→Persistant harassment: +SSP evidence |
|||
Line 743: | Line 743: | ||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaxthos&diff=next&oldid=179809461 More made up warnings] |
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaxthos&diff=next&oldid=179809461 More made up warnings] |
||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RYNORT&diff=prev&oldid=179559370 Long attack] ("''utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos''") |
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RYNORT&diff=prev&oldid=179559370 Long attack] ("''utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos''") |
||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arnabdas&diff=prev&oldid=179559812 SSP] - notice the idiosyncratic "''lol''", often done by [[USER:RYNORT]]. |
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arnabdas&diff=prev&oldid=179559812 SSP] - notice the idiosyncratic "''lol''", often done by [[USER:RYNORT]]. Also, for more SSP evidence, notice the consistant misapplication of headers (using only one '''=''') when posting new sections by both the IP and by the account RYNORT in diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlaxthos&diff=179691032&oldid=179670281 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlaxthos&diff=179560655&oldid=179532999 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaxthos&diff=next&oldid=179691746 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaxthos&diff=next&oldid=179784251 here]. Good evidence that it's all the same kid. |
||
There's plenty more evidence and other melodrama on the talk pages of articles and in the contribution history of the IP and user account. I don't really have time to formally initiate [[WP:SSP]] and [[WP:RFC]] proceedings right now (happy holidays!) but hopefully ANI admins will take more immediate (even if temporary) action to stop the harassment and disrutpive behavior. Your time in reviewing this is appreciated. /[[USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos]] <small>( [[User Talk:Blaxthos|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Blaxthos|c]] )</small> 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
There's plenty more evidence and other melodrama on the talk pages of articles and in the contribution history of the IP and user account. I don't really have time to formally initiate [[WP:SSP]] and [[WP:RFC]] proceedings right now (happy holidays!) but hopefully ANI admins will take more immediate (even if temporary) action to stop the harassment and disrutpive behavior. Your time in reviewing this is appreciated. /[[USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos]] <small>( [[User Talk:Blaxthos|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Blaxthos|c]] )</small> 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:42, 23 December 2007
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) |
|
Levine2112
- Moved thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. Davnel03
Muntuwandi once again
The following thread above was archived so I had to start a new one. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muntuwandi_and_the_Origin_of_Religion. This user has once again thumbed his nose at the process and recreated the same entry now under the name Evolutionary origins of religion. He has been warned by more than one admin not to do so.PelleSmith (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like a neutral admin to look into this rather than me - I don't think Muntuwandi appreciated my warnings of "stop recreating deleted content under different article names", and someone he has not previously interacted with may have better luck with him. The content is, at first glance, good, but it is pretty much identical to the recently deleted Origin of religion, so needs a considered approach. See the above thread as Pelle mentions for context and background. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would very much so appreciate someone looking into this. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Due to my responses earlier to Mutuwandi above, I may not be considered an objective observer, but taking a look into this matter I found something disturbing: he claims two Wikipedians support this article he repeatedly inserts into articlespace, when to look at what both actually wrote, neither do. This is dab's comment to Mutuwandi: "you are right, I need to sit down and devote some time to this. The problem is, as always, not with the validity of the topic itself but with your erratic or idiosyncratic approach. I'll get back to this." (italics mine) Bruceanthro's is far to long to quote in total, but he says much the same thing as dab: the topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but how Mutuwandi handles it is a problem & gently suggests a couple of ways he believes would be better & not result in these objections. I can only wonder how Mutuwandi would consider they support him.
- FWIW, I know just enough about the subject this article treats to know that it is a fertile ground for potential original research problems. Any attempt to cover it would need to be extensively referenced, & would include many diverse and controversial opinions -- & this from the sources any contributor would agree are reliable or expert! Personally, I wouldn't dare touch such an article beyond simple copyediting without extensive preparation, & can only speculate the dread any reasonably qualified but non-expert Wikipedian would have. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed some important part of Dbachmann's comments.
- "ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:
- 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
- 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
- 3. the teleological view (revelation)
- the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?
These are some of Bruceanthro's comments
- Myself, I feel it is a commendable and worthy object for an Wikipedia editor to seek to create and/or published archaeological research findings and conclusions regarding religions/evidence of religions found around the world. Perhaps rather than seeing Muntuwandi (talk efforts closed down, an article of the kind he has been initiating should be supported, and supplemented with balanced reporting on full range of speculation and theories in this field including evidence and speculation countering Muntuwandi (talk beliefs (in classic Karl Popper style!) .
As mentioned earlier I would welcome any admin who is neutral, willing to listen to all sides and who will follow wikipedia guidelines to participate in helping to resolve this dispute. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please supply links to the page where dab's comments appear. As for BruceAnthro's comment, you have only quoted part of what he said, as well as quietly removing indications that the text after "Perhaps" is one of two proposed solutions. -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dab made those comments (just above) during the AfD and prior to realizing that Muntuwandi was about to revert all of his attempts to help improve the entry in question. Muntuwandi was unwilling to accept Dab's assistance in order to preserve his own version, the version that was being but through AfD, and subsequently was deleted. This is in part, I believe (sorry if I'm inferring incorrectly) why Dab made the other comment more recently about the manner in which Muntuwandi participates being the real issue. It is exactly that issue that I'm asking for assistance with here. Muntuwandi also has a nack for quoting other editors in the same manner he quotes scholars -- very selectively to serve his purposes despite the fact that those being quoted may in fact have written a whole lot else that contradicts those purposes. Of course he doesn't just do this with quotation. On the talk page of Prehistoric religion he is currently arguing that the term "prehistoric" is derogatory and therefore we should delete the entire entry, yet despite this argument every single source Muntuwandi uses in relation to this subject matter uses the term "prehistoric"--of course in reality there is nothing derogatory about using this term to describe the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras but he'll make any argument or utilize any out of context quote he can in his weird crusade.PelleSmith (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- That may be the case -- or it may not be. I'd like to see a link her to the edit so I & any other Admin can form their her/his own opinion -- although seeing Ryulong's note below, this request may be moot. -- llywrch (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually its not the case, and I was wrong. Those comments came after the AfD (on Oct. 30th) when Dab was putting in work on the Development of religion entry. Here is the link. I would suggest contextualizing the comment with prior and later discussions on the same talk page, as well as the entry history, especially since Muntuwandi never engaged the comment at the time. The essence of what I wrote above, despite the mistake I made in identifying where and when the quote came from, remains pretty clear throughout all of this, and Dab did oppose the AfD only to find Muntuwandi unwilling to work with him on the entry. My apologies for the missed identification.PelleSmith (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- That may be the case -- or it may not be. I'd like to see a link her to the edit so I & any other Admin can form their her/his own opinion -- although seeing Ryulong's note below, this request may be moot. -- llywrch (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dab made those comments (just above) during the AfD and prior to realizing that Muntuwandi was about to revert all of his attempts to help improve the entry in question. Muntuwandi was unwilling to accept Dab's assistance in order to preserve his own version, the version that was being but through AfD, and subsequently was deleted. This is in part, I believe (sorry if I'm inferring incorrectly) why Dab made the other comment more recently about the manner in which Muntuwandi participates being the real issue. It is exactly that issue that I'm asking for assistance with here. Muntuwandi also has a nack for quoting other editors in the same manner he quotes scholars -- very selectively to serve his purposes despite the fact that those being quoted may in fact have written a whole lot else that contradicts those purposes. Of course he doesn't just do this with quotation. On the talk page of Prehistoric religion he is currently arguing that the term "prehistoric" is derogatory and therefore we should delete the entire entry, yet despite this argument every single source Muntuwandi uses in relation to this subject matter uses the term "prehistoric"--of course in reality there is nothing derogatory about using this term to describe the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras but he'll make any argument or utilize any out of context quote he can in his weird crusade.PelleSmith (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please supply links to the page where dab's comments appear. As for BruceAnthro's comment, you have only quoted part of what he said, as well as quietly removing indications that the text after "Perhaps" is one of two proposed solutions. -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE TO ADMINS: Please see the thread I posted above. This is not a content dispute, this is an issue of refusing to abide by the results of established processes. Muntuwandi was warned by two admins but it seems the warnings aren't going to be backed with any kind of action. I have suggested that he only work on the materials on his user space since the entry was deleted but he doesn't care for this suggestion. He has now even recreated Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion and redirected it to the latest entry. Whatever the outcome is regarding this content his behavior is unaccetable and I thought it was being dealt with until now. Could someone please attend to this. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think somebody has "issues". Up until now, I had not come across an editor who was so determined to see another article deleted. This article causes no harm, it meets all the standards of WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY. Because of past disputes this article is heavily referenced, from peer reviewed scientific journals, and contains the works of a number of high profile scholars. There is no one who will be misled, cheated by the contents of this article, in fact most will learn at least one or two things. I am aware that I have been the ogre, in this fiasco, because I have insisted that this article is necessary against what on the surface appears to be a consensus. But if anyone is interested in giving it a closer inspection, one will actually find that other editors have engaged in a gross misapplication of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They believe the WP:OWN, these articles on religion. I am aware that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but this article is much more in line with wikipedia's policies than a lot of other articles. For, example these editors accused me of creating a content fork of Development of religion. Development of religion has only 4 footnotes for the entire article and they are only found in one subsection(in short the article is crap).The article evolutionary origins has over 30 footnotes from highly related articles. None of the citations is titled "Development of religion". Any admin is free to verify this. How they came up with this accusation of content forking is still a mystery to me. The notice board isn't a place for content dispute, however because it is an active place frequented by admins, i believe it is ideal place to make an appeal for dispute resolution. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Block
I have blocked Muntuwandi because I have never seen him on these boards except as a part of a dispute or because his activities lead to long and winded discussions. I have explained in full why he has been blocked on his talk page at User talk:Muntuwandi#Indefinite block. His most recent recreation is practically identical to recent deletions. I have never made contact with Muntuwandi, but seeing his name here multiple times has never seemed to be good.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- "I have never made contact with Muntuwandi, but I've seen his name a few times" - that's one of the worst reasons for an indefinite block I have ever seen, and I have seen some stinkers recently. I'm going to consider unblocking unless I see a better rationale for this. Neıl ☎ 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- At User talk:Muntuwandi#Indefinite block Ryulong states that the block is for repeatedly recreating deleted content after multiple warnings. Sandstein (talk · contribs) has reviewed the block and declined the unblock request. - Jehochman Talk 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indef seems a little extreme, even for a user that has been blocked before for editwarring, in my opinion a few months could have helped us to do a better assessment of the situation, let us see if he has any intention of contributive contribution (if he does agree to be contributive of course). - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong may be unaware of this, but there's a pull down button on the block page that allows one to select block lengths other than indefinite. 24 hours would be reasonable, but indefinite is ludicrous. Neıl ☎ 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I shortened it to a month, seriously a indef seemed like overkill, not that I don't agree that issuing a block may have been appropiate though. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong may be unaware of this, but there's a pull down button on the block page that allows one to select block lengths other than indefinite. 24 hours would be reasonable, but indefinite is ludicrous. Neıl ☎ 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I blocked him indefinitely because he has repeatedly created deleted content despite warnings not to, and at multiple titles to obscure this fact. I have indefinitely blocked him because his actions are sporadic, but he has created this particular article under three different titles and on four different occasions. His unblock request does not reflect any reason as to a way that he feels that he will change his activities following his block, but instead discusses how he feels that this is only a content issue. I acted as a completely uninvolved administrator in this manner and acted in a way that I feel is beneficial as Muntuwandi's actions, while in good faith, are not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Should he see the particular error that I blocked him for and says that he will not act in such a way in the future, then he can be unblocked. As of right now, what he has stated does not reflect that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying hard not to take a side here, but as I noted above this topic is a rich field where one can collect all of the materials to create some truly disruptive editting -- WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH -- as well as the always contentious subject of religion. This is one of those subjects where, I regret to say, a heavy Admin hand is too often needed -- or several knowledgable editors need to adopt this article to keep it on the straight & narrow. I'll be surprised if this is the last we hear either of the topic of the origins of religion -- or of Muntuwandi. -- llywrch (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- some comments have been posted at User_talk:Muntuwandi#Consensus_can_change. Systemicbias (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying hard not to take a side here, but as I noted above this topic is a rich field where one can collect all of the materials to create some truly disruptive editting -- WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH -- as well as the always contentious subject of religion. This is one of those subjects where, I regret to say, a heavy Admin hand is too often needed -- or several knowledgable editors need to adopt this article to keep it on the straight & narrow. I'll be surprised if this is the last we hear either of the topic of the origins of religion -- or of Muntuwandi. -- llywrch (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez and VartanM
I would like to request an impartial investigation into User:Golbez claimed mediation activity at Nagorno-Karabakh. He recently violated neutrality by singling out the contributors of one ethnicity and offending them:
1) [1]
- "Maybe the Azeris should learn how to calm down and not sound like raving maniacs - stop treating Nagorno-Karabakh like it killed your damn puppy"
- "To say that the Azeris are far less helpful than the Armenians doesn't mean I support the Armenians - it just means they express their positions a lot better"
I think after such statements against contributors based on their background, User:Golbez has exhausted all his chances to be a mediator and needs to formally apologize for singling people out based on their background.
2) He also uses uncivil language and assumes bad faith in his "mediation" efforts:
3) Targets me as contributor:
After the last note, he generalized about all Azeri contributors as mentioned above, and I don't see how he could be mediating this article further. My report is specifically about this mediation case, I find User:Golbez as a valuable Wikipedian otherwise.
Also, while attempting to mediate, User:Golbez continuously engages three Azeri contributors at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, while User:VartanM, who posted this note [6] at User_talk:Golbez is pretty much editing and pushing POV [7] on the main page without any restriction or discussion. User:VartanM further posts notes attacking me and assuming bad faith [8]. User:VartanM has also attacked again a whole group of contributors by generalizing their ethnicity with "bazaar mentality" [9]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, when I say "Azeris", I mean what I've termed the "Azeri contingent" - I have no idea if the people promoting the Azeri point of view on that article are nationally or ethnically Azerbaijani, but I mean the people promoting that view. I can't be expected to write longhand every time. That said, I note you posted diffs made by VartanM in the last 12 hours - Not exactly time for me to respond to or deal with, I'm not here 24/7. Secondly, who said I was giving VartanM an equal ear? He just isn't as annoying about it as you are. Your complaints about VartanM are valid and can be dealt with in a thread independent from mine.
- Second of all: For #1, you skillfully left out the first "the", which makes it clear, I think, that I'm speaking about the suite of editors here, not the entire goddamn country. For #2, I have given you good faith for however long you've been here, and you still pull this crap, so it's over. My language escalated with my frustration, and for that and that alone, I apologize. As for #3, there's nothing wrong in what I said. Finally, I have no clue what VartanM's note on my talk page meant. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Since when do mediators ignore participants or make 'executive decisions' about anything? It sounds like, just from reading what Atabek wrote above, Golbez needs to withdraw from this and request that another uninvolved editor act as mediator. He may also wish to review his suitability for future mediator roles. AvruchTalk 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mediators have to ignore people who are not amenable to consensus or compromise; if they did not, they would never arrive at such a consensus or compromise, and would only go crazy in the meantime. Like I have.
- I'm leaving it as I found it: It's yours. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Golbez, saying "Azeris should learn how to calm down and not sound like raving maniacs" is not only diametrically opposite to any thought of mediation, it's simply generalizing of contributors due to their ethnicity. I hope you will be able to calm down and understand that you did offend people based on their background for no apparent reason. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Golbez, it's obvious that you are unwilling to take a neutral stance. Just look, in light of so much insults, assumptions of bad faith from VartanM and Fedayee without checkuser proofs, VartanM's calling Azeris "bazaar mentality", edit warring, harassing banned users by names or questioning the Jewishness of the background of others, you can only see Atabek as a "provocateur" :) Who else is, oh yes, Grandmaster and Parishan, other Azeri contributors are also "raving maniacs" - for disagreeing with your "mediation" approach.
- As far as arbitration goes, I don't see any use for taking arbitrator's time at such an obvious case. My concern about your inability to mediate or assume neutral stance in Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles was addressed, so I don't see any necessity for further comments. Apology is more of a good faith suggestion from me, since you did insult a group of us, and a matter of own business for you. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Avruch, I admit, not for the better, but since you have not read any of what Atabek says or does, you can't understand the situation. Atabek was not trying to reach consensus, he was basically there to sell his position. When you fill the article’s talkpage with comparisons between the NAZI regime and Armenia, compare Khojaly with Auschwitz, and dragging people into exhaustion by changing what has been there for months after reaching a difficult consensus after months, if not over a year, of discussion. I don't think that it is to run against AGF to say that Atabek is a provocateur. Golbez and Francis have been mediating the article for months and have achieved a very difficult consensus… months later you have Atabek coming here without discussion and making a move which he knew will again cause a worthless conflict between editors. I don't think more evidence is needed that Atabek’s conduct is not compatible with Wikipedia but since we have all lost faith in the arbitration committee, we are here wondering what next could be done. - Fedayee (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mediation is voluntary on the part of the mediator and the other editors, and the result is non-binding. If Golbez became frustrated at the behavior of some editors in this dispute, it merely means that the mediation has failed. Thatcher131 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right now, I just need a break, but if this is going to be dogpiled on ANI by people who make judgments on my quality as a mediator purely and solely by reading what Atabek wrote, then I don't know if I can continue. Atabek made me frustrated; him getting others to agree with him made me want to quit. There's a difference. I'm probably willing to keep trying if I don't have to deal with him and those like him (that is to say, people who use his style of arguing, not to say, as he would prefer to put it, fellow Azerbaijanis). --Golbez (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Atabek on this and I think that Golbez should withdraw as a mediator on all Armenia - Azerbaijan issues, because he was never invited by both parties to mediate and he clearly takes sides instead of remaining neutral. If you noticed, Golbez's mediation is supported only by the Armenian users, while no Azerbaijani user wants to see him as a mediator. His recent comment directed against the Azerbaijani users was the last straw. Please see this thread for more details. [10] You can see the joy of some Armenian users who really enjoyed Golbez's comment misrepresenting the Azerbaijani position. I don't think Golbez can be considered a neutral mediator, he admitted his sympathy for separatist movements in the past, and I personally always objected to him being a mediator, as his mediation only resulted in further escalation of the conflict. The above should not detract from Golbez as an editor and admin, and he is free to contribute as a regular editor, but the mediation task should be taken up by someone else. I agree that Moreschi or someone else takes up this role. Grandmaster (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Golbez makes decisions one or another, not takes sides, he doesn't care about Armenians or Azerbaijanis, he is third party, and now when you disagree with his third party decision, you are trying to basically impeach him, instead of making a case and showing point where he might change opinion about. The main thing is constructive process of discussion and coming to conclusions. Atabek violated that process being illogical, irrational, so it was impossible for Golbez to continue considering Atabek's opinions, as they were non-sense, so he decided to ignore him. So Grandmaster you should really blame Atabek as a person who as a representative of Azeri side undermined Azeri based views on disputable questions. I would suggest 1. Ignore Atabek, 2. Start presenting Azeri arguments in a logical contrsuctive way, 3. Stop blaming Golbez or any other third party admin for your own mistakes. Steelmate (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Golbez, if you actually tried to listen to opinion opposite to yours on talk pages, instead of "I don't have to deal with him and those like him (that is to say, people who use his style of arguing, not to say, as he would prefer to put it, fellow Azerbaijanis)". If you really tried to be an impartial mediator in case, where "fellow Azerbaijanis" are one of the disputant sides, and you were eager to reflect the best and most neutral information in Wikipedia article, there would be no necessity for my report here or elsewhere. As I said earlier, you're a very valuable Wikipeditor otherwise, but you just can't mediate in a heavily disputed article by taking a non-neutral stance. And talking about frustration, imagine how frustrated I, Grandmaster, Parishan and few others can get unable to add any reference or citation, or make any contribution to article, without being reverted by VartanM, Fedayee and now by yourself. The only hope is for impartial mediation, and there we are with you attacking "fellow Azerbaijanis" for sounding like "maniacs" for simply presenting facts and views. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe mediation is the wrong word here. In mediation (at least as practiced by MEDCOM), the mediator maintains neutrality on the issue and tries to facilitate the agreement of the parties. However, it is also possible to make positive contributions and to help resolve conflicts even if you have taken a side, just "mediation" is not a good word for it. For example, I mediated a conflict for MEDCOM where I truly didn't care one way or the other about the outcome. I have also stepped in to edit several articles where I had definite opinions about the content but was able to negotiate compromises with both sides because I was seen as reasonable, I did not have a lot of baggage from prior conflicts at other articles, and was able to use facts and policies to my advantage. It wasn't "mediation" but it was progress, and resulted in significant agreements on content and a cooling of the rhetoric between the two original sides of the argument. If Golbez wants to do that then more power to him. He doesn't have to be neutral. Thatcher131 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's OK. One does not have to be a mediator to contribute to the article. The problem here is that Golbez assumed the role of a mediator, while he was clearly a party to the dispute with his own strong views. Nagorno-Karabakh is one of the most troubled articles in Wikipedia, if you look at the log of the article you'll see that it was protected many times even before most of the current editors joined Wikipedia. Therefore mediation is really needed to help maintain a shaky balance that existed in the article for the last few months. Golbez is a valuable contributor and is very welcome to contribute to this article as a regular editor, but his mediation efforts only lead to further escalation of the situation. The thing is that Azerbaijani contributors are unable to make any edits to the articles, which is de-facto controlled by Golbez and mostly reflects the Armenian position. That’s why Armenian users are so ecstatic about Golbez and would not want another mediator. Grandmaster (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Offer to participants of Armenia-Azeri conflict
Note: this is no comment on Golbez or Vartan or Atabek or anyone. This is simply a response to the general picture I'm seeing from the Armenia-Azeri fights, and is copy-pasted from my response to this thread here on my talk page.
Chaps, attacking an ethnicity is only indirectly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but it's annoying and not something we want to see too much more of (Wikipedia ain't a soapbox either).
Arbitration enforcement is getting stupidly clogged up with your battles. At the moment it ain't all really working, I think you'll both agree. Perhaps we need a new approach. Here's an idea. I'll be full-time mediator and admin-enforcer to the Armenia-Azeri fights for a fortnight. If you accept, fine. If so, however, we're going to have work out a system whereby I get told where the latest fights are breaking out, because I haven't got every single Armenia-Azeri article listed. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- We need to control the destructive users such as Atabek, untill that, changing admins is like changing captains on a sinking ship, we need to fix the hole first. Steelmate (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I concur, posted my agreement at WP:AE as well. But I think both Golbez and VartanM need to reconsider their generalization about contributors of one ethnicity and apologize for insulting people. We should not forget, that Wikipedia editing is not a paid job, people do this for fun and enjoyment, while contributing valuable information. So we should not discourage others by fueling ethnic conflicts or trying to insult others ethnic identity. In my turn, I apologize to both, if I insulted their ethnic background in any manner, although to my knowledge I did not. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek has been provoking members into fights; he's been pushing them literally to exhaustion. If it isn’t his provocations with offending remarks about the Armenian Genocide, it is to replace countless articles' terms, when was it, months ago? True, this was documented in the AA2 arbitration case. But Atabek did continue his provocations by using offending words, reporting members and engaging in pissing matches. Comparing the Armenian regime to the NAZI one with explicit words and as usual, there were no consequences for any of those provocations and attacks along national lines. So it is somehow naive to expect that some level of reasonable discussion could take place if Golbez, Tigran or Vartan feel engaged in this unhelpful discussion which takes place in a battleground atmosphere, being fooled into believing that there are no consequences, since Atabek’s disruptions have been totally ignored by two arbitration cases and what followed.
When someone pursues his provocation as far as comparing the Khojali event with Auschwitz [11], how is Golbez supposed to answer to such an atmosphere of illogical and irrational comments destined only to provoke others? I don't see how he expects any member to behave when those members know that acting like Atabek will bring no consequences at all. In short, how is Atabek actually expecting others to react when he's provoking them day after day after day? Vartan, Tigran and Golbez did take the bait, but who is the administrator who will realise that Atabek is doing just what Adil was doing prior to his ban.
Also, wasn't Adil banned? So how on Earth is he allowed to continue contributing under his Ehud Lesar account? - Fedayee (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek is shown to be completely illogical and after spending in talking to him half a day, I realized he is trolling the talk pages, he has an ill faith in editing Wikipedia by ruining the constructive process itself by provoking other users to escapades and emotional exhaustion. After that I decided myself, separately from Golbez, to ignore him. The decision by Golbez to ignore him came later and it has all foundations to be so. Regarding the language Golbez used, I can categorically assert it was intentionally provoked by Atabek. Steelmate (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that; I got frustrated and let my words get away from me. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that a loss of faith in ArbCom is warranted - they simply aren't setup to mediate content disputes, as they freely admit. If Golbez is fed up and driven crazy with this mediation, then as I said - he needs to withdraw and request the assistance of a different mediator. It may be that no side will ever be satisfied completely with the status of the article, and there may be some actors who are clearly driving that impossibility. It doesn't seem like an AN/I issue, really, but I think its worth it to suggest to Golbez that he withdraw or act henceforth as an editor rather than a mediator. AvruchTalk 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Since Moreschi has made his offer, there's really no need to continue this discussion here. Corvus cornixtalk 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because Morschi has made an offer, doesn't mean it's been accepted by all participants. I see no problem with Golbez' mediation--he knows the history of the dispute between editors, he is patient, and he takes the time to learn the issues. Since Atabek caused Golbez to make that comment by his disruptive style, asking Golbez to step away would be rewarding a disruptive party who keeps pushing mediators away as long as he disagrees with them. Anyone involved in the discussion would find it healthy to ignore a disruptive user such as Atabek. And Atabek is not the only Azeri user anyway--he is just the most disruptive (after Adil_Baguirov's permanent ban).--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why not reward the disruptive party? That's how this works, even after two toothless arbitrations. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's why you shouldn't step down. I respect Avruch's and Corvus' opinions, but they cannot be expected to properly conclude who should be a mediator in the few seconds it took them to read Atabek's post. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think there is no problem with Golbez, the problem is Atabek as a disruptive user, by changing admin we are not going to solve the problem. Nothing against Moreshi or any other admin, but I think you are trying to cure not the issue but symptoms (see my comments above). Steelmate (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- No no, you've misunderstood me. I want to work full-time on all the Armenia-Azeri articles you chaps are fighting over, and those are not, unfortunately, limited to the Nagorno-Karabakh set of articles. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Tigran, Steelmate, VartanM and Fedayee, with all sense of reality, if Golbez returns to these articles, after his insults and "raving maniacs" words, no Azeri contributor will work with his mediation. Grandmaster and Parishan have already stated their positions at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. So I am not sure what he will be mediating and between whom will he be mediating other than following this suggestion from VartanM [12]? I think you're viewing the issue from the position of eliminating any and all Azeri viewpoint, while arbitrators and mediators aim at protecting the fundamental "neutrality" rule in Wikipedia, which is not about to be changed. I am sure most of you don't want to spend your times in perpetual discussions going around the circle and reaching nothing, new user appearing every day, disagreeing with radical wording of the other side and new battle starting. No one wants to participate in such time-wasting lengthy exercises, so it's more practical to simply engage in dialog (and I mean really try), and come up with truly neutral wordings to preserve the hard work of contributors in long term. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
All right, since Moreschi's offer hasn't been accepted, how about taking the whole discussion off of this page, since this isn't the complaints department, nor is it the dispute resolution department. Corvus cornixtalk 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know see why the contributors rejected Moreschi's offer (did they?), perhaps, this should be discussed in Arbitration Enforcement, where Moreschi made his proposal. All I can say is that Golbez mediation on Nagorno-Karabakh or any other conflicting article is no longer acceptable in light of the facts listed in the report above. Now, perhaps, opposing contributors can present us with facts showing why Moreschi would not be qualified for mediation, at WP:AE? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because you say Golbez' mediation is unacceptable doesn't make it so. Considering his knowledge on the issue, he is the most qualified at this point. If you can't get along with him, step away. There are other Azeri contributors other than you, who hopefully can learn your lesson and be less disruptive.
By the way, Golbez hasn't insulted anyway. He simply said that you should calm down instead of acting like a raving maniac. Despite being an accurate statement, it is a sincere, friendly, and quite useful advice. You will be wise to thank Golbez for it.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I Reject offer of Moreschi as it is not going to solve problem which we have now. The problem is Atabek's destructive behavior. Golbez been there long time and in this complex conflict we need someone with good knowledge of the conflict and history of this particular article to avoid stepping on the same wounds. Steelmate (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The issues are not limited to this article, nor even to this set of articles. I have no complaint with Golbez's mediation on the Nagorno-Karabakh article - like as not he's been doing a fine job. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Per suggestion from admin above, I opened another thread at WP:AE to discuss this. Just as a reminder, we were all asked not to post here on this subject, and I think Avruch spelled out the final conclusion on Golbez mediatorship. So let's move the discussion to WP:AE. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused. After skimming the NKR talk page I see what looks like discussion of the issues. It is clear from this incident report and many many reports at WP:AE that Atabek dislikes a lot of users and wants to run them off, and a lot of users dislike Atabek and want to run him off. But the diffs offered by either side never seem to support the arguments. Thatcher131 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- We don't want to run off Parishan, Ulvi/Aynabend or Grandmaster. How come Atabek succeeded in pissing off Persian and Armenian editors or Pocopocopocopoco and Golbez who are neither Armenian nor Persian? Didn't it occur to you that Atabek is doing something reprehensible which makes contributors want to run him off and only him? You read the exchanges... did you also consider that the NK article was in a form of relative peace that had never been reached before, thanks to Golbez and Francis who have put so much energy on it, before Atabek screwed it up? There must have been something really bad which Atabek did that would make Golbez react this way. - Fedayee (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pocopocopocopoco managed to piss off many users on various articles by supporting the separatist POV, and many Armenian users pissed off many Turkish users on related articles, does it show that all those users are disruptive? People happen to disagree with each other, the problem here is that mediation is supposed to help the disputing parties find the middle ground, and not take sides by promoting a certain POV just because the self-appointed mediator happens to share the same views with one of the sides of the dispute. I suggest getting a more experienced mediator to work with the parties from now on. Grandmaster (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- We don't want to run off Parishan, Ulvi/Aynabend or Grandmaster. How come Atabek succeeded in pissing off Persian and Armenian editors or Pocopocopocopoco and Golbez who are neither Armenian nor Persian? Didn't it occur to you that Atabek is doing something reprehensible which makes contributors want to run him off and only him? You read the exchanges... did you also consider that the NK article was in a form of relative peace that had never been reached before, thanks to Golbez and Francis who have put so much energy on it, before Atabek screwed it up? There must have been something really bad which Atabek did that would make Golbez react this way. - Fedayee (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting that you want to run Atabek off :). And who is we? You mean you have a group strategy on which users to target? Apparently, I am not the only one, Ehud and even banned AdilBaguirov are also targets, check your own comment here [13]. I am not sure if WP:AGF principle of recent ArbCom had quite any effect on your editing, Fedayee, to keep accusing contributors this way. And by the way, mediator should not call a group of contributors, not only me, as "sounding like raving maniacs", there is WP:CIVIL after all. Golbez is still trying to mediate right now at Nagorno-Karabakh page, without Azeri contributors. I hope Thatcher131 will read this comment too, and make necessary conclusions. I realize I may be annoying with reports of all violations at WP:AE, but I am definitely not trying to run anyone off, as in such case, I would not even spend my time discussing article contents on talk pages. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue with Atabek is that he is illogical and non constructive. Anybody can have their POV and that is ok, if YOU are being pissed just because other users POV, than it is YOUR problem. But if user is illogical and it is impossible to cooperate with him than it is THIS USER's problem and beeing pissed off is fully understandable. Steelmate (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
View from user:Pocopocopocopoco (re: user:Atabek's conduct)
Greetings, I am neither Azeri nor Armenian if that means anything. I follow and contribute to articles about de facto independent republics including Nagorno-Karabakh. I want to say that from the time I've been contributing to the Nagorno-Karabakh article I believe Golbez to be an excellent mediator for this article. I don't always agree with him and he's reverted me a couple times but I believe him to be fair and even-handed. I also believe that User:Atabek's conduct in this matter is reprehensible. We were having a productive conversation in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and he came in and made some very inflamatory statements that could also be considered trolling, broke Godwin's Law several times by making comparisons between Armenians and Nazis and ruined the discussion.[14][15] Note that Atabek is under civility parole by two Arbcom descisions.[16][17] I urge you to read Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and get a full picture of what happened. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not find those two diffs objectionable. The allegation that the Armenian population ethnically cleansed the region of Azeris is a matter of ongoing historical debate. Indeed, the sources that I can easily find seem to agree that it was the Armenians who were ethnically cleansed by the Azeris. Either way, stating this argument is not uncivil or a personal attack. It would be quite a different matter if Atabek accused Armenian editors of trying to ethnically cleanse the article, or if he accused Armenian editors of participating in the alleged crimes. You're trying to enforce a standard of "whatever offends the most easily offended editors is not allowed." To enforce a sanction against Atabek for making a historical argument (not directed against any particular editors) we would also have to be prepared to sanction any Arabic or Palestinian editors who criticize the government of Israel, on the grounds that it offends Jewish editors, and we have to sanction any editor who is critical of radical Islamic terrorists on the grounds that those comments offend moderate Muslims. I need some real incivility here. "The referendum was invalid because 30% of the population had been ethnically cleansed [18]" just doesn;t ring the bell here. Thatcher131 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not his POV about ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh that is objectionable but his repeated comparisons to the Nazis, Auchwitz, and Anchluss. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
After I read Atabek's statement above and commented initially, I did in fact go and read chunks of the talk page (I don't know much of anything about the conflict, aside what I've read lately in the papers about the Armenian/Turkey genocide issue) and I still believe that it would be useful to trade out mediators. Golbez is obviously frustrated and finding it difficult to maintain his neutrality. Even if Atabek is an exceedingly frustrating editor, the statement 'If I offended you, good' is inappropriate for someone trying to be a content dispute mediator. I also wouldn't necessarily conclude that Atabek is an exceedingly frustrating editor - these pages attract folks with very strongly held POVs, and so it takes a particularly practiced and even-handed mediator to make any headway at all. I've left a note with some advice on Atabek's talk page here. Avruch talk 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- It will be extremely difficult to understand where we all are coming from (me - Steelmate, VartanM, Fedayee, Golbez...), but the frustration with Atabek is fact. No other Azeri user is casing that frustration. What he does is avoids answers on the question, changes topic of conversation, adds illogical to the point of discussion imflamatory statements, comes back to where it all started - being non constructive in one word. F.e. if I asked him if (A > B) and (B > C) so can we all agree that (A > C)? his answer will be NO, because 1. A - is illegal and is not recognized by any country, B - is supporting A economically and C was a genocide made by A and B just like Nazi did, and also I have a very small D that looks like A but D can never be bigger then C.... So he changed the topic of conversation about logical statemnts and started bringing other topics non relevant to conversation and wants to discuss them in order to find solution for a problem, and solution (that A > C) is absolutely independent on all those thing which he brings into conversation. So he is completely illogical and I decided for myself to refrain from communication from this destructive user. I am ready to communicate with any logical person. His behavior is simply distracting from finding solutions and destructing the process as the whole. Who wouldn't become frustrated? Golbez is a human and he was provoked by Atabek as well, maybe he is tired, but the cause is Atabek's behaviour. Steelmate (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Steelmate, can you explain what behavior of myself are you and Golbez keep talking about? Saying that population was ethnically cleansed prior to establishment of "NKR"? Why would Golbez get frustrated by this and how was I provoking him to make demeaning comments about me and other Azeri contributors? Atabek (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I personally see no provocation on part of Atabek. He expressed his opinion, and he is free to do so. Atabek never personally attacked or insulted anyone, unlike some other users. I understand why some folks representing a certain POV like so much Golbez, but I don't find acceptable when a person who wishes to be a mediator makes comments generalizing all editors representing a certain position. That's not the way mediation is done. Grandmaster (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Grandmanster maybe you are right and there was no intentional provocation from Atabek's part and he might have a sincere difficulty for logical thinking due to maybe he is too emotional person, or not mature enough, I don't know..., the fact is - communication with him fruits no results and is frustrating, no consensus can be reached and time is just wasted in such a non constructiove talks. Steelmate (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are contributing to Wikipedia for about a month, and to NK related articles for about 2 weeks. As a new user who had very little communication with Atabek, how do you know that communication with him gives no results? Or maybe there's something I don't know about your past difficulties with Atabek? Grandmaster (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- My communication with him did not gave results. Period. I spent half a day with him, and am not planning spending the rest of my life talking to absolutely illogical person. Maybe you would like and prefer, as long as that person is pushing Azeri POV, maybe you would also like to recruit volanteers - patients from Azeris mental hospitals and have them edit Wikipedia with prior training that NKR is illegal. It is up to you but I am not. Steelmate (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are contributing to Wikipedia for about a month, and to NK related articles for about 2 weeks. As a new user who had very little communication with Atabek, how do you know that communication with him gives no results? Or maybe there's something I don't know about your past difficulties with Atabek? Grandmaster (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Grandmanster maybe you are right and there was no intentional provocation from Atabek's part and he might have a sincere difficulty for logical thinking due to maybe he is too emotional person, or not mature enough, I don't know..., the fact is - communication with him fruits no results and is frustrating, no consensus can be reached and time is just wasted in such a non constructiove talks. Steelmate (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I personally see no provocation on part of Atabek. He expressed his opinion, and he is free to do so. Atabek never personally attacked or insulted anyone, unlike some other users. I understand why some folks representing a certain POV like so much Golbez, but I don't find acceptable when a person who wishes to be a mediator makes comments generalizing all editors representing a certain position. That's not the way mediation is done. Grandmaster (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I really have no interest in responding to Steelmate's attack above. But I would like to yet again attract administrator attention to his personal attacks right above. Perhaps, the indifference to such attackers only serves to fuel more of them. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let me get something clear. You are saying that NK was ethnically cleansed before the referendum of the independence took place? Wouldn't that make the Khojaly a myth? You are making a major contradiction. VartanM (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- "patients from Azeris mental hospitals", ect - and this is considered civil langauge? Grandmaster (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Churches of Christ
Could someone semi-protect Churches of Christ as an anonymous editor keeps reverting with pov edits? --Ichabod (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The amount of edits, at this time, does not warrant the need for protection. If vandalism persists, please make your request at WP:RFPP.↔NMajdan•talk 04:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've made the request there, so we'll see what happens, but I'm not sure what else to do. I don't want to be part of an edit war, but what the user is doing is disruptive. Suggestions are appreciated. I'm hesitant to call this vandalism, the person doing it very likely believes what they're putting is appropriate and accurate. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Am I misreading the page history, or did this anon editor cross the line & violate WP:3RR? This may point to another solution to this problem. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblock of Callmebc
So, about a month ago Callmebc was indefinitely blocked because he had basically given up on "editing in a collaborative spirit" and was becoming abusive and disruptive over the topic. Since there was no apparent way to fix his behavior, he was blocked for a long period of time. While blocked, he has remained up to date as a lurker on the topic he was previously engaged in, and we have been (quite genially, I might add) discussing how his editing habits might be improved, since he has an honest desire to contribute to these subjects in a constructive fashion. As you can see from his block log, he has not been a perfect editor, to put it mildly — however, we've discussed a lot of these issues, and I think he has a sincere desire to begin "editing in a collaborative spirit".
Since I'm not here to play parole officer, or pretend I'm some kind of behavior-police (something which I do not believe is the correct role of admins), I've mostly discussed with him how to address the concerns many people brought up in his previous blocks, and the discussion which led up to his indefinite block. In any case, since I didn't want to put words in his mouth or set "conditions" for unblocking him, we decided that he should work up a statement of compromises that he's willing to make to engage his unblock.
Statement by "Callmebc"
I wish to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Wikipedia is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done.
I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise:
1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR
The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war.
2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.
3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Wikipedia -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case.
4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
-BC aka Callmebc
As you can see, it basically amounts to a self-imposed probation on all articles, with civility probation attached. I think this will satisfy most of the concerns which surrounded his editing pre-block, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here. So, what do you think? It would be helpful if comment could focus on particular requirements you think are not met in this, if you are opposed. For consideration, --Haemo (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I am always concerned when users try to get themselves unblocked in unusual fashions. I would rather Callmebc go through (since email is not disabled) and just request an unblock through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first before coming here. If that is rejected, then fine, but AN/I is frankly too fast for a discussion of this type. If some admin is willing to consider it, I'd suggest unprotecting his user talk page and discussing it there instead of here. No opinion, just a random admin musing through. Frankly, after seeing your diatribes as unblock requests, I'd say to at least wait until the end of the month before even considering it and learn why your unblock requests got you deservedly blocked even worse. I'll add this: if (1) this thread goes nowhere, (2) he's emailed unblock and they've denied it as well, have him email me and I'll consider unprotecting his talk page after December 28 [that would be one month since his talk page was protected]. Even then, I'm going to ask that at least one of the users who you are edit warring with agrees to the restrictions and will reblocked immediately and permanently for any nonsense. After this many blocks (and especially given the attitude during the blocked periods), I think I'm being way more than fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- To be fair, this is not really an "unusual fashion". I was discussing with Callmebc on-Wiki when he was appealing his block in the usual fashion. However, our discussion was cut short when his talk page was protected, but he had contacted me via email, so we decided to continue the discussion via email. There is nothing unusual about this, and it seems slightly bureaucratic to insist on jumping through hoops like reposting an extensive discussion we've had via email on his talk pages, or emailing a list which will only result in a discussion here — since this is clearly a case where the community needs to get involved. To be fair, in addition, its now been more than 1 month since his block was implemented. With respect to the "too fast" comment, the community sanction board was merged with WP:ANI — so this is de facto the only place to bring up discussions of this nature; the consensus was that WP:ANI is not "too fast", but is in fact the correct forum for these discussions. --Haemo (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it was out of place — I was simply explaining that the discussion we began there was continued via email, instead of by arguing over the protection. I merely made the comment to explain why it was not an "unusual fashion" — i.e. it's not as though he contacted me out of the blue, or something, asking for an unblock. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- If Callmebc is unblocked, it should be on the proviso that there is a topic ban from articles related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, interpreted liberally and to include all comments including on user talk, and on a permanent final warning about WP:BLP. See VRTS ticket # 2007103010015799 and VRTS ticket # 2007111410017735 for evidence of this editor's single-minded determination to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:BLP, causing great offence to a living individual in the process. I am not in favour of unblocking, personally, but as I say, any unblock should be contingent on some form of editing restriction. The above comments about "accuracy above all else" do not augur well, indicating that Callmebc self-identifies as a bearer of The Truth™, rather than accepting or engaging the numerous legitimate criticisms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have OTRS access, so I'll take your word for it. Since he appears to be mostly involved in the Killian Documents issues, and global warming, I'm not sure if he'll be willing to agree to that. However, he might, so I will consider broaching it with him after this discussion wraps up. He may be the bearer of The Truth™, but I think his comments show that he's realized that he has to compromise and engaged with us unenlightened ones, as well. --Haemo (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. Normally he would be allowed to use his talk page to argue his point but he abused it for days so no one should act like he deserves to be unblocked or any sympathy for his circumstances. Now, he should go through the process and ask via email. Frankly, I didn't realize he was getting to the point of OTRS tickets (I probably wouldn't have even offered to unblock if I knew he was that far gone) so Guy's topic ban has to be strictly enforced (I don't even want him on the talk pages there). Maybe even a requirement that he can only go on articles that don't have WP:BLP concerns? Either way, if he does "jump through all the hoops", I'll go to each of the talk pages and ask about him. Frankly, Haemo, I'm doing him a huge favor (as I feel this is going to take a lot of my time) and honestly, I'd prefer it if I felt that he realized that editing here is a privilege, not a right that can be abused and then "I'm sorry", "all is forgiven" after a diatribe against everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, he's a passionate guy — he's shown me as much in his emails. I think he has experience which might be of use to the project; however, the problems related to his behavior are an issue for the community to settle. Passion and conviction are not a recipe for temperance — as his past behavior has shown. However, I think he understand now that temperance is necessary to participate in this community. As you can see, he's made some serious concessions and appears willing to talk about things. This is a big step forward, and means a lot more than just an "I'm sorry". --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- This editor should not be unblocked at this time. I have had first hand experience in dealing with him. Instead, advise him to participate successfully in another Wiki, such as WikiNews, for three to six months and then he can apply for reinstatement. - Jehochman Talk 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do you really think that would help? The issue here is behavior; our sister projects are not test-beds for problem editors, and we should not use them as such. If we refuse to unblock him due to behavior problems, why would should inflict that behavior on a sister project in order test the waters for an unblock? It seems backwards — if he's trustworthy enough to edit WikiNews, then he should be trustworthy enough to edit Wikipedia — the negation of this should apply equally. --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sister projects have much less visibility as Wikipedia. Those who merely want to soapbox won't bother. Those who have a sincere desire to participate will. - Jehochman Talk 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's compelling. Perhaps they have a sincere desire to participate in a proper encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Simple English Wikipedia? An editor could very well be ready to turn over a new leaf, but not want to spend half a year doing something they have no interest in as a litmus test for whether they want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Many editors who want to contribute in good faith, and have turned over a new leaf would balk at such a suggestion and refuse. It's seem pretty punitive, and serves little purpose — if he's unblocked here, and starts soapboxing, then he'll have violated the terms he's already agreed to, and will be blocked. I don't believe in sending our problem users to other projects, especially as part of litmus tests which have no precedent (IIRC) and little evidence that they will actually do what we want. --Haemo (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- JzG, I have OTRS access but can't see that one, either... o.O - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't support him being unblocked yet, I know that unblock consideration can take place anytime but the last time he displayed disruptive behavior was about three weeks ago, while blocked this shows disregard for losing his editing privilege wich makes me question his desire to return, not to the point of assuming bad faith but I have to wonder if his intention is to push his past agenda in a more subtle manner. I wouldn't even consider unblocking this user without severe editing limitations like the ones presented above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Callmebc has repeatedly used talk pages to promote precisely the same offending content that was a problem in article space, and his abuse of his talk page for this was a factor in it being protected. I fixed the OTRS ticket links, incidentally. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I guess I can go along with this. The tone of his message is reasonable and the editing conditions he's come up with for himself look quite decent. Someone will always be around to enforce them. I don't think a topic-ban is necessary - if he comes back and does the same thing over-and-over-again we can just slap the ban back on. Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really do think we need to make it crystal clear that no comments about the individual concerned will be tolerated. Callmebc has offended the complainant, and the best course will unquestionably be for Callmebc to refrain form making any further comment in respect of this person. If that is acceptable to Callmebc then I have no objection; if Callmebc will not undertake to leave this person alone then I cannot support unblocking. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I am a firm believer in second chances, but I think the myriad chances given to this user to shape up have been completely exhausted. It's rather easy for uninvolved spectators to say he should be allowed to try to edit articles again, but as a person who's borne the brunt of his attacks and incivility, I wouldn't consider it an option. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly saying that; rather, I'm giving him an avenue to express his desire to contribute, and the concessions he's willing to make. You've mentioned that your concerns stem from his incivility and personal attacks. What more would you like to see from him that is not already expressed in terms of what he's agreed to? --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my first restriction on him potentially is that he stay off article space completely for one month, once and if he's unblocked; only talk space edits. I want to see if he is actually interested in discussing his views and can get others to agree based on persuasion, not by force. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a non-admin who has had a lot of contact with "BC" since before he registered as Callmebc. While our opinions about the Killian Documents are quite different, I would like to note for the record that he has helped improve our articles about those documents in some fairly significant ways. "BC" has sometimes drifted into a self-defeating pattern of incivility (this appears to be cyclical, as do his bursts of amazing energy), but I'd like him to get one more chance. CWC 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Since ArbCom determined that User:Vintagekits deserves a second chance, then this erudite and productive editor deserves several - and promptly. Alice✉ 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Callmebc was deleting my edits because he couldn't find an online copy of cited material, and later because he couldn't find what was in it. He could still do that under his understanding of truth: "The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page." Only his unnecessary Talk messages will increase. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Callmebc doesn't have ('special counsel') Giano on his team, so I should imagine that if he pulls a stunt like calling good faith editors vandals and reverting them, he will get chopped off at the legs again - this time justifiably.
- Callmebc needs to promptly give the undertaking to refrain from any personal comment whatever concerning the "complainant" (as Guy suggested) and then he should be unblocked. A preliminary step should be for his talk page to be unprotected so that he can give plain and unequivocal assurances there in full view of the aggrieved parties (and, hopefully, those same parties can confirm there and then, on Callmebc's talk page that they accept the undertakings in good faith). Wikipedia is a collegiate project and Callmebc needs to demonstrate that he has learnt that now; his relayed statement above certainly talks the talk - unprotecting his talk page would mean we could all be satisfied that he walks the walk too. Alice✉ 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope I don't seem like a sucker here, but it seems that callmebc recognizes the problems that lead to his block/ban and will endeavor to prevent them in the future. I, for one, would be supportive of a trial unblock to see how it goes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Need an opinion
I reverted an edit and left this comment at the user's talk page. It turned out that I was mistaken with my revert to a certain degree, for which I acknowledged and apologized for. The issue revolves around this discussion on my talk page. The reason for the revert was because of the addition of the word "pussy". The user I reverted was infact removing vandalism, and when I checked the diffs to investigate, I checked the previous 3 edits by anon editors to search for more vandalism before reverting. I explained why I did that, and how I missed that the addition of the word "pussy" wasn't vandalism. An other admin Random832 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) accused me of biting this user based on my comment at his talk page, to which I'd also like an opinion. Was my comment bitey? I don't think so, and don't see how it is seen that way.
The user in question Amaltheus (talk · contribs) is convinced that because of the mistaken warning left on his talk page by ClueBot, and my comment on his talk page as to why his edit was reverted, that his talk page and edit history are completely "thrashed". He's displaying an copious amount of incivility and borderline personal attacks. [19] [20] [21] and comments like "If anybody can edit, anybody should be able to remove vandalism from an article before editing it without getting attacked by a bot, its lazy owner, and an administrator for doing so." There are more examples which can be found at his contribs page.
Normally this amount of incivility would result in a block. But since the user hasn't been warned about his civility except on my own talk page, I'm not willing to enact one. I'm posting this thread in order to get advice and opinions on what should be done. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's certainly jumped into righteous indignation awfully fast. He's declared he's leaving; maybe let him cool off for now, and hope he cools down enough to realize that he's been apologized to and can continue to edit without any issues. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really biting... maybe you should expunge their user talk page history if they really want it? It's an unfortunate incident and its history really need to be around. east.718 at 07:19, December 22, 2007
- (2 x ec, and a database lock to boot!) I don't think it was bitey, just an honest mistake. As for whether you should have caught the mistake, I honestly doubt most RC patrollers look too deeply once they see swear words being added to an article. I also don't think you should beat yourself up over an editor who loses his nerve over an honest mistake; assuming good faith goes both ways. And you could always delete his talk page to clean that slate for him if it's really bothering him. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- KoS, I saw the situation that led up to this unfold the other night and left (what I thought to be a nice) note, including an apology-by-proxy, a plea to reconsider, and an offer of any help needed, on his talkpage [22]. I'm sorry I didn't give you a head's up about it, I should have. Altheus returned today and blanked his page with a "Fuck Wikipedia", so I figured he'd either cool off and come back someday or not - I didn't see much to do after that. I don't think your initial note on his talkpage was bitey at all. cheers, --guyzero | talk 07:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I should clarify for posterity. I caught this situation upon seeing this contrib: [23] with an edit summary of "how much more crap is involved with this bot? did it save anyone any work by turning an editor so off of Wikipedia that they would rather be a vandal?" If I had caught it earlier in the evening, I would have alerted KoS - which I still should've done. You've done absolutely nothing wrong here except for a mistaken revert - for which you apologized - out all of your copious RC patrolling. I would've probably made the same mistake if I saw an edit that cluebot just reverted that had the word 'pussy' on it. regards, --guyzero | talk 08:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't bite, but you should have apologised to user Amaltheus for mistakenly reverting their edits. PeaceNT (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks I didn't think I was bitey either. I did apologize for the mistake. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I mean you should have done so as soon as you realised the oversight, and on Amaltheus's talk page, not on your talk page and after the new user contacting you. PeaceNT (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't realize the mistake until a few hours ago when it was brought to my attention on my talk page, when I became aware of it I did apologize, both indirectly and directly when the user posted himself. He saw the apology which I made numerous times on my own talk page. He saw it, acknowledged it, and basically said he didn't want it. I'm not going to go beg him to forgive me. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I mean you should have done so as soon as you realised the oversight, and on Amaltheus's talk page, not on your talk page and after the new user contacting you. PeaceNT (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks I didn't think I was bitey either. I did apologize for the mistake. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- After sleeping on it, I can see that I perhaps overreacted. My perception of it as "biting" was mainly related to his reaction to it, and that was maybe a bit unfair on my part. However, I still don't quite understand how you went through all those diffs from before the version he reverted to, and didn't notice that none of them were insertion of the word "pussy" - I'm also concerned that it seems like when you looked at the original diff, you looked exclusively at the added/removed text (i.e. what is highlighted in red) rather than looking at the surrounding text [...bit of a '... clearly has a missing word as evidenced by both the sentence fragment and the fact that there's a space before the quote]. And I should think that you ought to have given a little thought to the possibility that the word "pussy" belonged in an article about a cat. In other words, is this going to be repeated every time a vandal removes a "bad word" that is correctly in an article? —Random832 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
KOS, I think you did well, and I still hold you in high regard as one of our best current RC-patrollers. People make mistakes, including us, and Amaltheus's overreaction is one of the most extreme I've seen in a while. We don't have to put up with unlimited abuse from newbies, and "assume good faith" does indeed apply to administrators as well. To the others on this thread, thank you for your various attempts to assuage the newbie's rage -- it doesn't always work, but the effort was commendable. Amaltheus, you're always welcome to edit here, but please recognize that we are people too. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Double creation
FYI, User:Strandlightingmx just created Strand Lighting MX and Strand MX, both with the same content. -- ALLSTARecho 10:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, the user removed the WP:COI tags I placed on both articles. -- ALLSTARecho 10:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Unhelpful talk page comment(s)
Sorry to be here twice in one night, but does anybody else think this is an appropriate use of the talk page (diff). I reverted once, but am standing aside for other input. For the record the edit was made by 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If it helps, take some time to peruse some of the other "contributions". R. Baley (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's just someone's point of view, and as such is fine if kept to the talkpage. It should be remembered that NPOV is not one "middle" or aggregate viewpoint, but a fair representation of various sourced viewpoints. As long as they are citing their arguments, and not removing any sourced viewpoints, then their contributions to articles should be welcomed.
- My own (biased) viewpoint is that Wikipedia is too right-wing/conservative in its tone (like someone disparaging The Independent for being too left-wing and thus "unreliable") which likely means that if 69.244 and I both think it goes too far the other way then it is probably in the right area. How's that for a liberal response!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I highly encourage you to view that IP's contributions before brushing it aside as "someone's point of view". There are obvious breaches of WP:ATTACK, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and disruptive edits in general. I don't have time to compose a formal post to ANI today (though I'm glad to see someone has reported this conduct), but as the victim of harassment/attacks I'd like to see someone do more than the cursory "who cares". Any help would be appreciated -- this conduct certainly is not "fine if kept to the talkpage", and I find it disturbing that ANI would think otherwise. See the diatribe left on other users' talkpages for examples. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony Blair is now a Catholic!
Please may an admin unblock the Tony Blair article. He is now a Roman Catholic, the most significant event in the Church's recent history and its all over the BBC News Channels. Please let Wikipedia spread this wonderful news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.64.21 (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see. News has just been updated by an established user, you may request changes and discuss the edits on the article's talk page. PeaceNT (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- But many Catholics will want to celebrate this news by adding relevant parts to his article. This is big news for Catholics in the UK, we have always been discrimated against by the Government. Blair's conversion is a big step forward in our campaign for equal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.64.21 (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tony Blair was semi-protected because of heavy vandalisms. Also, the fact that there's been breaking news about him today effectively makes the page in an exposed position. Thanks for your comment, said article has been updated, please use the talk page, this matter requires no administrative action. PeaceNT (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- 'Celebration' is not a good motive for making NPOV edits to an article.--Docg 13:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Doc is correct, of course, but since Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Be bold are 2 of our guidelines, I think the article should be fully unprotected at least on a trial basis as new unregistered users might want to get involved. It's likely any problems would be quickly reported and protection could be just as quickly reinstated if deemed necessary. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly meets the protection policy/criteria. Unprotection request Declined, go to RfPP in future also. Daniel 13:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
When I saw this in ANI I thought that maybe it was so much an emergency that WP dispatch admins to capture Mr. Blair and force him to leave the Catholic Church. Perhaps this topic is better discussed on the page protection board. At the very least, suggest the title of this topic be changed to "page protection change needed for Tony Blair" or"Admin attention needed to capture Mr. Blair and force him back into the Anglican Church".Archtransit (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Striking out joking comments (comments made in jest are better left at user talk pages, if at all) Archtransit (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly meets the protection policy/criteria. Unprotection request Declined, go to RfPP in future also. Daniel 13:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Doc is correct, of course, but since Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Be bold are 2 of our guidelines, I think the article should be fully unprotected at least on a trial basis as new unregistered users might want to get involved. It's likely any problems would be quickly reported and protection could be just as quickly reinstated if deemed necessary. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- 'Celebration' is not a good motive for making NPOV edits to an article.--Docg 13:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tony Blair was semi-protected because of heavy vandalisms. Also, the fact that there's been breaking news about him today effectively makes the page in an exposed position. Thanks for your comment, said article has been updated, please use the talk page, this matter requires no administrative action. PeaceNT (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- But many Catholics will want to celebrate this news by adding relevant parts to his article. This is big news for Catholics in the UK, we have always been discrimated against by the Government. Blair's conversion is a big step forward in our campaign for equal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.64.21 (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- 17:13, 22 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Tony Blair (Reverted edits by User: BenedictXVI (talk) to last version by Canterbury) (top) [rollback]
--Docg 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, its a joke! I thought we wouldn't be allowing that username... Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
`
St.Jimmy666 (talk · contribs) wrote, "This would actually encourage me to do something simillar, because I want to have my own article on wikipedia, and this is a quick way to do it is to go through kill a bunch of people and "set a record" for the number of deaths...I know I already have a plan if I ever consider going through with it, is that messed up or what? I actually started a book "Songs To Kill To" about the music and mainstream influences that glorify "death culture", but I was side trekked. Also, is it messed up that I can just see myself on national t.v, have what the cheesey announcer guy will say in my head already, about this kind of thing?" --Strothra (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- You forgot the most important part of the quote; "Is this necessary?" the first line asking whether such individuals and incidents deserve the exposure given by Wikipedia. In context, I don't think that Muttlee/St.Jimmy666 is considering a "copycat" action, but giving the mindset of someone who might. I will drop them a note in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting the record straight
To clarify, yes I was presenting the mindset of a "copycat", I would like to clarify that I have been in that mindset but have taken no actions towards the initiation of any simillar events, I have just considered them.Sorry for the confusionMutlee (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Gp75motorsports
user promised to focus more on mainspace
Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do with Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? His "ChampionMart" has been nominated for deletion which makes about the 5th MFD he's had on his user space creations. See Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gp75motorsports for the list of MFDs, which have all taken place in the last few months. There seems to be a large disparity between his user and Wikipedia space edits against his mainspace edits. Does anyone have an idea about how to convince this user to stop creating these subpages that don't meet Wikipedia standards? Perhaps some probation could be put in place? Obviously, this can't keep going on. Metros (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Listen, I've read BURO THREE TIMES and I've tried to organize all my projects to meet BURO standards. I set the project up, go over BURO and slowly reconstruct the project over a period of weeks and when the project finally begins to adhere to standards, I open it. Unfortunately people like you come along and make damned sure this process doesn't get completed. Just give me another six weeks to smooth it out and if it still doesn't adhere, nom it again. All I need is time. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Gp75motorsports, you've been doing the same thing over and over again. The community's patience has been clearly exhausted for this kind of behaviour, and I've blocked you for a month to prevent this kind of stuff. I sincerely hope that you will contribute purposefully after the block has expired. --Maxim(talk) 15:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- This was a completely inappropriate and manifestly excessive block. He is a good-faith contributor who has made genuine contributions to articles. While his projects are not necessarily helpful, they are not deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia. I am going to reduce the block length to 48 hours accordingly; if anyone disagrees, we can discuss it here. WaltonOne 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the reduced block either, but I think you're minimizing the problem a bit. Those projects may not have been deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia, but his unwillingness to listen when people kept telling him they were unhelpful and possibly disruptive is where the problem lie.
At any rate, he now seems willing to restrict himself from making more of those in the future, and that's good enough for me. — Coren (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The question is whether that could have been achieved by a strong warning instead of a block. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a legitimate and interesting question, but now completely academic. I think everyone here now agree that the reduced block is adequate, and whether it was necessary or superfluous is a moot point given the desirable result that GP75 will make some effort to avoid such disruptive projects in the future. Shall we stop beating the dead horse and call the incident closed? — Coren (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly those who blocked and endorsed the block might want to state how they would handle similar incidents in the future. That would actually improve things going forward, and then we really could close the incident. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I would have given one last stern warning, and probably only blocked for a week at first. But I don't think I would endorse the block differently than I have now, even in retrospect. As a rule, I will abide by the judgment of my colleagues, and not reverse or reduce a block unless the {{unblock}} provides me with a very compelling reason, or if there was misconduct by the blocking admin (which was emphatically not the case here— I may not agree with the duration, but I don't doubt the blocking admin honestly felt that duration was appropriate).
Note that I'm all in favor of lifting or shortening a block when the blocked editor provides credible reassurances that the reason why they were blocked will be fixed, or no longer applies. This was not, in this case, apparent: GP75 requested unblock mostly (IMO) on wikilawyering around WP:BURO rather than acknowledge he should desist entirely (has he has afterwards). — Coren (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I would have given one last stern warning, and probably only blocked for a week at first. But I don't think I would endorse the block differently than I have now, even in retrospect. As a rule, I will abide by the judgment of my colleagues, and not reverse or reduce a block unless the {{unblock}} provides me with a very compelling reason, or if there was misconduct by the blocking admin (which was emphatically not the case here— I may not agree with the duration, but I don't doubt the blocking admin honestly felt that duration was appropriate).
- Possibly those who blocked and endorsed the block might want to state how they would handle similar incidents in the future. That would actually improve things going forward, and then we really could close the incident. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a legitimate and interesting question, but now completely academic. I think everyone here now agree that the reduced block is adequate, and whether it was necessary or superfluous is a moot point given the desirable result that GP75 will make some effort to avoid such disruptive projects in the future. Shall we stop beating the dead horse and call the incident closed? — Coren (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The question is whether that could have been achieved by a strong warning instead of a block. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the reduced block either, but I think you're minimizing the problem a bit. Those projects may not have been deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia, but his unwillingness to listen when people kept telling him they were unhelpful and possibly disruptive is where the problem lie.
- This was a completely inappropriate and manifestly excessive block. He is a good-faith contributor who has made genuine contributions to articles. While his projects are not necessarily helpful, they are not deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia. I am going to reduce the block length to 48 hours accordingly; if anyone disagrees, we can discuss it here. WaltonOne 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I endorse the block reduction to 48 hours. I'm also not entirely convinced that a block was the best way to deal with this. A strongly worded warning that a block would be the next step would have been better. Don't assume that people know that "numerous MfDs of their user subpages and ANI threads about them" = "previous warning and license for the first admin to lose patience to block them". I certainly have never thought that. And in any case, blocking for inappropriate use of userspace is a tricky one at the best of times. Discussion (as happened at the MfDs), followed by escalating warnings, should precede any block for borderline inappropriate userspace use (stuff that can be speedied is generally clearcut userspace abuse - stuff that needs to go to MfD is more debatable). Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- This block seems a little much to be honest. He's creating the subpages in good faith, even if we do keep having MfD's over them. It's not clear cut userspace abuse - he's trying to help other users (even though I personally think there's better ways to do this). A block like this has the potential to alienate good faith users and chase them away from the project. A warning is all that was needed in this case, then blocks could have been discussed. Gp75motorsports isn't the most disruptive user we have here by far, and I'm sure he'd have listened to concerns. This seems more like a punishment than a protective measure. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Lacking clear consensus that this user's activities are against policy, which you don't have, this block was an abuse of admin powers.
Blocking someone for a month for activities confined to their own userspace subpages which are intended to foster community? Maybe misguided, and maybe we shouldn't have them here, but what happened to AGF?
Manifestly bad judgement here. I am unblocking. Please do not do this again. If you want to create consensus and policy against doing this, do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bad judgement indeed. — Coren (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- As GWH unblocked with reference to this discussion, if we WP:AGF regarding GWH's actions, there was no wheel-warring. I agree that a block was unwarranted, although the situation was approaching the point where it might have been needed. The editor needs to understand that his efforts are ill-conceived: even if these ideas are open for discussion, his implementations of them have a long record of failing badly. I favor a stern warning, and I believe the aborted block serves this purpose. Xoloz (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, whether the block was entirely warranted at this point is disputable, but simply reverting another admin's block without discussion with them is never a good thing. — Coren (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- GWH complied with the policy you've cited. Xoloz (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, whether the block was entirely warranted at this point is disputable, but simply reverting another admin's block without discussion with them is never a good thing. — Coren (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- As GWH unblocked with reference to this discussion, if we WP:AGF regarding GWH's actions, there was no wheel-warring. I agree that a block was unwarranted, although the situation was approaching the point where it might have been needed. The editor needs to understand that his efforts are ill-conceived: even if these ideas are open for discussion, his implementations of them have a long record of failing badly. I favor a stern warning, and I believe the aborted block serves this purpose. Xoloz (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes discussion like this can bypass the need to discuss. WP:WHEEL and WP:BLOCK are not a license for an admin to defend their blocks in the face of clear disagreement. Sometimes it is better to admit to error, rather than try and defend it. Also, it is direct clashes like this between admins over interpretation of blocking policy that leads to swift acceptance of arbitration cases. Regardless of the need to block at all, an immediate block of one month on Maxim's part seems to indicate a preference for immediate, lengthy blocks, rather than warnings, discussions, and shorter blocks. Tough admins versus soft admins, if you like. This is something that should be addressed to avoid any increasing divergence and inconsistencies in block lengths (the length of a block someone receives shouldn't be dependent on which admin they get). I've tried to raise general discussions before on what sort of things are appropriate for 24 hour, 48 hour, 72 hour, 1 week, 1 month and longer (up to indefinite) blocks, but standards seems to vary wildly and not bear much relation to WP:BLOCK. What is the best way to tackle this? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it is possible to fix this in general. Divergence between the "tougher" admins and the more "lenient" ones is unavoidable, unless we agree to mire ourselves into the complicated bureaucracy and politics of a written codification of blocks, or bind ourselves to precedent law. Outside of egregious abuse, I think we simply need to accept that blocks et al. will depend on which admin you stumble on. — Coren (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes discussion like this can bypass the need to discuss. WP:WHEEL and WP:BLOCK are not a license for an admin to defend their blocks in the face of clear disagreement. Sometimes it is better to admit to error, rather than try and defend it. Also, it is direct clashes like this between admins over interpretation of blocking policy that leads to swift acceptance of arbitration cases. Regardless of the need to block at all, an immediate block of one month on Maxim's part seems to indicate a preference for immediate, lengthy blocks, rather than warnings, discussions, and shorter blocks. Tough admins versus soft admins, if you like. This is something that should be addressed to avoid any increasing divergence and inconsistencies in block lengths (the length of a block someone receives shouldn't be dependent on which admin they get). I've tried to raise general discussions before on what sort of things are appropriate for 24 hour, 48 hour, 72 hour, 1 week, 1 month and longer (up to indefinite) blocks, but standards seems to vary wildly and not bear much relation to WP:BLOCK. What is the best way to tackle this? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
(to Coren) No, we don't need to accept anything of the sort. A more specific blocking policy would not necessarily entail a growth in bureaucracy and politics; indeed, if well-drafted, it could be very simple, and would protect users from being driven away by the excesses of overzealous admins. I propose something like the following:
- The account of an established user in good standing (i.e. not a "throwaway" vandal account) may be blocked only if any of the following apply:
- S/he has violated the three-revert rule and has continued reverting after warnings.
- S/he is deliberately and repeatedly damaging the quality of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content in some way, and has continued to do so after being warned.
- S/he is harassing or attacking other users, or in any way impeding other users from improving the quality of the encyclopedia.
- Administrators should always ensure that such a user has been given multiple warnings and a fair chance to change their behaviour, before issuing a block. The block should not be for an excessive length of time considering the gravity of the offence. The user should also be told exactly why they have been blocked, and (unless there are supervening privacy concerns) the block should be discussed at WP:ANI. WaltonOne 13:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're stuck having to agree to disagree there, because each of those suggestions appear like Bad Ideas to me. We're already giving way too much leeway to trolls, provided they either skirt the rules or contribute some fraction of constructive edits. You're suggesting making blocks even harder in those cases.
Wikipedia's biggest problem right now aren't the throwaway vandals— those are trivial to deal with and cause nothing but easily fixed short-term disruption. The problem is the persistently problematic editors who manage to avoid community wrath by either skirting the rules (keeping just under 3RR, remaining superficially polite) while still causing vast amounts of stress and aggravation to the real good editors who eventually just walk out in disgust because we don't do anything about them.
Oh, and for the record, I don't think GP75 is one of those trolls I talk about. — Coren (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're stuck having to agree to disagree there, because each of those suggestions appear like Bad Ideas to me. We're already giving way too much leeway to trolls, provided they either skirt the rules or contribute some fraction of constructive edits. You're suggesting making blocks even harder in those cases.
User:38.100.43.50
Refuses to gain concensus on the Campus Watch article, goes around deleting "neoconservative from organizations tagged as such, has been warned to knock it off, and is being uncivil, as shown from the refusal to discuss the issue, not to mention accusing me as a vandal. I've been watching the Campus Watch article for a while. Removing this: [24] repeatedly. Every other diff is the same. DodgerOfZion (talk) Not to mention the 3RR vio's. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even with warnings, he's not stopping. DodgerOfZion (talk)
- User making disruptive edits, after warnings, considered vandalism, and reported to AIV. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 31 hours. BLACKKITE 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, why 31? Not that I'm weighing in on the specific block, I've just seen 31 in a lot of vandal's block logs and wondered why it's 31, not 24, 36, or some other nice even multiple of 12. J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that is exactly why: it is not a multiple of twelve. I believe the theory is that since it is an odd number, it helps "break the pattern" of abuse. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, being "more than 24" helps make the block stick (since it will properly cover "tomorrow at the same time") without encouraging cycles. As for why 31 specifically, it's just one of the values in the default drop down menu. Convenient. — Coren (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Thanks! J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wouldn't mind a 55 hour option for a 2 day and a bit tariff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Thanks! J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, why 31? Not that I'm weighing in on the specific block, I've just seen 31 in a lot of vandal's block logs and wondered why it's 31, not 24, 36, or some other nice even multiple of 12. J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 31 hours. BLACKKITE 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- User making disruptive edits, after warnings, considered vandalism, and reported to AIV. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent)Who would you ask for that? J-ſtanContribsUser page 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably one of the MediaWiki pages. I looked, but couldn't find anything relevent. I never knew quite the best way to look for stuff in there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Serious, unaddressed BLP issues on List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism
This article is currently locked, so I can't address the issues myself. A small number of users persist in re-inserting information that clearly violates both WP:BLP and WP:NOR, especially conjectural interpretations and inclusion of unreliable sources. I'm especially concerned about the "Usage not embraced by the subject" section, which is rife with bad sourcing. I've gone through the sources one at a time, and here's what I found:
- Kenneth Blackwell: Three sources are listed.
- Theocracy Watch — this article does not even mention Blackwell's name.
- Talk To Action — this is a blog post that calls Ken Blackwell a Dominionist. Blog posts are not considered reliable sources except in a few narrow areas (like the subject's own statements about him/herself). They certainly do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP.
- Yurica Report — Accuses Blackwell of supporting a "Dominionst document." I've never heard of these authors before, and Yurica Report appears to be a self-published website, and thus an unreliable source. Again, only high-quality sources meet the requirements of WP:BLP, and self-published websites are specifically excluded.
- Tom DeLay: Two sources.
- Theocracy Watch — Cites Paul Krugman, a notable op-ed pundit, who says that DeLay was promoting a "biblical worldview" and bending ethical rules to do so. A New York Times article, obviously a reliable source, calls DeLay's tactics and ethics into question. But nowhere does either the Theocracy Watch article itself, or any of its cited sources, say that Tom DeLay is a Dominionist. Per both WP:NOR and WP:BLP, conjectural interpretations of sources are specifically forbidden.
- Paul Krugman — a New York Times op-ed. Obviously this is a notable opinion. But the word "dominionist" does NOT appear anywhere in the article in any context. Again, this source does not substantiate the claim made in the Wikipedia list.
- James Dobson: Three sources.
- Molly Ivins — This probably comes the closest to an actual accusation of Dominionism. The relevant section is as follows: "Some Christian Dominionists decided the Almighty is in favor of changing Rule 22. Led by James Dobson, who runs Focus on the Family, they decided 22 is "a filibuster against the faithful," implying and in some cases stating that anyone who opposes them is anti-Christian and probably working for Satan." Ivins was a notable commentator, so this may be acceptable for inclusion.
- Chris Hedges — a subscription-only link that I have no way of verifying without paying money (which I'm not going to do). I would appreciate if someone who does have a subscription could briefly quote the relevant section (if any).
- Discernment Ministries — Implicitly accuses Dobson of being a "Patriotic dominionist." I see no evidence that this is a reliable source, and it appears to be a fringe website with no connection to any reputable news agency or academic institution.
- Bill Frist: Two sources.
- Theocracy Watch — Frist's congressional activities are criticized. However, the article nowhere states that he is a Dominionist. Another conjectural interpretation.
- Rolling Stone — Says that Dominionists are "pressuring" Frist and that he is an "ally," but does not actually call him a Dominionist himself. Besides, is Rolling Stone — a music and pop-culture magazine — really a reliable source for such claims in the first place?
- D. James Kennedy: Three sources.
- Theocracy Watch — Kennedy's name is not even mentioned. This citation is a joke.
- The Christian Science Monitor — Cites Frederick Carlson as saying that Kennedy is a Dominionist. Although Carlson doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, he did publish a book on the subject, and the Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source. This entry should be OK.
- Rolling Stone — Kennedy is indeed specifically called a Dominionist in this entry. I'm still not at all convinced that Rolling Stone is a sufficiently reliable source for this subject.
- Roy Moore: Two sources.
- Theocracy Watch — Moore is mentioned twice in the article, but neither mention calls him a Dominionist.
- Rolling Stone — Comes close to calling Moore a Dominionist: "To pack the courts with fundamentalists like Moore, Dominionist leaders are planning a massive media blitz." But why are we citing a music magazine for political commentary?
- Janice Rogers Brown: Four sources.
- Austin Cline, About.com — No link, not even to archive.org. Unverifiable. No evidence of notability.
- Commentary on FindLaw — Brown is not called a Dominionist. She is cited as one of two judges of "the kind who would satisfy the court packing plans of the Christian nationalists." Again, no conjectural interpretations are allowed.
- Online Journal — as far as I can tell, this site allows just about anyone in basic political agreement with the site founders to publish whatever they want. Thus, it is a self-published source and not reliable. Who is Kéllia Ramares and why should we care what she says? Even at that, the source does not call Brown a Dominionist in so many words.
- Theocracy Watch — again, Brown is not called a Dominionist.
And I'm not even halfway down the list yet! This is shit. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Look, I have no brief for these people. I voted straight Democratic in 2004 and 2006, and I fully intend to do the same in 2008. I don't want these people in charge. But that doesn't let us off of following basic Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 18:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content issue. How does it require immediate administrator intervention? Sandstein (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because the article was protected in a state that violates WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The protection will expire tomorrow. In the meantime, I recommend you continue to seek consensus about this content on the article talk page. The BLP claim does not warrant an immediate intervention, IMHO. The entries you cite have some sources, at least, and whether these are sufficiently reliable is a matter for discussion. Sandstein (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
AFAICR Dominionism-related stuff is a mess, though. I remember getting a series of fights over this a while back and didn't get a very favourable impression. Worth looking into. Maybe cross-post to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
A conflict beetwen the users Protagon and No Free Nickname Left
User:Protagon
As you can see in the Revision history of Russians, this user started puting alot of tags in the Contribution to humanity section in the Russians article. He was reverted by Fycenko, and later by me, but he continued a revert war. Here is the discussion on the talk page. Every thing he brought up was answered. When he started to threat to being an administrator to decide, i said it will be best, but he havent done that. As you could see thru the history and at the talk page, i constantly tried to reach a compromise, but he ignored it and continued a revert war. I offered him a compromise long ago, but it seems like it's a paranoia. Please read the talk page and come between us, because it seems we cant find a compromise, and while i try to get one he simply keeps on having a revert war. He also abuses tags (for example theres no use in puting a dubiouss tag near a statment that says this is an opinion, so about what is he arguing, is this the opinion of the man or no??), and gets insulted and threads to complain when i blame him in Vandalizm, wiythout understanding that abuse of tags is listed as vandalizm. He also tagd the whole Culture section, which was not nessesery since there is already a template that the section is bad and needs to be re-written. Just for the case, Contribution to Humanity also exists in the English people, Italians, and a similar section "Achievments" appears in the Ashkenazi Jews article. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
User:No Free Nickname Left
Very bad faith, abusive, hostile and threatening talk and behavior from User:No Free Nickname Left, particularly here:
1. Talk:Russians#The_section_.22Contribution_to_humanity.22_and_the_section_.22Culture.22_is_disputed,
2. and many of his edit summaries display the same behavior: Special:Contributions/No_Free_Nickname_Left
He seems to set his own rules, and refers to other edits which he don't like as vandalism; he has called me a vandal (and my edits to the article Russians as vandalism) on 10 occasions(!) on Talk:Russians and in the edit summaries in the Russians revision history. He had accused me of "abusing tags" on 3 occasions on Talk:Russians.
He has IMO a case of WP:OWN for the article Russians. He has said that "you'll get blocked", see particularly this diff.
SHOUTING in edit summaries: Diff1, diff 2, diff 3, more on Special:Contributions/No_Free_Nickname_Left.
Racist behavior: diff: Could the little Balt stop vandalizm? I know he's sad their not known to exist due to the fact their little and useless, but vandalizing this page on Wikipedia wont change that. - anon comment (not directed at me), but I'm pretty sure it's from him (using the word "vandalizm" with "z").
Far more further notes on this behavior, please see this case of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:M.V.E.i., which I have filed.
I hope this helps the integrity of Wikipedia. Signing off, --Protagon (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
(Oh, the irony here as well; he filed an ANI just before me above, after I told him I will take this to ANI). Interesting. --Protagon (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- 1. Me threatening?? You were the one who said he'll bring an administrator to the argument, it's weird you havent after i said it's the best option. 2. I said you can suggest, and i revrote the section alot to make it more nutral. Yet you continue the edit war without moving from your position. 3. I'm not the first one who told you to stop. 5. I'm not a sockpupet, unlike you (and you admitt it on your talk page, cant get more snobery then that). The prove i tried to reach a compromise and worked hard to make it more nutral, while you only held a revert war, can be found at the History and Talk page of the Russians article. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And still more abuse under "Comments" on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:M.V.E.i. : Its nothing but a dirty trick, you are simply a Russophob. ...you are a sockpupet, so shud up and Get a life. Please NFNL, go on, keep 'em coming... --Protagon (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC), signing off.
- 1. You yourself admit to be a sockpupet. 2. It is a dirty trick, you see you cant win in a fair game so you get durty. 3. Get a life because i dont get whats the thing with your obsesion. 4. Your a russophob because for a reason i dont see you making a skandal at the Italians, English people and Ashkenazi Jews articles who have this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Free Nickname Left (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, mate, I think you need a break. 72 hours. Hopefully we can whistle up a checkuser before then. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Indef blocked
Yeah, he was User:M.V.E.i.. Checkuser was pretty confident and the behaviour patterns match very nicely. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Over at Moneybomb, we've been dealing with this editor. Despite a number of warnings from myself and other editors on his talk page, this single-purpose account has been consistently adding biased information to the page. There's been an edit war for several weeks about trying to get the page to be NPOV and unbiased, and this editor is working against that. The user does not respond on his talk page, nor on the page's talk page. I'm sorry to jump directly to ANI on this, but it's been that much of a nuisance to the editors working on the page. I didn't think that WQA would be helpful, as the user does not respond to comments anywhere. Is there anything that can be done, or should I just keep reverting his edits? Of course, if I put this in the wrong spot, let me know and I'll change it. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should probably add some diffs in here to help show what I mean. Twice in the past few hours he's added Ron Paul-biased text and images, one, two. He's altered text to negatively spin other candidates. And some of his edits just turn the current text into really awkward English, though I suppose that can always be fixed. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is not intended to mediate disputes about content. Please see WP:DR on how to handle such situations. How does this situation, in your opinion, require immediate administrator intervention? Sandstein (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I figured that I'd try here, since until a few hours ago the user wasn't posting on any talk pages, which seemed to eliminate WQA as a possibility. Since then he's come out of the woodwork and posted on both my talk page and the article's talk page. It's not a 3O issue, and there's already an RfC open for the page, which has since yielded no results. I guess I was just looking for an admin to step in and warn the user about conduct. The page has been under such a heavy edit war, but I don't think the page is significant enough to warrant MEDCOM or RFM. I guess I'll withdraw my listing here, as the editor has started talking. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Warnings are not normally issued over content disagreements. They are usually reserved for unacceptable conduct in editing (such as violating WP:3RR). I recommend that you continue discussion for now. Sandstein (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (Typos fixed in this comment, Sandstein (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
- I figured that I'd try here, since until a few hours ago the user wasn't posting on any talk pages, which seemed to eliminate WQA as a possibility. Since then he's come out of the woodwork and posted on both my talk page and the article's talk page. It's not a 3O issue, and there's already an RfC open for the page, which has since yielded no results. I guess I was just looking for an admin to step in and warn the user about conduct. The page has been under such a heavy edit war, but I don't think the page is significant enough to warrant MEDCOM or RFM. I guess I'll withdraw my listing here, as the editor has started talking. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is not intended to mediate disputes about content. Please see WP:DR on how to handle such situations. How does this situation, in your opinion, require immediate administrator intervention? Sandstein (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, though this does look to be shaping up along typical disruptive single-purpose-account lines. Keep talking and in month we can sit down and see if we've got any decent encyclopaedic contributions. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Aside from waiting to see if the user violates 3RR, what else can be done here? I'm trying to assume good faith since the editor has made a few decent edits, but it's these disruptive POV-pushing edits that are detracting from that. What can be done? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Zilch, my friend, zilch. Write him a lengthy missive explaining all the rules very carefully and showing him where he's gone wrong - if he still makes no decent contributions in a month apart from the SPA-crusader type then we can start really talking here. Hey, I don't like it any more than you do. It's just the way the game is played. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. If the situation does not improve after some time and extensive discussion, consider initiating a user conduct RfC or another WP:ANI post, as appropriate to the situation. Sandstein (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I need a little more help, then. Should I sit here and revert edits such as this one, the edit line of which does not assume good faith? No other editors on the page are currently active. Maybe I just need a Wikibreak. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not, actually. Just sit tight and whistle for a wind, or look to others for your answers. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I posted on the talk page for the opinions of other editors, so it'd probably best if I just sit tight and wait for them to respond. Maybe I'll go play some video games or something... sorry for being a pain here! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've left a warning on their talkpage to apply AGF in their dealings with editors in the article. If they don't mend their ways, then up the warning severity. If that fails then you have recourse to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I posted on the talk page for the opinions of other editors, so it'd probably best if I just sit tight and wait for them to respond. Maybe I'll go play some video games or something... sorry for being a pain here! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not, actually. Just sit tight and whistle for a wind, or look to others for your answers. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I need a little more help, then. Should I sit here and revert edits such as this one, the edit line of which does not assume good faith? No other editors on the page are currently active. Maybe I just need a Wikibreak. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. If the situation does not improve after some time and extensive discussion, consider initiating a user conduct RfC or another WP:ANI post, as appropriate to the situation. Sandstein (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Zilch, my friend, zilch. Write him a lengthy missive explaining all the rules very carefully and showing him where he's gone wrong - if he still makes no decent contributions in a month apart from the SPA-crusader type then we can start really talking here. Hey, I don't like it any more than you do. It's just the way the game is played. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Personnel attacks by LifeStroke420
- LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has made a few personnel attacks towards members of WP:PW in the past few hours:
- Called a user "fucking dense"
- Seemed to say "Jesus fucking christ"
- Called me on my talkpage an "ignorant newb"
I suggest this user is blocked for at least 36 hours. Please also note his blocklog, his warnings on his talkpage and contributions like this, and this previous ANI thread. Cheers, Davnel03 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have issued a "no personal attacks warning" and see no need for further action unless such attacks persist. Sandstein (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Review my block of User:The King of Clay
Having recently reverted some unreferenced additions by this user, I glanced at his contribs and noticed this vile comment left for User:Megacheese. Accordingly, I have blocked The King of Clay indefinitely. I intend to request that the edit be oversighted as soon as possible.
I'd appreciate your opinions on this. I don't *think* that I've overreacted here (though I *am* a new admin). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you didn't over-react. That sort of conduct is unacceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also endorse the block. Sandstein (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Compare User talk:Megacheese, a possible sock- or meatpuppet, now also indefblocked by me for a similarly disruptive edit, pending a very good explanation. Sandstein (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'll keep a close eye on Megacheese's talk page... Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse both blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse both blocks, don't think you'll get an oversight however. Snowolf How can I help? 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
V-Dash drei
Yesterday, I posted on Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl that I would remove any attempts by V-Dash (talk · contribs) to restart the JRPG/RPG debate there as disruptive. Earlier today, he restarted it, and after it went on for a while, I removed it, as I had indicated I would. Since then, he has kept it up ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]), even going so far as to create a page specifically to create faux support for his side, Wikipedia:Flying Pig (Deleted currently; admins can still see history). I'm nearing the end of my rope here. At this point, I am more concerned about stopping V-Dash from resurrecting the already-flogged-to-the-ground debate (which ended in concensus against him) than any 3RR block. Some assistance, please? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: [[Wikipedia:Flying pig above should be Wikipedia:Flying Pig (note capitalization). Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- And he's planning to make Wikipedia:Flaming pit to discredit me now - [31]. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- What was the reason for deleting Flying pig (just out of curiosity)? I think he should be blocked for disruption, ASAP. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it as a page created specifically to troll. I, however, want a ban rather than a block - this is a chronic problem (there's two other threads on him in the archives). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm fine calling an indef block here a ban. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that Jeske is referring to a topic ban. (Correct me if I am wrong, Jeske.) --Iamunknown 04:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. What's the difference, though? J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- When an account is blocked, it cannot be used edit any page other than its talk page. When a person is banned, the usual invitation to edit a page (or a specific page or group of pages, if topic banned) is formally revoked. It is not a technical restriction, like a block - it is a social construct, which must be enforced by means including blocks.
- I would advise you not to consider blocks, especially indefinite blocks, or bans lightly - the Arbitration Committee recently has been rather disapproving of individuals who regard such restrictions lightly (see the ongoing Matthew Hoffman case). --Iamunknown 05:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I know what the difference between a block and a ban is; I was just confused by the term "topic ban". I didn't know what "topic" meant (it means banning him from a certain group of pages, right?), and thought Jeske was just calling for an outright ban. J-ſtanContribsUser page 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. What's the difference, though? J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that Jeske is referring to a topic ban. (Correct me if I am wrong, Jeske.) --Iamunknown 04:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm fine calling an indef block here a ban. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it as a page created specifically to troll. I, however, want a ban rather than a block - this is a chronic problem (there's two other threads on him in the archives). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- What was the reason for deleting Flying pig (just out of curiosity)? I think he should be blocked for disruption, ASAP. J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am totally confused. Is this a sockpuppet? ( I've run into V-dash before and I just don't understand what is with this editor) --MASEM 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was alerted to this edit (particularly in the edit summary) by User:Sukecchi who was concerned if it this was a personal attack or not (the edit following a series of reverts of non-useful talk page edits.) --MASEM 18:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Dbachmann thinks it is worth the full weight of his adminship to push his personal point of view to full protect Indo-European languages:[32]. Remind: "Full protection is to stop edit warring between multiple users or severe vandalism"The pretext is "edit war", still the only "edit war" I can see is his fanatism to revert without giving details. See history: [33]. How much of an "edit war" is evident with this history? He did not even bother to TALK before I reverted his unaccounted edits. Instead of supplying a justification to his previous edits, he rather had the page protected. Of course after having his personal edits restored first. A clear case of admin abuse to me. By the way, the protection was not requested according to the procedure to protect a page. Rokus01 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The page was protected by Angr. [34] I have refactored the title of this section. Mathsci (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rokus01 is forum shopping with his "evidence". [35][36] Mathsci (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I clearly stated: "he rather had the page protected" Please refrain from your mercenary attitude to jump into the fire for defending the undefendable, and come up with loose accusations that only show how involved you are in soapboxing that won't help your friend at all. Rokus01 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note this occurred 4 days ago and the parties have been discussing in the talk page in between. Gnangarra 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rokus01 is forum shopping with his "evidence". [35][36] Mathsci (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Tagged as resolved matter at arbcom and incident 4 days old, contact the arbitratories for any intervention. Gnangarra 03:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
this Rokus character keeps pestering me on my talkpage about this protection, with which I had nothing to do, 15 hours after he had been told as much. Anyone care to hold his hand and explain the situation to him in a soothing tone? Or, alternatively, wave about the old baton a little to make him behave? dab (𒁳) 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
malicious tagging for deletion of Joan Perez de Lazarraga
This is a pretty low-temperature incident, but it struck me as pretty malicious, so I'm reporting it.
I translated the Basque Wikipedia page on a major Basque writer, and it was tagged for deletion because it supposedly didn't indicate why the subject was important. This is completely unjustifiable if you read the article, which explicitly states the notability of the subject.
Article: Joan Perez de Lazarraga
User who tagged it: User talk:I love entei
His/her reasoning for the tag was that the article was "poor," had broken links, and other things having nothing to do with the notability of the subject. See my and his/her talk pages for the discussion. (He/she even went so far as accusing me of copying and pasting the text from a website.) He/she removed the tag, but if I hadn't been around to contest the tag, the page might've been deleted.
I'd like an administrator or someone with authority to give User talk:I love entei a stern talking-to, because unjustifiable taggings for deletion are arguably more malicious than ordinary vandalism. Vandalism is easily reverted. It's not so easy to revert a page's deletion. Madler 05:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- These type of edits are what I cringe at. Tagged with CSD A7 _one minute_ after the article was completed, giving no time or notice that the page needs to be revised. Instead of offering helpful suggestions or tips, a label is slapped in the hope that the article can never be improved nor modified to meet a sort of minimum standard. It's the lazy way out of editing, in my opinion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would not consider I love entei's edits malicious, but I would consider them inappropriate, for the reasons Seicer mentions and also the fact that the article did assert notability. --Iamunknown 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering why he feels the need to have his user page semi-protected, as it's never been vandalised. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to engage in idle speculation, but he/she created a two-sentence article earlier the same day (Dec 22) that got tagged for deletion: Perfection Vacuum Cleaner. Anyway, I just want someone to tell this guy/gal that what he/she did wasn't right. He/she's acting okay now. Madler 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
A Heads up
I do not wish to get involved with what is a somewhat unstable user, but indef blocked and banned Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have returned as BBhounder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editing pattern could not be more consistent, and BBhounder is obviously familiar with wiki syntax, code etc.
- Jeeny has also been editing from her IP 65.27.201.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
The above IP is now going about removing sock templates and trying to remove this notice here at ANI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.45.183 (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're both now on 4 reverts to this page and this is going only one place. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- 222.155.43.145 (talk · contribs) may be related per edits at Negro. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets reporting possible sockpuppets? Interesting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Revert warring on ANI (note above thread)
222.155.45.183 (talk · contribs) and 65.27.201.206 (talk · contribs) are currently revert warring on this page, 65 accusing 222 of being a reincarnation of banned Hayden5650 (talk · contribs), and 222 accusing 65 of being a reincarnation of banned Jeeny (talk · contribs). 65 is an IP formerly used by Jeeny, and 222 is a spa. Beyond that, I can't tell what is what. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I reported both to AIV for the editwarring; 222.155 was blocked 31 hours as a result, 65.27 apparently not noted by the admin on AIV. Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, I didn't check 65.27's talkpage and see the same block issued, just took AIVHelperBot's word for it. Whoops! Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Based on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650, 222.155.45.183 is most likely an IP of Hayden5650. Mr.Z-man 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto on 222.155.43.145 (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Based on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650, 222.155.45.183 is most likely an IP of Hayden5650. Mr.Z-man 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, I didn't check 65.27's talkpage and see the same block issued, just took AIVHelperBot's word for it. Whoops! Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I reported both to AIV for the editwarring; 222.155 was blocked 31 hours as a result, 65.27 apparently not noted by the admin on AIV. Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection of ANI
I have semi-protected ANI for 1 hour due to the two IPs listed above continually reverting one another. Unfortunately, I have to run in a minute, so I'm not sure that I'll have time to figure out who's the sock, and who's not. If any admin thinks this action is excessive, feel free to revert. However, it seems that the disruption is worth 1 hour of semi-protection. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- since the two accounts have been blocked, I'll unprotect (but maintain move protection. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Whenever IPs in the 222.155.0.0/16 and 222.153.0.0/16 are acting up, please block those ranges (anon. only, account creation blocked) for a few days. 222.155.45.183 and 222.155.43.145 were unquestionably Hayden5650. 65.27.201.206 was very likely Jeeny. Picaroon (t) 19:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
A special request for page protection
I know this normally would be brought up with WP:RFPP, but there are a whole bunch of articles here that need protection due to the stated request for vandals to vandalise the pages. I believe that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson has gotten some but not all of this, but is it possible to protect the rest? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the articles listed there had been protected after similar problems last month; I'm semi-protecting the rest for a week. If a week isn't long enough, feel free to adjust. --Coredesat 07:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Requesting 2 range blocks
There is an IP out there that has been massively sockpuppeting in the past few days across two large ranges, and one small one. This has involved massive userpage vandalism and user talk page vandalism (see [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]). The ranges are as follows:
- 220.255.4.128/27: 220.255.4.133, 220.255.4.135.
- 116.14.0.0/16: 116.14.26.88, 116.14.19.34, 116.14.112.226, 116.14.31.80, 116.14.86.42, 116.14.64.101
- 121.7.0.0/17 (may also be /16, don't know yet): 121.7.197.88, 121.7.200.93, 121.7.203.74, 121.7.207.139.
- At least one known registered troll sock: Jimbo da Whale. Also possibly Youdontwannaknowmeordoyou.
- All IP's have a whois trace back to Singapore.
Due to constant harassment for literally days, I believe it is well time to throw a range block up on these IPs. I realize this is a last resort measure, but there has been constant harassment from the IPs on userpages and user talk pages for days, and most range blocks are thrown up for far less. I thank you ahead of time for your action. Autoblock disabled would obviously be a good idea, but admin's judgment on whether to allow account creation, given that user has created accounts before, and it is clearly keeping a list (i.e., is knowledgeable), is open. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you are requesting an indef tariff? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously not. I was going for 1 month would be good. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay... Would it be best if it was for a week in the first instance? It could always be extended, but even one week will cover the Christmas/New Year period for a location with a significant Christian population. I've not done a range block before, so I want to be sure that collateral damage is limited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- One week would be good. I leave it up to you to decide if it should be anonymous only, or if account creation should be blocked. For the former, there would be little collateral damage; the latter would expierience more, but would not block registered users, and users could still register, though they'd need to wait some time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will do anon only, and for one week. If any other admin comes across this discussion and decided to vary the block then I will be happy with whatever they decide. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. The 116.14.xxx range was already blocked for a month since two days ago. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, a month-long /16 block sounds awfully scary. Do we typically do that? Could protection be used instead? I fear shutting off huge chunks of Singapore. Also, the 121.7.0.0/17 block won't even cover the range listed above. You're looking for 121.7.128.0/17, although 121.7.192.0/18 or smaller would still cover the ones listed. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The month long block was already in place when I attempted a week tariff, so you might wish to speak to the admin who placed it. As for the correct range numbers, please amend as you see fit - this was my first set of range blocks and I am happy for them to be corrected as necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due repsect, Wknight, this user has been harassing us for days, and protecting several people's talk pages, over a dozen user pages and another dozen talk pages, etc. for a week seems less respectable. Yes, we do range blocks all the time, and precisely for this kind of thing. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I'll raise the other issue - about the month-long block - with the admin directly, or maybe at WP:AN. Just thought maybe you'd have insight about a precedent for a range block of that size for that long. I've done range blocks but only for very short times. As for the more recent blocks, I'll correct those as far as I can. If protection can be done instead, that's always preferable to a range block. There was a good-faith user once who hated anonymous users and would intentionally vandalize anonymously to get us to shut down those addresses. I think they were from the same region of the world too (southeast Asia). I worry this is the same case (although the name doesn't come to mind). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due repsect, Wknight, this user has been harassing us for days, and protecting several people's talk pages, over a dozen user pages and another dozen talk pages, etc. for a week seems less respectable. Yes, we do range blocks all the time, and precisely for this kind of thing. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The month long block was already in place when I attempted a week tariff, so you might wish to speak to the admin who placed it. As for the correct range numbers, please amend as you see fit - this was my first set of range blocks and I am happy for them to be corrected as necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, a month-long /16 block sounds awfully scary. Do we typically do that? Could protection be used instead? I fear shutting off huge chunks of Singapore. Also, the 121.7.0.0/17 block won't even cover the range listed above. You're looking for 121.7.128.0/17, although 121.7.192.0/18 or smaller would still cover the ones listed. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- One week would be good. I leave it up to you to decide if it should be anonymous only, or if account creation should be blocked. For the former, there would be little collateral damage; the latter would expierience more, but would not block registered users, and users could still register, though they'd need to wait some time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay... Would it be best if it was for a week in the first instance? It could always be extended, but even one week will cover the Christmas/New Year period for a location with a significant Christian population. I've not done a range block before, so I want to be sure that collateral damage is limited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously not. I was going for 1 month would be good. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hildanknight is what you're looking for. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
User Ungurul has unilaterlally moved a number of pages, for example Balti steppe to Balti depression. For this page, for example, the term balti depression exists nowhere in science or literature, it is a merely invented term by the user User:Dc76. The User Ungurul has never justified or intervened before on the Balti steppe talk page to explain whatsoever. I am also afraid this user is related to User:Dc76, User:Suchwings1 or simply the famous sock pupetter User:Bonaparte in other words. On the newly created page Balti depression, User Ungurul has also lied ont he problem of copyright. Namely the source indicated (www.beltsy.md) is not used, all other sources are clearly indicated, both on the very same page, as well as on my page, as there was a previous discussion on this very subject and sources on discussion page of Balti (as referred to city in Moldova)--Moldopodo (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
User:Moldopodo a well known troll, disruptive and edit warrior and his war against official name of one city
(I have reformatted header so it is a sub section of the one above.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked before and was unblocked with condition he will not revert Romanian/Moldovan articles. See his block log long history of POV-pushing. Instead, he broke the rules and now he's engaged in revert wars. What is astonishing is that he's not accepting the official name of the city, instead he's pushing his POV again and again.--Ungurul (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Very funny, even on French Wikipedia he was blocked :) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo --Ungurul (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I note that Moldopodo has already complained about Ungurul above. Does this constitute a content dispute? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's also this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Moldopodo_reported_by_User:Ungurul_.28Result:_.29. looks like a content dispute to me[42].--Hu12 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Help request to block longer Moldopodo, continuous edit warring after numerous warrnings
Please somebody stop User:Dc76, aka User:Bonaparte, aka User:William Pedros at French Wikipedia ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros ), aka newly registered User:Ungurul. I can't even work on the article Balti steppe (translating and editing, as well as adding pics) as the article is being deleted every other 2 minutes...--Moldopodo (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
- Well, is not true. This vandal Moldpodo was blocked here and also on French wikipedia. This is not a joke, he constantly pushes POV and is disruptive. No wonder he got blocked so many times and on different wikipedias as well. See French wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo He can't fool anybody. --Ungurul (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The two of you are having a content dispute, over whether this article should be named Balti steppe or Bălţi depression. The administrators' noticeboard does not make judgements in content disputes; there are a number of suggestions at dispute resolution which I advise you to try. Remember that, whether you are right or wrong, edit-warring is prohibited at Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- He was unblocked with condition he will avoid Romanian articles. He did not follow the rule! Ungurul (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- After a closer look, I see that both of you are in violation of 3RR, so I've blocked you both. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- He was unblocked with condition he will avoid Romanian articles. He did not follow the rule! Ungurul (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The two of you are having a content dispute, over whether this article should be named Balti steppe or Bălţi depression. The administrators' noticeboard does not make judgements in content disputes; there are a number of suggestions at dispute resolution which I advise you to try. Remember that, whether you are right or wrong, edit-warring is prohibited at Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
User: Knataka
The following message has been copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive342 - the bot put it there before it was resolved! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This user has persistently spammed and vandalized articles in Wikipedia. This user has also received warnings regarding these (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knataka&oldid=178845574), as well as a warning by an administrator for edit warring (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnataka&diff=178887030&oldid=178845574). In addition to this, this user may need to be monitored, as there is a strong possibility of sharing of accounts or sock-puppetry as suggested by the administrator here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&diff=prev&oldid=179128524. There is no doubt that one of this user's sockpuppets/accounts/IPs include 76.212.8.87, and it is very possible that there are others as the user continually suggests on the user's talk page. I request the user (and sockpuppets etc.) be blocked to prevent any further disruptive edits. I also request that this user be monitored thereafter so to ensure there is no other suspicious activity thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition to this, the user has continued disruptive edits and edit warring as can be seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179326314 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179677425 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179756004. This continual vandalism, lack of npov, edit warring and the potential threat of sock-puppetry and so on has unfortunately continued. Please block the user ASAP so that this does not continue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Complaints4U
I recently saw this edit posted about me on another user's page: 'I see there is a rather nasty edit war going on between you and User:Iamandrewrice. I can see that you are clearly on the right side of the debate - but both you and User:Iamandrewrice are breaking the 'three revert rule' (WP:3RR). In your case, this may simply be because you are unaware of the rule - I doubt Iamandrewrice would care. If you were to avoid breaking that rule - then asking one of the admins to put a block onto User:Iamandrewrice for breaking the rule would be reasonable. I'd be inclined to do so myself because this is an especially annoying person - but since you are also (currently) breaking the rule, that would likely get you in trouble too and I'd prefer that didn't happen. I'll paste a similar complaint on Iamandrewrice's talk page. Either way, the warring has to stop. SteveBaker (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)'
I would like to have an explanation of this, as I find it all very very insulting, very. He says how he doubts I would care about anything... and that im an annoying person, with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL! What is going on here? What am I supposed to have done? And what has happened to my account? I havn't logged on in a while, so I havn't really kept up with what people have replied to me. What is this about me being a stockpuppet? Huh?! What the HELL?! And my name is ANDREW! NOT AMANDA! NOT ANNABELLA! NOT BEN! OR GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE YOU BOTHERED CALLING ME??? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM?! OH MY GOD. OH MY F'ING GOD, HAS BENNN LAVENDER LOGGED ONTO MY F'ING ACCOUNT? OMG IM GOING TO F'ING KILL HIM. I SWEAR... F'!
BUT IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THAT, YOU BLOCKED ME FROM LOGGING ON! I HAD TO BLOODY MAKE A NEW ACCOUNT! PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME, I MAY BE DUMB, BUT I'M NOT STUPID! ImAJewWhatAreYou? (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. It makes things so much easier when socks out themselves. BLACKKITE 12:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Range block?
If somebody can take a look at this: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650. This user comes back almost every day with a different IP. Most recently, this morning/last night (see above threads here and here). Can a range block be issued to stop the constant harassment from the banned User:Hayden5650? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have used two, seperate small-ish range blocks to knock out most of the IPs. Hope this helps, GDonato (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to be worried abou that user; after a fairly long a protracted dispute on Joseph Schlessinger where I and DGG did our best to avoid BLP concerns, this user (one of the editors involved) has taken to post the material that was excluded from the article to his user page.
Given that I was involved in the dispute while trying to settle things down, I was hoping some other admin could step in? — Coren (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removed, and a polite note left pointing the editor towards userpage policy. BLACKKITE 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Pro pedophile advocacy userbox
A User:ados has created a girllover userbox and posted it on his user page, girlover means he is an admitted pedophile who wants to "love" underage girls. I have removed it but this is clearly a serious violation of our no pro pedophile advocacy policy. Can an admin please take a look and take further action. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. BLACKKITE 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that policy. And neither do I believe that identifying as a pedophile is pro-pedophilia-advocacy. Can somebody please explain to me
- 1) where i can find this wikipedia policy
- 2) why having a pedophilia userbox (such as others have homosexuality userboxes) is an act of pedophile advocacy?
- -Ados (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mail the arbcom. Self-identifying as a pedophile is clearly a blockable offence and I am sure if you try to use on-wikipedia spaces to justify why you should be allowed to identify as a pedophile that you'll end up being blocked yourself. Better just to accept thtya that is how things are here and get on with some editing instead. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can I suggest you guys also check User:Ospinad for a similar issue? - Alison ❤ 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I actually think Ados has a point that people should be made much more aware than they are - I'd prefer said decision to be on metaphorical paper and much more viewed, than an unwritten rule. Will (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Disruption by Bill edmond
Bill edmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a continually disruptive-presence on Nigeria-related articles, such as Imo State and Igbo people. He was previously Igbigbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also used socks Academicigbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Pauletta4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make it seem like his position had more support (see Special:Undelete/Imo State, which I had to delete because of a copyvio he introduced). He received several blocks on the Igbigbo account due to his disruption and his use IPs and socks to continue revert-warring on Imo State while blocked.
As his reappearance with the Bill edmond account shows, he still refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policy. He is using 75.118.53.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to revert in tandem with his latest account, and has gone far over three reverts in a day on Igbo people. Worse of all, he absolutely refuses to respond to the requests and warnings from me and others. I request this user be blocked, as he is clearly unwilling to adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:External links (the subject of the content disputes on the two articles mentioned), and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, which he has consistently violated to evade blocks and make his position seem to have more support. Picaroon (t) 18:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Cush
Could someone please try to persuade Cush (talk · contribs) to lay off the personal attacks?
I am concerned that the latest outburst may mark a resumption of the situation a few months ago, when Cush mounted a series of personal attacks on me (see e.g. [43]) because Cush thinks that fiction should be exempt from notability/verifiability guidelines[44], and I had tagged some articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Persistant harassment
Apologies up front for not having the time to compose an aesthetically pleasing report endlessly full of supporting links; I simply don't have the time at this moment and no longer feel this can/should wait...
- RYNORT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
USER:RYNORT (self-identified as 16) was recently blocked for going on a vandalism rampage (some examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) and leaving blatantly inappropriate attacks on other editors and other immature comments (see edits here, here) after Wikipedia editors rebuffed his political agenda . The blocking admin (in an extraordinary application of good faith), after apprently receiving an email in which the user said his account was compromised, unblocked him with words of warning regarding conduct and safeguarding his account.
I've been out of pocket for a few weeks, and have had limited time online. However, I've recently had a barrage of attacks directed at me (some directly from this user, some from an IP I suspect to be controlled by the same user). Some examples:
- Conspiring to game the system
- Attack & stalking threats ("you are now on watch")
- Accusations of "paranoia"
- More rambling ("your sole intention for being at wikipedia is so you can form a LYNCH MOB")
- Another rant ("McCarthyite tactics", "Are you a fan of J Edgar Hoover? He tried to arrest twelve thousand Americans for 'subversion.' Would you like to round up all the conservative editors at wikipedia and put them in a 'holding tank' too?")
- What is a Lunjio?
- "Wikipedia is a waste" (again) - What is a Knol?
- More made up warnings
- Long attack ("utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos")
- SSP - notice the idiosyncratic "lol", often done by USER:RYNORT. Also, for more SSP evidence, notice the consistant misapplication of headers (using only one =) when posting new sections by both the IP and by the account RYNORT in diffs here, here, here, and here. Good evidence that it's all the same kid.
There's plenty more evidence and other melodrama on the talk pages of articles and in the contribution history of the IP and user account. I don't really have time to formally initiate WP:SSP and WP:RFC proceedings right now (happy holidays!) but hopefully ANI admins will take more immediate (even if temporary) action to stop the harassment and disrutpive behavior. Your time in reviewing this is appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Stalker
User:Bramlet Abercrombie appears to be stalking me and undoing all my edits, all he ever does nowadays is undo my edits, no constructive contributions. Appears to be an SPA with a massive grudge against the foundation but that is not what concerns me, what concerns is his single minded stalking of my edits and reverting them time and again. he has been blocked a few days ago for edit warring and since then has dedicated himself solely to this pursuit, making the hard work that I am doing feeling like it is a waste of time. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)