stage. However it is unusual that three people from Kerala have all started editing JW-related articles in quick succession (though the latest has thus far only provided 'encouragement' to other pro-JW editors at their Talk pages, which would be fine in itself without the religious rhetoric). It is statistically improbable that the third account is unrelated (either sockpuppet or meatpuppet) to the other two that were confirmed as socking.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- That helped me. He was wrong then. Most users in my country are using the same government run DSL ISP(BSNL Broadband). It allocates dynamic IP addresses for all users in a region. He may have misunderstood my connection with a JW user's talk page and the similarity in geographical location to be a sock puppet of recently blocked user. Thank you -- Logical Thinker 07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Jeffro that the sudden appearance of another user from Kerala, following the blocking of three sockpuppet accounts from that region in quick succession, is highly suspicious. The number of editors at the JW pages has remained relatively stable for some time and it is unusual, to say the least, that so many edits have suddenly come from that part of the world. User:Logicalthinker33 seems remarkably confident as a novice user and has been very quick to hand out barnstars to other JW editors, whose editing has been rather low-key lately. The Indian individual who has used the sequence of usernames in a deceptive manner on the JW pages has so far been consistently dishonest and evasive and shown no embarrassment about blatantly lying, so it shouldn't be a surprise that if ... if ... Logical Thinker is the same individual, he continues to deny it. I'll watch developments with interest. BlackCab (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (Though I indicated two previous socks from Kerala, BlackCab is correct here in that there were three other recent Kerala editors identified as socks of User:Jehonathan (including himself); the other editor was User:Flowerman75.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- What did I do? My edit history shows among 104 corrections I did nothing in any JW article. I only made 6 motivating corrections in two JW editor's discussion. Are you making all these things here because I just encouraged two good editors with a barnstar? I made small sentence correction in my comments here not to avoid suspicion but to make my idea clear. Also its notable all the blocked user's have always worked only with JW articles. I have been worried about this issue as the acquisitions are multiplying. Time will show then.-- Logical Thinker 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (Though I indicated two previous socks from Kerala, BlackCab is correct here in that there were three other recent Kerala editors identified as socks of User:Jehonathan (including himself); the other editor was User:Flowerman75.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Jeffro that the sudden appearance of another user from Kerala, following the blocking of three sockpuppet accounts from that region in quick succession, is highly suspicious. The number of editors at the JW pages has remained relatively stable for some time and it is unusual, to say the least, that so many edits have suddenly come from that part of the world. User:Logicalthinker33 seems remarkably confident as a novice user and has been very quick to hand out barnstars to other JW editors, whose editing has been rather low-key lately. The Indian individual who has used the sequence of usernames in a deceptive manner on the JW pages has so far been consistently dishonest and evasive and shown no embarrassment about blatantly lying, so it shouldn't be a surprise that if ... if ... Logical Thinker is the same individual, he continues to deny it. I'll watch developments with interest. BlackCab (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The disruptive user at Talk: White Rabbit is at it again. I have non-admin closed the requested move poll as vandalism, since all the (multiple) "votes" are from 75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs), who appears to disagree with her/himself. Looking at the IP's talk page, I see many vandalism and disruption notices.
76.66.194.106 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Examining the edit history of this user, I find s/he did the same thing at Talk:STE, voicing both sides (support/oppose) arguing with him/herself, and multiple votes. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since WP:DE includes "their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article" I asked my friend, the Red Queen for assistance:
- And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
- Remember what the dormouse said: Keep your head!"
- Now, where's me hookah? TFOWR 09:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since WP:DE includes "their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article" I asked my friend, the Red Queen for assistance:
Two new users: content dispute, edit warring, minor incivility, and obvious sock-puppetry
Since this incident involves edit warring as well as civility problems and sock-puppetry, I figure this is the best place to post it. Two users are having a dispute at Yumeiro Patissiere. Both appear to be fairly new and one of them has asked for my help.[64] I pointed them here.[65] As they seem to be unwilling to ask for help by an administrator, I'm doing it for them.[66] But as to what happened: Mari tennouji (talk · contribs) made several edits to the article,[67] most of which were soon reverted by the editor who asked me for help (Reeniereindeer (talk · contribs)).[68] Following that, an assortment of accounts made edits similar to those of Mari tennouji and with very similar edit summaries.[69] Unwilling to engage in an edit war, Reeniereindeer attempted to communicate with the editor(s),[70][71] but their replies[72][73][74][75][76] were less constructive than Reeniereindeer had hoped for.[77] Doing a check for sock-puppetry (users: Hellooooookiki, Phoenix218, Rikeruchan, Oiishicakie, Loveyumepati, Reneechan2, Lovepooh) as well as full-protection of Yumeiro Patissiere, preferably after a revert to the last revision before the conflict, should go a long way towards solving this problem. Thanks, Goodraise 09:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Semi-protection is all that is needed to protect the article form suspected socks. If you susspect that these accounts are in fact sockpuppets, open an WP:SPI case on them. —Farix (t | c) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed:
- Mari tennouji (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Phoenix218 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Hellooooookiki (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Rikeruchan (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Oiishicakie (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Loveyumepati (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Reneechan2 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Lovepooh (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
All accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive behaviour at AfD
The behaviour of MickMacNee (talk · contribs) (MMN) at AfD needs to be curbed. I have no problem with him nominating an article at AfD, but what I do object to is his constant badgering of those who !vote to keep an article he has nominated for deletion. I am aware that other editors also partake in this practice and therefore I'm hoping that in raising the issue of MMN's editing we can establish a method of dealing with the problem.
I'm sure there are other examples I could use, but for the purpose of this report we need only to concern ourselves with three articles.
- Falls of Cruachan derailment (AfD and DRV)
- Agni Air Flight 101 (AfD)
- 2010 Bandundu Filair Let L-410 crash (AfD).
Let me state here that I could have handled the Falls of Cruachan derailment AfD and DRV better than I did. I did feel a lot of wikistress over this one though.
I'm not seeking to stop MMN (or any editor) from nominating an article at AfD. Nominations made in good faith are not a problem. If it is a bad nomination, then hopefully the nominator will learn from the experience and avoid making the mistake again. What I would like to see put in place is a restriction on MMN prohibiting him from badgering other editors at AfD. He should be allowed to nominate articles for deletion, giving reasons for nomination in the rationale. After that, MMN should only be able to reply to specific questions asked of him, or where a clarification is sought. Failure to observe the restriction to be met with a 1 week block, increasing to 1 month after a 3rd offence, such restriction to be logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why should editors not be allowed to question peoples votes, especially as technically it is not meant to be a vote. People do not have to respond to his comments and its not going to have an impact on the person closing the AFD. The proposal to impose sanctions if he makes comments on an AFD to other editors like a week or a months block is very unreasonable considering hes doing nothing wrong there. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mick is doing EXACTLY what we should be doing at AfD. There's a reason it is no longer VfD. If an argument can not stand on its own merits it does not get to influence the closing. These are discussions and debates, not votes. Discussions and debates absolutely require engagement like this. -- ۩ Mask 13:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's not that MMN questions other editor's votes, but it is excessive and disruptive. I feel that other editors may decide not to participate in certain AfDs where MMN is the nominator. It also results in comments like "Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee" (Agni Air Flight 101 AfD) and "Strong keep and please stop these ridiculous AfDs" (2010 Bandundu Filair Let L-410 crash AfD), which is why I feel it necessary to raise the issue here and hopefully gain some kind of consensus on dealing with it. As I put in my opening rationale, by dealing with one editor, a precedent can be set that can also be used to deal with other editors who also indulge in this practice. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- results in comments like "Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee" (Agni Air Flight 101 AfD) It seems pretty clear in that case that someone is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and that someone is not Mick. -- ۩ Mask 13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or venting their frustration? Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you assume it is an either or proposition? He can both disrupt it to make a point and improperly vent frustration that arguments in AfD have to be backed by policy. This is an example of a logical failing that might not otherwise be visible without outside comment, which is what Mick provides. -- ۩ Mask 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or venting their frustration? Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- results in comments like "Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee" (Agni Air Flight 101 AfD) It seems pretty clear in that case that someone is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and that someone is not Mick. -- ۩ Mask 13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's not that MMN questions other editor's votes, but it is excessive and disruptive. I feel that other editors may decide not to participate in certain AfDs where MMN is the nominator. It also results in comments like "Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee" (Agni Air Flight 101 AfD) and "Strong keep and please stop these ridiculous AfDs" (2010 Bandundu Filair Let L-410 crash AfD), which is why I feel it necessary to raise the issue here and hopefully gain some kind of consensus on dealing with it. As I put in my opening rationale, by dealing with one editor, a precedent can be set that can also be used to deal with other editors who also indulge in this practice. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that if a original voter's rationale gets refuted it could read (in the eyes of the closer) that the original voter agreed with the refutation of the point. I've contributed to some contentious *fDs recently and found that there is usually one editor that feels very strongly on the subject and will come in to refute every single point in what appears to be an attempt to mask the concensus to their viewpoint. Perhaps a Village Pump proposal would be the better venue for this discussion as the proposal could have very long reaching implications Hasteur (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you want freedom from reality where no one has the right to disagree with the foundation of your argument despite gaping holes with regard to policy and community consensus, then this isn't the place for you. Go count votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy and not every opinion is valid. Opposing opinions can both be valid, its not saying there is one side thats right and thats it, but ensuring that only opinions grounded in reality count, whatever side of the line their on. None of these you's meant you personally. Ive never in my life interacted with you and im sure you're awesome, so im worried about that sounding like i was snapping at you personally. Just know it was the best vague-but-specific pronoun I could come up with that was better then "they" or "them" in scare quotes. -- ۩ Mask 14:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't disagree with anyone who thought that Mick was at the very least quite terse in his talk page dealings and can often stifle debates with large walls of angry text.
- But surprisingly enough, one of the examples above, the Agni Air Flight 101 AfD discussion is a pretty poor example. Mick was just countering the reasons for deletion on offer, I see no reason to ban him from doing so.
- Its more symptomatic perhaps of his apparent dislike/inability of discussing issues calmly with other editors, than an attempt to derail any AfD. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the Agni Air Flight 101 AfD is a good example. See the final !vote by Lester. His assertion that the accident received significant international coverage is easily proven by checking the sources used as refs in the article, yet MMN challenges it as a "proveably false claim". The sources are Daily Mirror (UK), Aviation Herald (USA), Hindustan Times (India), Flightglobal (UK), Los Angeles Times (USA). Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't actually refuted his claim though, all you've done is give names. The standard is significant coverage, and you haven't said anything in regard to that. Were they staff reporter bylines, or did the print it off the wire? Was it a story, or a one sentence note in the infographic 'Our Planet'? Once again you show exactly why these comments are encouraged at AfD. -- ۩ Mask 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, its not that anyone thinks your a liar or anything like that, just that there are disagreements over policy and its best to make sure everyone arrives at something close to the same rules. -- ۩ Mask 14:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've linked to the sources, three of which are newspapers. Flight is the oldest established aviation magazine in the world. Aviation Herald is a website that documents accidents and incidents to civil airliners. All of which meet WP:RS. Re the newspapers, stories would have appeared in the printed newspapers as well as appearing on their websites. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, its not that anyone thinks your a liar or anything like that, just that there are disagreements over policy and its best to make sure everyone arrives at something close to the same rules. -- ۩ Mask 14:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Significant international coverage" it dependent on peoples point of view, Significant in my opinion would be a crash like the one involving the US former senator about a month ago. Ive no idea about this specific example but im sure it didnt get as "significant international coverage" as that accident did. I dont see the problem.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't actually refuted his claim though, all you've done is give names. The standard is significant coverage, and you haven't said anything in regard to that. Were they staff reporter bylines, or did the print it off the wire? Was it a story, or a one sentence note in the infographic 'Our Planet'? Once again you show exactly why these comments are encouraged at AfD. -- ۩ Mask 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the Agni Air Flight 101 AfD is a good example. See the final !vote by Lester. His assertion that the accident received significant international coverage is easily proven by checking the sources used as refs in the article, yet MMN challenges it as a "proveably false claim". The sources are Daily Mirror (UK), Aviation Herald (USA), Hindustan Times (India), Flightglobal (UK), Los Angeles Times (USA). Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Personally, I think MickMacNee would more effectively make his point if he were more diplomatic but I don't see his behavior warranting sanctions. J04n(talk page) 14:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've done nothing wrong here, not a fucking thing at all. And what annoys me most is that Mjroots apparently managed to become an admin on Wikipedia without having the first goddam clue what Afd debates are all about. Is he open to recall? Apparently not. What a surprise that is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- I think we can see right in that response that this user has a bit of problem with aggression, venting on those who take the opposite side in a debate. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010_August 18#Gillian Duffy is an especially peachy read-through. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's been pointed out before, but MMN also has major problems with WP:CIVIL too. I'm not putting myself up for recall because I don't believe that my administrative actions have been that bad that it is warrented. Any actions I do take are open to civil discussion, and I have been persuaded in the past to change a decision I have made. I'm sure that if I were to make bad administrative decisions, my fellow admins and crats would soon let me know about it. In any case, my participation at AfD etc is in my capacity as an editor, not as an admin. Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's got nothing to do with you making bad administrative decisions. The fact is, your whole perception of what Afd is and is not is so poor, that it makes me question your basic competency as an editor, in addition to as an admin. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- My basic competency as an editor? Let's see, I've created 662 articles on en.wiki, of which only 2 have been deleted. I've also created 195 lists. Add to this 2 articles created on nl.wiki and 9 lists created on de.wiki. I think most would agree that I pass WP:COMPETENCE. Mjroots (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- MMN warned for that last. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I knew I was going to get shafted at some point in this thread. Mjroots makes an unfounded complaint based on his total inability to understand WP:AFD, everybody quite rightly tells him to go fish, and I still get fucked over. Brilliant. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- If anyone comes off as uncivil in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101, it's the voters who decided to make their point with extra-large font. MMN was right to call out voters who didn't base their votes on actual policy. ~DC Let's Vent 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe this thread is especially helpful. Mick has not violated any policy or guideline (except WP:CIVIL, but that seems to be optional these days) and restricting him wouldn't do any good. Nobody is obliged to respond to another editor in an AfD and I suggest people leave it to the closing admins to weigh up the arguments, but I believe civil discussion (not "who can shout the loudest") about the notability of the subject are far better for the encyclopaedia than drive by voting, often by editors who appear never to have read the policy/guideline/essay they're citing. If I nominate an article for deletion, I believe I have a right to challenge !votes I believe to be invalid, otherwise even more shite would slip through the cracks than it does already (and no, I'm not a deletionist, I just believe in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Editor repeatedly entering a "controversy" into article
- Basuupendra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The above user is a single purpose account whose only goal is to insert a particular bit of material in the
- All India Trinamool Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
article.[78] His insertion is badly written, misrepresents sources (e.g. Criminal Investigation Department "has discovered" when these are only allegations), clearly non-neutral, and has BLP implications due to naming politicians. His account goes back to July and it seems literally half his edits are reversions to insert that particular bit of material. In doing so he has reverted several editors--all objecting to his addition. He has made very little attempt at the talk page to address everyone's concerns, apart from insisting his insertion is good. He has also made two reversions within the last hour. Given this, I think this is a case of disruptive editing and persistent edit warring over a long period. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user for 31 hours. Hopefully, they'll realize that they need to discuss changes rather than continuing to edit war. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I protected the page before I saw the user had been blocked. I removed the contentious material due to the BLP concerns. --Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I remember this from last month, this user hits Suvendu Adhikari frequently, too. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
EL:Ffestiniog Railway
I am involved in both an external wiki covering the subject header and monitoring related pages online that are connected with the Festiniog Railway. This has been "on the go" for somw 5 years now. It is a very specific and narrow interest wiki covering the railway company and the area it operates in. It has access to the company files, and photos, which are not available under GFDL etc. Being specific, it only has a handful of active editors who are usually directly connected with the railway.
As an aide to any researchers from this wiki, I, and other editors, had placed links from Wikipedia to our own, which until recently was on a subsite of our voluntary Heritage Group. It has recently changed to its own site, [www.festipedia.org.uk], although the old links were still working.
We have now been accused by one "edit filter manager, administrator" of breaking Wikipedia policy in doing what has been done over the past years. Admittedly there may have been individual references within a subject, usually where our wiki is able to clarify. However, generally we had inserted a template within either the "See also", or "External Links" sections which gave option to direct to either the generic link within wikipedia, or the generic link within Festipedia. This template was specifically only used in articles which we have connection with (i.e. the railway - it was not used on basic location articles).
First of all the article was marked "Spam" in edit notice, although this was retracted later, and replaced with "promotional". I contend, "promoting" another information source is not only beneficial to Wikipedia researchers, but it is likely to be more use to them as it is a narrow band wiki.
It was then stated that external links are not allowed within the text of the articles. If they are also not allowed at the end, where the template resided, then where are external links allowed??
At various times, comments have referred to various "WP policy" pages, which I have duly read, and found them headed by comments of only guidlines and common sense". I do not find any block on the use of a template as such. There is also ref to WP:ELNO which I find is not "policy", but seems only to air administrators views, and not policy.
It is my contention that this editor has misinterpreted the policy, and by removing the external links from articles, has removed a valuable resource from researchers.
The initial page is Template:Festiniog Railway Company , and subsequently many pages (43 articles), to which this is used have also been amended to remove links.
I note that following his attentions, the links have now appeared on COIBoT reports for some reason.
There is relevant discussion on his home talk page, and at WP:RSN, WP:ELN
Per anonimity, I have not detailed any names, but if you follow this link, it becomes obvious. The other personage involved has been involved by Subst:ANI-notice. Keith (talk)14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is a content issue but since you asked... 1) external links should not be placed within an article and 2) Although I'm not sure if templates strictly prohibit the use of external links, I'm sure that accepted practice is that they should only be used for internal links - to create consistency for readers and so they know that clicking on a template will not take them to some strange external site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your original comment was noted, and point 1 was agreed. Entries under that would need to be edited - no problem. The link would be moved to the external links section. This has not been done. The links have been removed completly,without an alternative being used. Point 2, as said, it is not specifically excluded in policy, and what is "accepted practice" is not policy. Given an external link has an indicator for being such, I dont see a problem. --15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've raised this at WT:UKRail. The issue may be better off by being disussed at WikiProject level rather than here. The talk page of the Festiniog Railway article may also be a better place for discussion. It may be possible to include a link to Festipedia in the External Links section of the Festioniog Railway article, subject to consensus being obtained for this. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have read your [[WT:UKRail comment, and feel that you have misunderstood. The template (as was) linked generally to 20 different pages, internal and external. These covered a lot of material. It has now been reduced to linking to 10 active articles all internally. A lot of information has been lost.
To place such, on the Ffestiniog page only, would be unreasonable. Having found details of a particular station, or engine, under the old template the researcher could find the relavent Festipedia article by 2 depressions. Under the one page only link, it would require pre-knowledge and a lot more work.--15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)